ROBERT A from NC posted over 2 years ago:

Politicians and bureaucrats are like everyone else--they are self-interested. Thus, they can be counted on to do what is in their best interests, not necessarily what is in the country's best interests. The Founders knew that, which was why they intended to set up a relatively small, limited government that lacked the power to do too much harm.

DAVID H from NV posted over 2 years ago:

A political party that annually whines for cutting government spending just sliced increased funding for IRS staff to go get the income tax revenue from the growing number of tax cheats who deliberately refuse to pay their fair share of taxes? If you truly want to try and balance the federal budget, give the IRS the staff and power to enforce tax law and get what is rightfully owed. I have zero problem with having 85,000 new IRS agents go after tax cheats.

BARRY J from TX posted over 2 years ago:

Charles, Robert, and David are right. When the Founding Fathers created the system of checks and balances that SCOTUS has strictly construed since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, all branches of government must “swim within their lanes” and SCOTUS will enforce the “separation of powers” as enumerated. The Constitution gave the House of Representatives the “power of the purse” for reasons that reinforce good governmental practices. Why did they choose to let the House – the group elected every two years vs POTUS every 4 years (with a max of 8 years) and the Senate every 6 years -- have control over the budget implemented by POTUS and federal agencies? They expected that the American voters would vote OUT profligate or irresponsible House members and replace them with fiscally responsible members every two years. The expectation was that short-term legislators would serve and then go home. Their second expectation was that the voters back home would pay attention to issues that needed attention through an active – and very political - press. This was all before organized political parties had coalesced into continuous organizations in the 1820s-1950s. What the Founding Fathers are saying across those 235 years since 1789 is that if you don’t like how your Representative is performing, vote him/her out/ send them home/vote for someone who will. But, alas, there are so many issues each time we vote, And today the issues that divide us are so stridently and fructuously consume our attention and energies. Budget size and allocations, taxation WITH representation, national defense needs, and a government responsible to the citizens – the three things that matter most in 1776 - are viewed as givens. “Noisy” issues get all the money. It does not have to be this way. I have two nightmares. Nightmare #1: In every one of the four states that were the deciding “swing states” in the 2020 election electoral votes, there were enough eligible voters who could have changed the outcome, but (a) they did not register to vote, or (b) they did not vote, AND (3) they were among the most noxious complainers since 1/6. Nightmare #2: We all have to accept and live by the fact that the guy in line behind you in the voting line probably cast a vote that cancels your vote out. In 1957 JFK wrote “Profiles in Courage,” which focused on the careers of 8 US Senators whom Kennedy felt had shown great courage under enormous pressure from their parties and their constituents. The one overarching fact that ties all these observations together is this: You get what you vote for … AND … you get what you don’t for. You deserve what you vote for … and … what you do not vote for. And if you don’t like the government you have, vote for someone else, but always vote. Remember there is a guy in line behind you who is going to vote too. That’s why we call this form of government a democracy. Votes count, and we only count votes. What they say about everyone having an opinion is true. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

ROBERT A from NC posted over 2 years ago:

It shouldn't take 85,000 new government agents to find the tax cheats. Those agents are likely to cost at least $20 billion per year. That's a lot of cheating. I'm afraid the more likely scenario is that we'll have 85,000 self-interested individuals looking for something to do, which means (among other things) auditing the crap out of those of us who don't cheat. And that's time consuming, aggravating, and enormously stressful, not to mention expensive--even for honest taxpayers.

ROBERT A from NC posted over 2 years ago:

If 85,000 new government agents are needed to ferret out cheating, that implies that there’s an enormous amount of cheating going on. And that, in turn, implies that there’s a huge systemic problem. Maybe the system needs to be changed to make it simpler and easier to manage instead of spending more money on an overcomplicated, cumbersome, EXPENSIVE bureaucracy. Why does the “solution” always have to be bigger government?