Corporatism. Actually, Entertainment.
Governments evolve much as anything else. One cannot expect otherwise. Situations change, people change, the needs of the people change. So it is no surprise our governments are not what they originally were.
The original focus of governments in the US was to provide only a framework for our lives. Defense, postal service, roads, police, courts and jails were the primary focus. Unfortunately, as Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in his book “Democracy in America” printed in the 1830’s, when the people of the United States found out they could vote themselves money, they would, and this would be a problem for our country. He was right. We have learned to vote our selfish interest. Pork barrel is a common term as it is a common occurrence. But pork barrel is only a generalization for what may be a road in one place, a bridge in another, or perhaps, an unnecessary eye examination.
Since pork barrel usually has to go through a business to get to particular people, it is not surprising that one type of pork barrel is direct subsidies to specific industries and even specific businesses. These subsidies are usually in the form of tax avoidance programs, but there are occasions where tax money is actually given to a business. These subsidies are unevenly distributed, going only to those businesses which are politically astute, politically connected or both.
Thus government finds itself involved in various sorts of businesses. One type of business is entertainment. Tourism, basketball, football, convention centers and museums easily come to mind as recipients of legislator’s inclination to give taxpayer’s dollars to the politically connected from the entertainment world. Entertainment businesses, even though far from the realm of what governments were originally established for, are well able to convince elected representatives of their need for subsidizes. In return the businesses, by one method or another, show their appreciation to the representatives which supported their subsidy.
As representatives are often less concerned with right and wrong and more with what keeps them elected, transferring tax dollars to those who help them stay reelected becomes normal.
To rationalize these tax transfers, many legislators have come to view taxes as investment funds. This is to say representatives see tax revenues to the government as an opportunity to invest in various projects which the private sector may not choose to invest in. Elected representatives have no fear of failure, because, one, it is not their money and (two) there seems to be a limitless supply of funds. If the project is poorly conceived or run, all the representatives have to do is raise taxes. Or maybe they just shut the project down with a shrug of the shoulders and an “oh-well”. The elected representatives are supported in this by many bureaucrats. Thus government has become in part an investment business with no need to concern itself with returns to the investors (taxpayers).
To further rationalize these tax transfers, legislators tell the voters about the beneficial investment aspects of the investments. But the taxpayers, the real investors, never see a return no matter how well the business does. The reason for this is the business owner keeps the return. If there was a return to the real investors, the taxpayers would see their tax rate go down as the investment paid more than was spent.
Since tax rates continually increase, the voters may be assured government investments are strictly for the benefit of elected representatives and the individuals who own the businesses the tax money is given to.
So evolution of government has now brought us a system where tax transfers from the general population are given to those who are best able to influence legislators.
By doing these things, government, as feared by the founding fathers, has become in part, the enemy of the people, not the protector.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=1564
