Here's a question for you to consider: Without changing the amount of money you pay in taxes, could the government do something to make paying them less objectionable? Realistically, most of us pay taxes only because that beats the alternatives: fines or imprisonment. But what if the government did something to make paying taxes so rewarding that you actually wanted to do it and enjoyed it . . . is that an impossible pipe dream?

No. Here is an example of how this could work. Let's say that of the total taxes you pay yearly, $4000 will be spent by the government on welfare, helping needy families. Instead of paying that $4000 to the government, you'd pay it directly to the people who would otherwise ultimately receive it. Such assignment could be random or, preferably, chosen by the taxpayers selecting whom they wish to help. A proof of payment would be submitted to the government as proof that one's tax obligation was met.

This system would achieve many benefits not possible with our current nameless, faceless, cold bureaucratic system:

• It would make people feel better about paying taxes by allowing them to see tangible things their money did: feed a family, buy clothes, pay for their utilities or healthcare, etc.
• It would permit welfare recipients to see that the money they received came not from a government with pockets that seem endlessly deep, but from a person they knew who worked hundreds of hours per year to earn the money they received.
• It would foster a bond between the recipients and payors. That bond would likely make many people want to give even more.

Thus, this system could benefit everyone involved. If any taxpayer wished to opt out, he could pay his taxes directly to the government.

Another possibility is actually erasing one's tax liability if a taxpayer gave something of greater value to a welfare recipient, such as a job. For example, instead of paying $4000 to the recipient, I might give him a part-time job paying $8000 per year. That would be good for him because he would have more money. It would be good for me, because I would get $8000 of work from him.

The US government isn't very receptive to new ideas, but it should do everything possible to reduce resentment of our politicians and bureaucrats. Why? Think of the thousands of governments that have existed since the dawn of mankind. How many of them still exist? Not many. People usually get sick of them and toss them out. The US government has faced no serious threats to its continuance of power, but that is primarily attributable to the fact that Americans have been, by and large, satisfied with their lives and prospects for the future. Things aren't so rosy now. In the past few years, gasoline has tripled in cost. Jobs are irretrievably being lost to China, India, and other countries in which the cost of living is so low that workers can afford to work for much less than Americans.

The shit will really hit the fan (pardon my language) in about 20 years when people my age begin retiring and find that they won't receive a penny from the government because the hundreds of thousands of dollars they paid were spent on today's senior citizens to, in effect, buy their votes. The only way that people my age (or younger) can receive benefits similar to those now paid to retirees is by burdening the taxpayers working at that time with oppressive taxation. The last figure I read in Forbes magazine was about two-thirds of a worker's yearly income — and that doesn't include all of the hundreds of taxes we pay. So, someone is going to be furious. Hundreds of millions of people will be robbed, big time.

If you think that wrath isn't inevitable, read what economists are saying (and have been saying) about this coming problem. It is a looming nightmare that will cause even placid people to boil with rage. Unfortunately, most people are so oblivious to this problem that they elect politicians who keep promising more, now, thus ensuring that people now paying taxes will get even less when they retire, because their money was spent years ago.

Politicians, it's time to put your thinking caps on.

Revenge has acquired a bad reputation as a negative emotion that does more harm than good. We're told to forgive and forget, or to let the local prosecutor do the dirty work for us when things get really bad, such as when my father was murdered. Although I have a doctorate degree and have studied psychology and behavior for decades, one of my relatives (I'll call him Dave) without a degree recently taught me an important lesson about revenge.

Dave told me about one of the young punks in his area who would often drive by his home at a dangerously excessive speed well above the posted limit. Dave worried that one of his kids would be hit and killed by SpeedRacer, age 17 or so, who evidently was not deterred by the prospect of a speeding ticket or even a manslaughter charge. Videotaping SpeedRacer's racing also did nothing. Like most parents, Dave loves his kids, but he did something that most parents would not do. Dave stopped SpeedRacer one day and told him that if he ever hit one of his kids, he'd better hope that the police got to him before he did, because he would literally tear him apart. What I haven't yet mentioned is that Dave is large, strong, and physically imposing. He once crushed the rib cage of someone by giving him a play bear hug. If Dave were enraged, I have no doubt that the scrawny SpeedRacer would be turned into mincemeat without using any of the firearms in Dave's extensive gun collection. Dave would never start a fight, but given sufficient provocation (such as seeing his son splattered on SpeedRacer's hood), well, heaven help you.

Dave's threat did what the police and umpteen laws could not accomplish: SpeedRacer stopped speeding, at least around Dave's home. I think that parents have an ethical obligation to safeguard their children as much as possible, and most parents would probably agree with me . . . yet I can't imagine most parents going as far as Dave did. That's too bad.

