Republican district conventions were held across Georgia today. This cycle is the first time I’ve ever participated in this process, and it was a rather eye-opening experience for me.

The various speakers were pretty much what I expected.

The elections were uneventful.

And then there were the resolutions. Oh, the resolutions.

I understand the importance of expressing our shared belief and affirming our common principles, however, today’s brush with the resolution process has left me wary of the entire concept. Nearly every resolution from both the committee and the floor was a neatly wrapped bundle of hate and anger. I get it, there are problems in our government, but don’t y’all realize that no productive conversation ever began with, “this policy is brainwashing inspired by Satan”?

Here’s the thing: every angry issue has a positive solution. It is possible to offer opposition to an issue by presenting a good idea to fix it. For instance, compare these two (completely absurd) mock resolutions:

“WHEREAS comic sans is a worthless typeface.
WHEREAS the use of comic sans makes any document appear to have been created by a toddler with a marker.
WHEREAS it is generally agreed that no serious individual would ever use comic sans.
We hereby resolve to instruct the Georgia General Assembly to consider removing the typeface ‘comic sans’ from all computers designated for use by government officials.”

Or,

“WHEREAS Garamond is an aesthetically pleasing typeface.
WHEREAS the nature of the conservative is to conserve resources.
WHEREAS when printed Garamond uses less ink than other typefaces.
We hereby resolve to instruct the Georgia General Assembly to consider using Garamond as its exclusive typeface for all official government documents.”

So, at the end of the day, both resolutions express the desire to remove the possibility of comic sans being used by the Georgia State Government. One shouts into the wind how horrible everything is, and the other positively supports shared principles.

Now why does this matter? Our resolutions are the very public statements of our shared belief as a party. When the world only sees the first type of resolution, we become the people who are always complaining but have no solutions. If we want to be perceived as people who have some answers (or at least ideas) to solve the problems we’re facing, then we need to use our collective voice to advance those ideas.

I started trying to write about taxation and the role of government. At least five different posts have begun and been scrapped. Each one of these has devolved into, “y’all…people…why?!?!”

First, I tried to understand and process logical arguments for a system of progressive taxation. I was seriously looking at playing devil’s advocate, but when I encountered a serious argument that progressive taxation encouraged people to earn more money because, “more overall income is necessary to reach one’s ultimate income goals if a higher proportion is paid in tax.” Following the rules of logic, this argument actually makes sense in a really depressing, Machiavellian way. It also ignores human nature. As an example, Average Joe gets a raise at work. He runs home to tell the family and celebration ensues. The next payday comes and to Average Joe’s dismay the amount on the check is smaller than the previous one (spoiler alert: the raise pushed him up into the next tax bracket). If the above premise is true, then Average Joe would react with a, “golly gee, I guess I just need to work harder so I can get another raise.” Can we take a poll of how many people believe this would be Average Joe’s reaction?

Next, I approached the argument by attempting to justify the legitimate roles of government. After itemizing those things that rightfully should be governmental functions I realized that it’s only a tiny fraction of the things that our taxes pay for. In lieu of having to argue Every. Single. Government. Agency. I decided to shift to a different topic.

Then I looked at what entities have the power to tax. We pay taxes to the Federal government, the State government, local governments. With the exception of a handful of purely Federal programs (like Social Security, for instance) most of what we pay to the Federal government is sent right back to the states for them to manage the actual department. As an example: muh roads! Roads are built by states. Even the Federal Highway System. The Federal government doesn’t award contracts to repave a highway. However, the Federal government gets my dollar, trims that bad boy down (paying various Federal officials wages and departments operating expenses), and then sends an adorable little fraction of my dollar back to the State of Georgia so that we can maintain and build roads. There are many other redundancies throughout the government services layers, too many for a little blog post discussing tax day.

So where did this all wind up? It seems trite to add another voice to the chorus that we’re paying too much in taxes and there has to be a better way, and yet, those are very applicable choruses. It’s better, perhaps, to take a step back and look at the reasons we aren’t having real discussions about the psychological impact of taxation methodology, or the proper role of government, or duplicative services and departments. Without even broaching the subject of philosophical differences on the role of government, we need some agreement, outside of the rhetoric, that our bureaucracy is not serving the needs of the people. Once we reach that agreement, we have to start modernizing the government services we need, create a more efficient means of delivering them, and eliminate everything else.