Русская версия – здесь.
I. Why Fiscal Separation is Necessary
Imagine this: you’ve just withdrawn a couple of hundred dollars from an ATM to cover your family’s needs. Suddenly, a stranger appears at your side, briskly informing you that his organization is raising $10 million for a gender equality and sexual education program in Pakistan. You wish him the best of luck and try to leave, but he follows, insisting that you’re obligated to contribute to his cause. If you don’t, he hints, you might find yourself in trouble for tax evasion. Likely, you’d call the nearest officer, asking him to intervene in what seems an absurd overreach. If the man had asked you to donate for a homeless veteran or the repair of your neighborhood school’s roof, you might have had fewer objections. Yet those ten million dollars you and others have contributed to the U.S. budget will quietly be sent to fund sexual education in Pakistan.
In December 2020, Congress approved, by a majority vote, $10 million for gender equality initiatives and an additional $15 million to strengthen democracy in Pakistan. In 2023, the U.S. reserved $200 million for gender equality and democratic initiatives in Pakistan as part of a $1.7 trillion spending package. This amount, twenty times the 2020 allocation, sparks a poignant question: is this reasonable?
These expenditures, I argue, are madness. And I am not alone—most American taxpayers likely share my perspective. This article proposes fiscal separation as a solution to the many lingering issues within our nation.
The intent here is not to fragment the United States but to heal it. Fiscal separation is a peaceful, practical, and historically validated method for resolving political crises. It would help rid the country of socialist-leaning tendencies, which have grown powerful and now stand as one of the primary strategic objectives of one of our two major parties. Fiscal separation would foster a process of financial and political healing, paradoxically uniting what has already grown so divided. Every politician chants about unity, accusing their opponents of trying to split the nation. But none have explained how to achieve such unity in practical terms. The country is not merely divided; it is profoundly divided, as is plain to see.
Many members of the U.S. Democratic Party openly call themselves democratic socialists. This label was once adopted by none other than Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin, leader of history’s most brutal and devastating revolution. He held that socialism and democracy could not co-exist (Richard Pipes, The History of the Russian Revolution).
The Nuremberg Trials only condemned national socialists. Their leaders were sentenced to hang. But on the hands of socialists of other stripes lies an even greater blood toll. Like the severed head of a dragon, the idea of socialism reappears in the most unexpected places. Its newest advocates claim that the failures and atrocities of their predecessors stemmed from “building the wrong socialism.” The real danger, however, is not those who built the wrong socialism but those who “know” how to build the “right” kind.
There exists no example of a long-term, successful development of a society built upon the principles of socialism.
State regulation of prices, suppression of free speech, prohibition of certain topics for discussion, confiscation of firearms, restrictions on private property rights, career advancement based on political loyalty, gender, or racial identity—these are elements of the Democratic Party’s declared agenda. I DO NOT WISH TO FUND THIS PROGRAM. I am certain that the majority of Republican Party supporters share my views. The Democratic Party has sufficient support on its own. Fiscal separation would allow these individuals to prove their dedication to socialism, funding its implementation at their own expense and within pro-Democratic states.
The primary reason for implementing a solution as radical as fiscal separation is the THREAT OF CIVIL WAR. A significant segment of the American population rejects socialist ideas. Attempts to impose these ideas on U.S. soil could provoke a sharp response, potentially even violent action.
Some scholars and analysts have attempted to quantify this risk. One frequently cited assessment comes from political scientist Barbara F. Walter, who suggests that the U.S. may be closer to civil conflict than many would care to admit. In her book How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them, Walter references data from the Center for Systemic Peace, which evaluates the global risk of civil war, noting that the U.S. has entered a “danger zone” for civil conflict.
Historian and complexity scientist Peter Turchin has long warned of the rising likelihood of social decay within the U.S., seeing a substantial risk of political violence or conflict. He focuses on long-term trends rather than specific probabilities, yet his observations remain pressing.
In a 2022 poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov, 43% of Americans believed civil war to be likely within the next decade. This is not a professional evaluation, but it reflects public sentiment and growing concern. Based on available research, Barbara F. Walter and other experts estimate the risk to fall between 10% and 35%.
Even 10% is an unthinkably high risk! Everyone knows the cruelty and devastation of civil wars. Something must be suggested, debated, and enacted. America can, and should, turn to international experience.
