It would be like a taxpayer referendum to tell the government what you want them to spend your money on.
2006-11-19 08:52:25 · 11 answers · asked by The Gadfly 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
CruelNail: Isn't that the point? Even if they didn't pay any attention to what taxpayers want, at least they would know if people didn't want their money wasted on killing people in other countries.
2006-11-19 09:28:55 · update #1
YES!! Never happen, but I would definately support it. Bye-bye, corporate welfare! See ya later, funding for Egypt and other countries who "hate" us. I could go on and on and on, but I won't. Great idea, though!
2006-11-20 05:51:14 · answer #1 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would say no. If you're suggesting something binding, it would defeat the purpose of a representative government?
If not binding, how would it be different from sending letters or emails to your elected representatives? I mean, we can already do that (although many don't) to let them know how we want things done.
2006-11-19 21:38:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What good would it do? The government only listens to it citizens around election times. Who decides what the choices will be for us to choose from? The same people that are getting richer from taking lobbiest money? Are the people that are adding piggybacks, like raises every year, for themselves to needed legislation. We need to send a message to all of our representives, Do your job the way it needs to be done are get out of the office.
2006-11-20 03:30:29 · answer #3 · answered by laidbck111 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No.
This is why we elect Congressmen.
Besides - this would make it impossible to re-allocate funds in an emergency. Can you imagine what would have happened in New Orleans if we had to wait until April 15th to pay for the disaster response?
2006-11-20 14:08:43 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes though I doubt anyone would would refer back before making financial decisions at least we would be able to voice an opinion about where our money should be spent
2006-11-19 17:55:41 · answer #5 · answered by nickieandsarahsmommy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Interesting concept, but NO, not if it would be binding. If any more of us got into the allocations process, I'm afraid it would get more screwed up than it already is.
2006-11-19 17:29:59 · answer #6 · answered by Pete 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO!!!!!!!!!!! That is what we elect our senators and congressmen (legislators) to do. Can you just imagine the zoo like conditions that would create, especially if they included a box entitled "other"?
Chow!!
2006-11-19 23:23:52 · answer #7 · answered by No one 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES but it is not going to happen because many sectors will be underfunded while others are over funded.
2006-11-19 16:58:43 · answer #8 · answered by philliesmeyer 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That'd be lovely IMO, but who wants to pay for war? I wonder what would happen if we were allowed to have more of a say...
2006-11-19 17:00:39 · answer #9 · answered by CruelNails 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No
2006-11-19 18:56:21 · answer #10 · answered by rhymingron 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