He probably didn't intend doing so, but Arizona educrat Tom Horne may have given gradualist libertarians a whole new way to propose tax reform, based on the premise that "If you're part of the solution, you're not part of the problem ..." – adding the tagline that, therefore, they shouldn't be able to steal as much of your money to fix the problems ..."

This story ran in the Arizona Republic the other day:

Horne urges tax credit of $2,500 for teachers

"State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne wants to give all schoolteachers a $2,500 tax credit as a way to attract and keep qualified educators in Arizona.  Horne is seeking support from the Arizona Legislature in its upcoming session to give both public- and private-school teachers the credit because he says salaries are lagging while the cost of housing is rising.  The tax credit would also apply to school counselors, psychologists, librarians and nurses.  The state currently does not give any tax credits based solely on occupation. ..."

It went on from there.  The hidden agenda, as his opponents were quick to charge, may have been solidifying his re-election effort, since it is the teachers themselves who provide most of his constituent-base.  And since there are currently no sponsors for his bill in either house of the Legislature (though some are quoted as "willing to considering it"), it may well be just an empty political gesture.

Meanwhile, even the teachers' union types were divided on the question, with some liking the idea and others saying they'd oppose it if it is applied to private schoolteachers, since as one puts it, "we do not pay private-school teachers with tax dollars." The fact that a "tax credit" cutting the amount stolen from one's pocket before it goes into the general coffers is NOT "paying with tax dollars" seems to be beyond this allegedly educated fellow's grasp ... but then the union rep is probably a product of the indoctrination-not-information paradigm of those same public schools, so this is understandable

Anyway, enough of the story for now.  I reference it mostly as the source of one more part of an idea I have had myself for many years.  To wit, if we grant that:

1. It is a desirable thing for people to give of themselves, to help the communities around them; and
2. SOME social consciousness is necessary for one to exist in a society (the realization that we are "both independent and inter-dependent" -- as even a great libertarian like Claire Wolfe comprehends?)

can we not then encourage people to contribute to their communities with a tax-incentive? If we say, "Hey, if you can show that you're doing something constructive, to help improve the life around you [even if it's just helping to clean up a trashy vacant lot one Saturday in June], we think you should be rewarded by not having to pay X percent of the taxes we steal from you ... for, among other things, cleaning up vacant lots."

Is it just possible that this might lead to more people doing things to help their own neighborhoods? Knowing that they are not only NOT seeing their taxes go into some bogus program – that doesn't work, lines the pockets of some bureaucracy (and maybe even has a goal that they as individuals strongly disapprove of?) – but instead are seeing their efforts, and their money, going to a local purpose that they support, with every dollar (or hour, if they contribute time instead of money?) being used as they want it?

Might this not also begin to show that they don't need committees or bureaucrats, or layers of red tape to get things done to help others ... and eventually even begin to eliminate those committees, bureaucrats and layers ... as well as the taxes to pay for it all?

I'm not the first to have this idea hit me; I know that too well.  In fact, back in 1975, a U.S. Senator named Mark Hatfield had roughly the same idea; he called his program the "Community Reinvestment Act." It was intended to provide a way for the average taxpaying working-person to redirect at least a portion of his/her federal tax liability to improve the local community, or help someone in need of a hand up, to get through a time of need.

The idea was, anyone (and in Hatfield's formulation, that included individual taxpayers) who could demonstrate having done something of value to someone else – from a neighbor in hard times, to helping to build or clean up a local public park, to helping a schoolchild's parents with tuition payments and beyond – would then be able to write off at least a portion of the cost of those services, directly against federal tax liability.

In order to deflect charges that this was just another program for the rich to exploit, there was even a sliding scale on how much one could deduct, with the highest percentage of liability going to the lowest-income worker, decreasing as income-levels rose.

On its merits, it was a laudable idea.  Unfortunately, by the time the Congressional committees in both houses got done with it, it ended up as the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which has never lived up to its promise.

Meanwhile, it strengthened the hand of the then-fledgling Community Development Block Grant program, which (as anyone who has examined that abomination knows) is one of most corrupt and abused boondoggles that exists today: The only recipients of grants are community groups with ties to local and/or state government; the only release of funds is under the thumb of federal regulatory agencies; the only way money ever gets into the actual community projects is after all the "overhead" has been extracted from the totals.

Folks, we know they are going to social-engineer anyway, and they already do so for corporate "charity" as well as for favored pressure groups.  Why not extend that concept, so that being socially conscious becomes more attractive to those who might not just go out and do it on their own, while at the same time rewarding those who already do? It could not possibly be a step backward from where we are now, no matter how many cries of "plantation nigger" arise from the purist gallery.

The fly in the ointment is still there: The State still gets to define what "service to community" consists of ... and controls the entire process start to finish to favor the insiders over the ordinary citizen trying to help (without becoming a ward of the state in the process).

It is at least worth considering, and now the crack in the doorway has already been provided to us.

Peace, Love & Liberty,

Steve Trinward