Why do politicians act as if they have a God-given right to put their hands in our pockets and take even more of our money? Americans already pay a staggering percentage of their income in taxes, but most of those taxes are so cleverly disguised that few people realize they're paying them. Furthermore, the value of what we receive in return for those taxes is very low; if you think the government is wisely spending our money, you're either in kindergarten or the kind of ignorant fool that politicians love, because your stupidity gives them free rein to continue their profligate waste.

Michigan lawmakers hiked the state income tax several months ago, earnestly claiming that they'd cut all of the fat from the state budget. And what did they do next? Spend over $300,000 to construct a fence to keep turtles from crossing the road in one spot. First, when many Michigan residents are forced to choose between not eating, not paying for medicine, or not paying for their heat and electricity (thanks to our sluggish economy), it is utterly insane to spend more on turtles than on humans in need. Second, $300,000-plus?!? I could have erected an equally effective fence for 1% of that cost! When politicians spend money (or "invest" it, to use their favorite euphemism), "spending it" is not the most accurate term to describe what they do; "blowing it" is closer to the truth.

The Michigan legislators who voted to raise the income tax gave us a remarkable insight into their morality. Michigan residents were already reeling from job cuts and other maladies that have decimated our economy. If the US economy has a cold by analogy, Michiganders have double pneumonia. So, is it morally acceptable to take sick people and bleed them even more?

After raising our taxes, our legislators patted themselves on the back for "solving" our fiscal crisis. Solve it? They didn't solve it; they simply transferred it onto the backs of the already overtaxed people and businesses in Michigan. You and I cannot solve our financial problems by making our neighbors pay our bills. If we even tried to force them to pay our bills, we could be prosecuted for fraud and extortion. Yet the Michigan legislators have given themselves the right to plunder whenever they feel like it, forcing taxpayers to pay more or risk imprisonment.

The government does provide some necessary services, so I am not opposed to all taxation. What irks me about taxes is that we spend so much in taxes and receive so little in return, thanks to an incessant series of blunders (not to mention outright fraud) committed by politicians, such as the above-mentioned turtle fence and literally millions of other extravagances.

I watched Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm on television, solemnly and repeatedly stressing that she could not cut the state budget any further without curtailing essential services. Really? Gov. Granholm is smart and articulate (and attractive, to boot), but clearly unaware of how much fat remains in the budget. Frankly, people become angry when they hear politicians make such claims and then see the state wasting so much money. Want some examples? Here are just a few of the ones I've seen:

• The local Secretary of State office has not one but TWO big-screen TVs.
• Whenever I enter a state or county office, I usually see employees standing around or working at a snail's pace. In the above-mentioned Secretary of State office, I spent hours (waiting!!!) listening to every word one worker said, analyzing whether it was essential or purely a waste of time for her and the dozens of people waiting to see her to renew their driver's licenses and whatnot. At least a third of her time was spent in idle chitchat. Translation? If you look at the total cost of her salary, benefits, and retirement, the beleaguered taxpayers of Michigan are paying well over $20,000 per year so that just ONE state worker can entertain herself by making small talk and gossiping. However, to grasp the true total economic cost of her motor mouth, one must also factor in the time wasted by thousands of Michiganders waiting to see her.
• Most every time I see a road crew working, one man works while two others stand around and watch him. This happens so often that it is virtually a cultural cliché.
• Whenever the State of Michigan purchases automobiles for employee use, those vehicles are invariably new and usually larger and more luxurious than they need to be. I bought a used car for less than one-third what a new car costs, yet it looks and runs like new. Why can't Michigan economize in the same manner? Are state workers too good to ride in used cars? This insistence upon buying only new vehicles is particularly abominable when you analyze the ethics behind it: The state, using its powers, forces its citizens (many of whom cannot afford new vehicles) to pay more in taxes so that state workers can have brand-new vehicles.

Politicians sometimes wonder why the general public harbors a deep-seated animosity toward them. I will start a list, and feel free to contribute to it by posting a comment. Our animus stems from the fact that they:

• Spend our money as if it grew on trees.
• Are overly and outrageously intrusive, enacting laws that have no Constitutional basis.
• Behave like thugs, threatening us with fines and imprisonment for not obeying each and every law, even the ones that have no Constitutional basis.
• Enact so many laws that no one could possibly know them all or abide by them all, making everyone a lawbreaker. The resultant selective enforcement gives prosecutors the ability to single out people they dislike for any reason (justified or whimsical) under the sun. This is fundamentally at odds with the rule of law and the rights and sub-rights conferred by it.
• Behave as if they are more important than the citizens they purport to serve.
• Generously fund their retirement benefits when ours are clearly in jeopardy. You know all that money you and your employer paid over the years in Social Security taxes? You will be lucky to receive a quarter of what was paid in, and you won't receive a penny of interest. Any banker who stole so much of your money would be imprisoned for years, but politicians conveniently give themselves a free pass to steal as much of your money as they please without fear of repercussions.
• Are often arrogant, imperious, unresponsive, and dictatorial.