Giving taxpayers a greater voice

With all due respect, I don't think Congress or especially this administration fully understands the tax debate.

Though it's far from my favorite expenditure, I don't mind paying my fair share of the tax burden.

What I often resent is the way my tax dollars are spent.

And I believe that simple distinction applies to most of us.

I'm certain there are ultraliberal doves who begrudge 1 cent of their hard-earned taxes going to military expenditures.

And I'm equally certain there are fiscal conservatives who begrudge their taxes going to perpetuate a welfare-queen society.

The simple fact is that the American public is less interested in tax rates than just where and how those taxes are spent.

On a local level, voters are asked to approve a tax for a specific purpose, i.e. road improvements, salary upgrades, new parks, etc.

But federal taxes are vastly different.

If I believe the EPA or the Department of Education are counterproductive to the growth and direction of this country, why am I forced to fund them?

If someone else believes the social safety net needs to be expanded, then why can't they designate their taxes accordingly?

The administration's current phony attempt to inflict maximum pain through the use of the president's sequestration gimmick does little more than inflame a growing resentment.

Our current system is certainly not taxation without representation. But in some ways, it's not a whole lot different.

I don't want a penny of my taxes funding studies on the mating habits of the Alaskan salmon.

And you may not favor your taxes funding a new military weapons system.

Let's end the discussion on tax rates and start thinking about how taxpayers can have a greater voice in the spending side of the equation.

Exclude Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And then allow taxpayers to earmark from year to year where they want their taxes to go.

Sure it won't work. Sure it would be an accounting nightmare.

And sure, it makes sense.