I like the way personal philanthropy is evolving. Once a year I sit down and fill out a pledge form for United Way. Then I give a small amount to United Way itself — and list donations I want taken from my paycheck and directed to organizations and causes I care about.
United Way isn't keen on this practice — and it charges me almost 10 percent for the service. But it is worth it to me because it's convenient and I have the power to make my own choices.
That process itself is a metaphor for the world we live in. More and more of us are demanding that we get a say in how our money is being spent. We no longer send one check and trust an organization — any organization — to invest it on our behalf.
This principle can be applied in many different forms. Last year the Federal Communications Commission considered requiring cable companies to sell cable channel subscriptions on an individual basis. Now cable sells its subscriptions in bundles — the cable companies pick and choose for you. The cable industry maintains that's the only way the economics of cable TV work — and it would put smaller offerings out of business if people had to pay for them.
Imagine that: If consumers don't buy a product, it goes out of business.
But what if the FCC is right about the era we live in — an era when consumers have direct power to decide what we want and when?
I was thinking about this question recently surrounded by receipts on a table. It's that time again — and like many Americans I have procrastinated and now face a weekend deadline to complete my tax return.
The tax form says: "Do you want $3 of your federal tax to go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?" And you can check yes or no.
Some 33 million Americans check "yes." By doing this, we direct how the federal government will spend money. The Federal Elections Commission puts it this way: "In establishing the check-off program, Congress left the single most important decision to you, the taxpayer. You decide whether you want three dollars of your tax to be used for the presidential funding program described in this brochure. The choice is yours to voluntarily check yes or no."
Right. What if the United Way approach were forced on the federal government? What if We, the People, instead of Congress or the president, ticked off the spending priorities that we wanted?
Think about the possibilities, and then check yes or no.
Do you want $727 of your federal tax to go to the war in Iraq?
Do you want $28,229 of your federal tax to pay your share of the federal debt?
Do you want $47 of your federal tax directed to help the world's poor?
What if there were a ranking of the federal programs that touch people's lives, one that we could run down and check off what we think is important?
You care about border security? Great, put that down. You like increasing the amount spent on health research? Rank that first. And so on and so on.
How would people make decisions about government as opposed to those within the government? Would we think more about the long-term stability of this country or our personal interest? Consider how different the federal government would look — and act.
Imagine this: If taxpayers don't rate a program or agency, it goes out of business.
I doubt this nation would continue borrowing heavily for a war we cannot afford. I think children and health care might even move up the list of what we think is important. This system seems to work for election campaign spending — so why not experiment with a percentage of all federal spending?
We, the People, ought to have a direct say in how our money is spent.
Sigh. Quit dreaming. I had better return to those pesky piles of receipts.