II. Examples from International Experience
SWITZERLAND — Fiscal Federalism
Overview: Switzerland operates on a decentralized model of fiscal federalism, where cantons (states) maintain significant control over their tax and budgetary policies. This system allows cantons to set tax rates independently and decide how to allocate revenue.
Practical Application: Each canton has its tax laws, which can vary widely. Some cantons set low taxes to attract businesses and affluent residents, while others emphasize higher public spending.
Consequences: The system fosters competition between cantons and addresses the different financial needs of its regions.
CANADA — Fiscal Decentralization
Overview: Canada’s federal system grants provinces substantial control over fiscal policies, including taxation and spending on healthcare, education, and social welfare.
Practical Application: For example, Quebec has its income tax system, separate from the federal government. This enables provinces to establish unique social programs and tax incentives.
Consequences: This system allows provinces to tailor fiscal policies to meet local needs.
SPAIN — Autonomous Communities
Overview: Spain grants its 17 autonomous communities different levels of fiscal autonomy. Certain regions, such as the Basque Country and Catalonia, have special tax agreements allowing them to collect most taxes independently.
Practical Application: These regions collect income and corporate taxes directly and remit a smaller portion to the central government.
Consequences: This system allows regions with strong identities to exercise greater fiscal control.
BELGIUM — Regional Fiscal Federalism
Overview: Belgium is divided into three regions (Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels), each of which controls substantial areas of taxation and expenditure.
Practical Application: Regions manage economic policy, education, and transportation and can set distinct tax rates and offer unique incentives.
Consequences: Fiscal separation helps manage linguistic and cultural differences while allowing for political autonomy typical in any democratic society.
III. The Constitutional Basis for Fiscal Separation in the United States
13th Amendment, Section 1:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The courts generally regard taxation as part of the government’s authority to provide services and uphold the public good. Even if tax use conflicts with citizens’ beliefs, courts do not equate this with the involuntary servitude prohibited by the 13th Amendment. However there is a substantial president.
Supreme Court Precedents:
Flast v. Cohen (1968) — A pivotal case where the Supreme Court allowed taxpayers to challenge federal expenditures if they could show that such spending violated constitutional constraints. The Court allowed plaintiffs to contest the use of federal funds for religious education, ruling that taxpayers could sue if spending directly contradicted constitutional provisions, like the First Amendment.
IV. Implementing Fiscal Separation
Fiscal separation calls for a thoughtful and determined approach, akin to the Declaration of Independence. The Republican Party in Congress must take the initiative to declare fiscal separation as the will of the American people—that segment that supports Republican principles. Implementing this may require a convention within the Republican Party.
Steps:
1. Fiscal Separation Declaration
The Republican caucus in Congress should put forth a declaration of fiscal separation. Much like the Declaration of Independence severed ties with the British Empire, a fiscal declaration should aim to separate financial responsibility and authority between proponents of socialist ideas and advocates of conservative fiscal principles. The U.S. Tax Authority could create two branches—one for fiscal conservatives and another for fiscal liberals. Each taxpayer (individual or corporate) would register with one branch. Once a year, during tax filing, taxpayers would select which branch they wish to send their taxes to.
2. Constitutional Justification
Opponents of fiscal separation (likely the Democratic Party) may argue that such a step would undermine national unity. The primary rebuttal from Republicans should be that opposing fiscal separation supports using one group’s resources to fund projects that contradict their will, which can be seen as involuntary servitude prohibited by the 13th Amendment.
V. Conclusion
Fiscal separation is not just a political theory or a temporary solution to ease conflict. It is a way to protect the fundamental values of freedom, justice, and personal autonomy at the heart of American democracy. We are at a critical juncture, where social, economic, and political differences are at a boiling point. Ignoring or forcibly suppressing these differences could lead to tragic consequences humanity has endured before.
By proposing fiscal separation, we defend every citizen’s right to choose which programs and ideologies they wish to support with their money. We are building a system where two ideological factions can coexist without imposing their beliefs on each other. This not only prevents the escalation of internal American conflict but also strengthens the fabric of society, enabling each side to act within its convictions rather than under opposition pressure.
Today, our duty is to propose solutions that preserve the country’s unity without suppressing individual freedom. We cannot stand by as our great nation walks the path of internal confrontation and destruction. The call for fiscal separation is a call for justice, freedom, and peace. We must consider this path, making it possible for the future of our children and the future of America itself.
