So if we accept for a moment that the system of government is driven literally by the flow of money, then what are some structural changes that could constrain its abuse, to rechannel it along primary tributaries instead of individual eddies? One first step is rolling back the anonymity, and thus the appeal, of earmarks on legislation that amend spending to include ‘pork‘ projects. Some progress was made earlier this year by requiring names and some proof of non-interest in attached earmarks in both sides of Congress. But more recently the pendulum is swinging back towards obfuscation, with Congress sidestepping the issue simply by renaming the practice something other than ‘earmarking’ (see also: ‘enemy non-combatant’).

Another more radical common-sense proposal is simply to send less money to the Federal coffers. Congress has recently show a forthright inability to balance the budget, and exhibits little restraint in overweighting essential spending bills with me-too provisions to curry favor with their constituencies. Further, efforts to manage some programs - particularly social services - at a national level has proven inefficient, inflexible, and inclined to create negative-effect systems within each. For example, education is burdened by extensive regulations such as the recent No Child Left Behind that add to the bureaucracy of each school district while removing their ability to accommodate the needs of particular groups. The curriculum has narrowed where teachers nationwide can only ‘teach to the test’ since the measure of education has been defined as a series of standardized tests. Of course social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Veterans Affairs would need to follow some general guidelines, but could gain the flexibility offered by a Federalist arrangement.

The problem with implementing any of these reforms is entailed in the structure itself. One of the innate properties of any organism is a survival instinct, and these types of changes - making their actions more visible to the populace, lowering the general tax fund by shifting more program oversight and thus discretionary spending to the state legislatures - act against their self-interest. Moreover, the timeframe of membership in the Congress keeps the focus ever on the quick fix and the near-term gain, since you may not be around to reap the benefit of a sea change which takes a decade to accomplish its goals. Basic game theory acts to maintain the status quo, because following the path of radical change contradicts the ‘prisoner’s dilemma‘ where it is better in a group to act selfishly as a defensive measure.

What about removing the lure of profit from another system? Religious organizations are able to operate tax-exempt, and are rarely audited to preserve their non-profit status under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code. The lure of tax-free earnings has potentially inspired some cults, or influenced the development of organizations like the Church of Scientology and the Mormon Church. Religious organizations are also enjoined from engaging in political activity, which seems on its face to contradict the very purpose of the Religious Right bloc. And the amount of monies involved is not insubstantial - religious organizations hold an estimated 25 percent of all land in the US, tithes amount to tens of billions of dollars annually, and the Roman Catholic Church holds more assets than the five largest American corporations combined. The crux of the argument is whether religious organizations are equivalent to other charitable firms, and thus provide a public service to justify excluding their revenue from taxation. And without a record of reliable audits showing that individual religious groups do not indeed carry a profit, reward individual members or staff excessively, or engage in political activity, we cannot know if that equation balances. One compromise might be to remove the exemption for churches themselves, but allow them to create non-profit subsidiaries that would administer their charitable works. In politics, however, the role of religion in society is too sacrosanct to imagine such a measure ever being seriously proposed, let alone widely supported, precisely because of the expected backlash for ‘persecuting religion.’ And so the system maintains its integrity.