To begin with, the United States Congress and the President must be stripped of all power to appropriate money. Government spending already exceeds the ability and willingness of the American people to pay for it which is why the Treasury must continually borrow money, much of it created out of thin air. Now and future taxpayers will be responsible for servicing this debt burden, whether or not it is ever paid back, even though they have little choice in the decisions to borrow. And, there is a limit to how much spending the people can afford, even if they are willing. We may have already reached that limit, but members of Congress, regardless of party, are loathe cut spending because they believe, with good cause, that their constituents will vote them out of office if they do. Ditto for the President.
It has been said that a Democracy can only last until people find out they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury. Actually, however, people don't always vote themselves benefits - many simply believe it's their duty (and everyone else's) to help the poor and the elderly and foreign countries, etc. But the point here is that nearly every person running for political office must offer the voters some of the spending largesse if he or she wants to be elected. To this end, candidates for political office promise more than taxpayers can deliver, or than future generations of taxpayers can deliver. The only way to stop this is to remove the power of appropriation (spending) from elected officials.
In the US Constitution, the power of appropriation is only an implied power of Congress - implied by the explicit power to tax and provide things such as a Navy, post-office, etc. But it has become the dominant power by which the vast majority of Congressmen and Presidents are elected, and re-elected, and re-elected, etc. And it will eventually bankrupt the government, as elected officials will not limit spending. Strip them of the power of appropriation or watch this country go the way of Greece in due time.
Of course, all this begs a question. If Congress and President could not appropriate, who would have the power to spend money for the few necessary functions of government? This blog proposes the creation of an 'Appropriature', a body of, say 20 to 40 persons, elected by taxpayers whose sole, but exclusive, power is to appropriate tax monies. Americans would vote for members of this body with ballots purchased using receipts of taxes paid. Those who pay more taxes would have more 'votes'. While this might seem undemocratic, remember that the Appropriature's only power would be that of appropriation - Congress would still have its other powers including the power to lay and collect taxes (although they would be very reluctant to tax their constituents if they couldn't spend the money).
Because the Appropriature would represent taxpayers (not general voters) according to how much each pays in taxes, it would naturally be more frugal than Congress. People generally know better how to spend their money because of the hard work most of them perform to earn it. Congressmen do not care nearly so much about how to spend the taxpayers' money as it is handed over to them on demand - the main reason they are naturally wasteful. Members of an Appropriature who wasted the taxpayers' money would be much less likely to be re-elected. Moreover, people would not mind paying taxes so much if they had a more direct voice in how their money is being spent.
So how does the Appropriature make 'taxation' voluntary? It does not do so directly but offers an evolutionary way to make it voluntary. By limiting government spending, it limits taxes. And since each taxpayer has a direct vote in how his or her tax dollars are spent, there will be a greater willingness to pay.
Why won't the current system work? Don't voters have a say in spending when they vote for their elected representatives now? A little say so, perhaps but, generally, those who pay the most taxes receive the fewest benefits. That is the essence of the problem.
Will this pay for the government we have now, that is, if the Appropriature were in place, would we still have all the things we have now - Social Security, Medicate, Defense, etc? Probably not. But we would have as much government as we really need.
