|
Why Not Start at Zero--and Stay There? by Roger Young Those who view this website regularly are all too familiar and experienced with the constant battle a free-living individual has with the transgressions of the Federal Leviathan. Dealing with the infringements on liberty coming from that entity, alone, is enough to completely occupy anyone’s precious free time. Only sporadically do we report and discuss the attacks on freedom that originate from the next tyrant down the list--your friendly state government. One blessing of residing in the state of (the “Republic of,” to some) Texas is that the state legislature only meets every other year for 140 days. During this time the budget, as well as all pending legislation to be considered for the next two years, must be debated and passed into law. Needless to say, all those who spend their lives imposing their will on others and/or sucking at the teat of taxpayer largesse must do so quickly and efficiently if they are to be successful--or wait two whole years for another shot. This short (by political standards) time period is, however, a wonderful protection mechanism for the lowly, “selfish” serf who just wants his/her life to be left alone and wallet not to be pillaged. The less time these bandits (excuse me, legislators) have to meet, the less trouble and disruption they have the opportunity to create. Well, 2003 just happens to be that pivotal year. At this very moment a multitude of progressive minds in Austin are deciding how to create, expand or hold onto their precious fiefdoms. Politics always comes down to who has the power. Money determines the extent of that power. Who gets that money is written in the biennial state budget. Governor Rick Perry (successor to Shrub, who moved on to rule the world, destroy evil and fight terrrr) recently threw a wrench in the traditional budget process by proposing one in which the individual spending amounts for each existing agency and program started at zero. The past several Legislatures have used previous budgets' spending levels as a starting point for the new budget. Perry insisted that the present revenue squeeze justifies his “historic move” of a complete reexamination of state spending. Understandably, the hard core Marxists (as opposed to the soft-core Socialists, led by Perry) saw red. "What a waste of trees," said state Rep. René O. Oliveira, D-Brownsville, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, as she viewed the pages of the budget printed with nothing but zeros. "The other day the governor told the Legislature, ‘The hour of governing is now upon us.’ Instead of leadership, he gives us a cheap publicity stunt." Oliveira said it was "ridiculous" to assume zero is the starting place for the state budget. But why? Why is it ridiculous to assume that every governing agency should explain and justify how every one of your dollars are intended to spent, starting at square one, i.e., zero? A publicity stunt? It may be. But I think the Governor stumbled on an even better idea without even realizing or, certainly, intending it. How about a permanent “zero budget”? With no operating funds available the state would have to rely on voluntary donations to survive. To do this it would have to offer services that free individuals needed, wanted and are willing to pay for. In other words, the “services” offered by the statists would come under the discipline of the free market rather than be coerced by the mob-force of democracy. Only those services truly desired by the public, not craved by lobbyists, would be supported and the rest would simply fade away into the ether like so much shuttle debris. How do you arise at a final biennial budget of “zero?” I originally thought that the legislative tactic of “filibuster” might be useful to achieve this objective. The key place to start such a scenario is the state Senate. House rules closely regulate debate whereas the Senate allows unlimited debate, raising the possibility of a filibuster. According to the Citizen Handbook for the Senate of Texas, “a filibuster is allowed only in the Senate. A filibuster occurs when one senator holds the floor through talking or long speeches, without sitting down or leaving the vicinity of the senator's desk. Although the primary purpose of a filibuster is usually to kill a bill, sometimes this is also done to reach a compromise or to delay a vote as long as possible.” Imagine this scenario: It’s getting near the end of the legislative session. With the budget still at zero a filibuster occurs that takes up the remaining period of the session. Texas holds the record for the longest filibuster when in 1977, a senator spoke for 44 hours straight. No budget is passed; therefore, the state, (legally) has no funds to operate (this, of course, assumes the non-existence of emergency contingency funds). But wait. The Governor has the authority to declare an emergency 30 day session. Special sessions are called by the Governor as he thinks necessary. They can be called anytime the legislature is not in regular session. However, Texas voters frown on the expense of a special session, so governors try to keep the number down. The last one was in 1991. Unfortunately, the cry for a special session would be overwhelming by the sheeple populace who would see the lack of a state government as some kind of vision from their worst nightmares. This is a hard-core reality. Governor Mark Perry would then have to come clean with the Lone Star populace and admit that, all along, he’s really been an anarchist in disguise, intent on disabling and abolishing most or all of Texas state government! He then would refuse to authorize a special session and the official state government of the former Republic of Texas would be kaput! Right--and if you believe that, I’ve got some waterfront property for sale in Loving county you might like to take a gander at. Alas, my plan was just a pipe dream. You play by The State’s rules, The State always wins. What appear as processes to protect the individual liberty of the electorate turn out to be merely fail-safe mechanisms to preserve the existence and perpetuity of The State. Nothing short of a revolution would have to take place for 20 million people to permanently shed the shackles of onerous state power. It would be a revolution of thought and heart shared by the populace with the resultant declaration amongst them that The State is incompatible with their liberties and, therefore, illegitimate. Then comes a refusal to participate in its affairs and idiocy; the harassment, extortion, and even murder of their neighbors, that this institution generates. Sam Houston, the father of the Texas Republic said, "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may." I can only pray that is still true. Even if not, my optimism will persist.
discuss this column in the forum Roger Young is a freelance photographer in Texas and maintains a website called PixelPrairie.com. He believes that being a Christian, creationist and anarchist are three of the most rational decisions a person can make.
|
