Hamill: When trust needs a backup plan

Doveryai, no proveryai. This, according to the internet, is the Russian proverb translated to “Trust, but verify” in English.

This proverb became quite familiar in the United States because President Ronald Reagan used it often in discussions with the Soviet government.

Reagan learned the phrase from Russian expert Suzanne Massie. The context of its use was nuclear disarmament talks.

The value of a phrase like this is context-specific. Reagan wanted to make clear that he would not simply accept Soviet promises and statements.

It was perhaps most famously used in discussions with Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the now dissolved Soviet Union.

By using a Russian proverb, Reagan made the point that the need to verify was something that the Russians themselves understood. It was not unreasonable to ask.

When we view road signs marking a speed limit, we do not find it unreasonable for law enforcement officers to check our speed.

When retail stores post security personnel at the doors and use devices to trigger electronic alarms, we accept the store’s right to protect its inventory from theft.

When financial investment accounts require two-factor authentication, we are grateful that the institution acts to protect our assets.

Finley Peter Dunne, a 20th-century writer and humor columnist, wrote, “Trust everybody, but cut the cards.”

When I say “we,” I mean the vast majority of us. With 330 million people in the United States, “we” will never see everything the same way.

For this reason, we need to lean on a strong consensus. I believe that the statements made above represent a strong consensus, even if there are those with different views.

Today, we hear how divided we are along political lines. The recent tax and spending legislation was passed with no votes from Democrats and near unanimity from Republicans.

This implies that all Republicans think one way and all Democrats another. This is surely not true.

Republicans may lean one way and Democrats another. But at the individual level, there is crossover between viewpoints.

So, how do we get votes in Congress that are hyper-partisan? Why do the votes not reflect the will of the people?

A particular issue may, perhaps by geography, find Republicans and Democrats aligned in one region, but divided in another.

The House Republicans are proposing to slash the IRS’ resources further. The plan is to cut 18,972 workers with a 23% budget cut.

The reductions will hit enforcement particularly hard, with a 43% reduction in funding. These cuts exceed what the Trump administration proposed.

I do not believe that is what “we” want. Here in Albuquerque, there is a shortage of police officers. Everyone wants the department to hit its target numbers of officers.

The new tax law is very taxpayer-friendly. It seems that the law should at least be enforced. I think we want that.

The new tax and spending bill is projected to add $3.4 trillion to the deficit. That is with static enforcement of the law and taxpayer compliance.

Congress recently celebrated itself for cutting $9 billion from PBS, NPR and foreign aid programs.

That’s well below 1% of the increase in the deficit created by the new tax and spending legislation.

If we decrease enforcement efforts of the tax laws, the effect will certainly add more than $9 billion to the 10-year deficit.

We cannot want this. So who does? The only logical answer to me is that those who intend to not follow the law and profit the most from that.

How can such people hold sway with the Congress if that’s not what “we” want to allow?

Contributions of $5 million or more to super PACs more than doubled in 2024 relative to 2020. Three individuals contributed $100 million or more.

Can you fund a primary challenge for a representative? Can you afford the cost of a private dinner with a representative? If not, maybe people won’t listen to you.

A friendly law with little enforcement. Well, the IRS can still document match without people. That is, check W2 forms and 1099 forms for matching with the tax return.

So those with income from sources reported to the government may have to follow the law.

I do trust people. One can trust but still seek to verify. That’s the way we deal with all laws. Why not the tax laws?