The document discusses several topics related to government spending and taxation. It argues that the tax code should be neutral and not used to incentivize private capital. It also suggests studying a consumption tax instead of an income tax. To balance the budget, both spending cuts and revenue increases are needed, with most new revenue coming from economic growth rather than tax hikes. Spending cannot be based solely on needs since needs always exceed resources, requiring difficult choices. The government should focus on maintaining order and justice, leaving charity to individuals, though some programs help prevent societal chaos.

1. The tax code should be socially & economically neutral & not
used to incentivize the allocation of private capital. They
can give the collected revenues away to whomever they'd like
per the wisdom of their appropriations commitees. Also, I hope
they seriously study the practicality of taxing consumption &
not income & never both.
In the case at hand, erroneously and so-called tax-breaks for
Big Oil, the incentives should be repealed for all
manufacturers or none. Again, neutrality.
To balance the budget, both spending cuts & revenue
enhancements are needed & the lionshare of the latter must
come from a rising ecomomic tide rather than tax hikes.
Spending cannot be based first on society's needs b/c those
will always exceed our available governmental resources, which
must be defined as a sustainable percent of annual GDP. Needs
require, then, some tragic triage decisions.
Some always focus on the Goose & some on the eggs. No goose,
no eggs!
In an ideal world, there would be no coercion needed at all.
Government is a necessary evil because we are fallible,
flawed, finite. Political statecraft, especially at the
federal level, must maintain the public order, best it can. To
try to accomplish more than that, especially in a pluralistic
society, isn't workable and quickly devolves into the
counterproductive, precisely because coercive force encroaches
on personal dignity & will demoralize "the governed."
The government, then, is to be about the administration of
justice, leaving the demands of charity to individual
initiatives. Even what have traditionally been called
"entitlement" programs are not really in place to administer
mercy; rather, they are in place to maintain the public order
b/c w/o social security, medicare & medicaid, for example,
society could otherwise be brought to the brink of chaos and
disorder via outright criminality. That's why it is aptly
named "social" and not, rather, "retirement" security.
I would not go so far as to say that all can meet their own
needs b/c, sometimes, due to bad luck, misfortune and other
at-risk situations, even life's basic necessities will remain
out of reach. I am also not suggesting that the collective
resources of our population are so scarce that maybe even all
of our population's basic needs might not be met by them. The
nuance is that I am saying that the government is in no
position to commandeer those resources that we, thru our
selfish habits of consumption, are not otherwise willing to
freely share via our individual and nongovernmental charitable
initiatives. The Goose would selfishly fly away is the
problem, I'm afraid.
1