In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson described the fundamental truth of politics: namely that all individuals are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Unfortunately, we often forget the significance of these words in the context of our representative democracy.

Jefferson’s famous sentence is a reminder that all power in a democratic government is vested first with the people. Later, James Madison and his fellow architects of our Constitution devised a carefully balanced system whereby citizens surrendered certain elements of their liberty in order to come together in a representative democracy that would benefit society as a whole.

Thanks to the nation’s experience under the Articles of Confederation, Madison understood that, in order to function effectively and succeed in providing the benefits that society sought, citizens must be taxed, and government must spend.

It is safe to say that Madison never could have dreamed that government would spend the way it does today — without apparent regard to revenue, reason or results.

This year, the White House predicts that the government will spend $521 billion more than it receives in revenue. Depending on whose estimates you believe, the difference between spending and revenue could grow significantly in succeeding years. This despite an oppressive tax burden on citizens at all levels of the tax structure.

According to economists, this out-of-control spending will inevitably lead to higher long-term interest rates which will have an incalculable adverse effect on economic growth. Thus, if our economy is going to continue to benefit from low interest rates and grow robustly, creating new jobs and expanding incomes, government must reign in its spending.

Unfortunately, our elected representatives cannot be trusted to do so. Structural pressures force our popularly elected representatives to fight hard for additional spending. Constituents cry out for "vital" projects in home states or districts. Citizens demand that their "investments" into Social Security and Medicare are repaid in full, with interest. Society expects that government will continue to provide a strong national defense capable of securing our homeland and protecting American interests abroad.

Thus, in order to bring spending under control, we must put in place unavoidable measures designed to counter these structural pressures.

A number of such measures already exist.

In 1982, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed constitutional amendment which mandated that the federal budget be balanced each year. In addition, the amendment limited the growth of receipts — and hence, spending — to the rate of increase in national income. Exceptions were included for emergencies and times of war. The amendment was narrowly defeated in the House of Representatives in October of 1982.

Since 1995, the House of Representatives has considered, on and off, a proposed amendment to the Constitution which mandates a balanced budget; however, most versions have not attempted to limit the growth of spending.

Perhaps most instructively, in 1992, Colorado enacted a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) which limited the growth of spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth. In years where the government receipts exceed the spending cap, TABOR mandates that the money be returned to taxpayers. In order to allow for contingencies, TABOR established an emergency fund to be tapped only in times of fiscal crisis and allowed the legislature to temporarily raise taxes with a three-fifths majority vote. Finally, TABOR insisted that voters must approve any tax increase prior to the increase becoming permanent. Since its passage, a number of other states, including Maryland, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, have strongly considered adding similar provisions to their own state constitutions.

Any of these proposals would represent a positive first step toward curbing out-of-control spending. The ideal proposal, however, would include elements of both the 1982 federal proposal and Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Specifically:

• Structural limits on the growth of spending tied to objective measures like the rate of inflation and/or population growth.

• A requirement for a super-majority vote in order to impose any tax increase.

• A provision mandating a balanced budget except in time of war or national emergency.

• Creation of an emergency fund to protect taxpayers during unfavorable economic periods.

• A mandate forcing Congress to refund some or all of the excess revenue directly to taxpayers in the next fiscal year after the surplus accrues.

With these changes in place, Congress would be forced to change its approach to budgeting. No longer could appropriations cardinals swap pork projects for votes on their bills. Congress would be forced to deal with the staggering growth of entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid or risk having them swallow the entire federal budget. Most importantly, Congress would have to carefully consider the merits of proposed new spending against the framework of existing programs. Rather than simply approving every proposal for new spending, they would be forced to prioritize and make choices.

This is how government should work, spending our money with care on important priorities. That approach would certainly be more familiar to James Madison. But it is not the approach today.

If we, as citizens, want our government to start behaving responsibly with our money, it is time that we — and our elected representatives — remember that all power to raise and spend our money originates with us. Once this recollection has roused us to action, it is time that we stand up for our liberties, and express our desire for a better approach. Thomas Jefferson would expect nothing less.