We hear many people talking about the need to take the money out of politics. The fact is, we will never take the money out of politics until we take the politics out of money. All the decisions about spending and budgeting and financial priorities in America are made by the people we elect to public office. Those people are increasingly affected by an unending campaign to stay in office. Campaigns for membership in the House of Representatives are now as expensive as presidential elections were just a few decades ago. The power of political money is directly linked to the influence of political office. The solution to this growing decay of character is removing the power of the purse from the people in office.

Detailed proposals have been available for a number of years to change our tax system from its current Progressive individual income tax structure to a flat tax structure. Many of these plans involve a change from taxing income to taxing spending. If this system is applied nationally then the price of goods and services would be taxed which would raise the price of those goods and services by an average of 15 to 17%. But there would also be the elimination of all taxation from our incomes which would raise the take-home pay by an average of 21 to 25%. Although there are differences in some of these plans and there are issues that need to be debated to make sure we have sufficient revenue to conduct the business of the United States and to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, these fair tax or flat tax proposals are certainly worth serious consideration.

Implementing a system where tax revenues are controlled by what people spend rather than what they earn will allow people to lower their taxes by saving their money. Increased savings and decreased spending helps to generate revenue for investment and fuels positive influences on the national economy. The increased production and business growth will create new jobs which are filled by new tax payers who spend new money and pay the resulting taxes when they spend that money.

While Congress would retain its constitutional power to allocate resources and Revenue by budgeting, they would lose the power to determine what those revenues will be. Under the current system Congress decides what they want to do and then alters the tax code to ensure raising enough Revenue to pay it.

Under a flat tax plan, Congress could reasonably predict what will be received and then decide how they want to spend it. This is the same system that every family in America uses every day. We know what we expect to receive and we plan our spending according to that income. Congress has been allowed for more than a century to budget according to their wishes and desires and then generate income to pay for those wishes and desires. That power of the purse has fueled political influence in the form of campaign donations that buy the power to receive programs and favors in the form of budgetary allotments. When federal spending and budgeting is looked at objectively, a true face of corruption is revealed. The system in place today is not designed to fund the government, it is designed to fuel political power.

When the flow of money is directed by the people paying it rather than the people spending it, budgetary constraints and spending are much more easily achieved. Also, when federal spending no longer renders political favors, donations to buy those favors will no longer be made. Federal budgeting will adhere to sound financial principles once again and political campaigns will have to be run on a lot less money. Lower-cost campaigns for political office will open doors for more good people to seek those offices. Increased competition for congressional seats will have the same effect that increased competition has in business. The more competitive the field, the better the products produced.

If you want higher caliber and better character in members of Congress, that process starts by having the courage to repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and return to taxation apportioned by population rather than individual financial success.