It's in the Constitution, Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." You can read the whole thing at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.pdf
The whole concept was a republic - a united federation of states. The purposes binding the states together was stated in the preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Reading the constitution reveals the primary purposes for a federal government were: 1) defense from outside forces and inside rebellion, 2) guidelines for a justice system and 3) long term sustenance of the free fledgling nation.
The consistent inflation of the Federal government over the last hundred years has tilted the power steadily away from the states resulting in a ridiculously bloated bureaucracy and an insurmountable national debt. To some extent this has been fueled by ideals related to "promoting the general welfare" but it is turning our republic - that was founded on strong states - into an empire.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Choice and Democracy
The big problem with huge federal programs is that they are so far removed from the actual will of the people. As long as a bare majority can push a bill through it can become the law of the land and essentially force the will of those in power on everyone - like it or not.
Think about it on a small scale. If four families want to form a commune they are free to do so. They can set up a common fund, pool all of their resources, share their income and divide up responsibilities. Anyone in America is FREE to choose a communist life. But the resources they are pooling are their own; they only have the ability to work with and make decisions about the money, houses, cars and other stuff that they have contributed. Four families cannot set up a commune and then demand that 15 of their neighboring families also chip in $1,000/month to provide the commune's health insurance. But why not - if those 15 families earn more than half a million each - wouldn't that be fair and compassionate for them to support this well intentioned little community? Maybe - and I suppose they could if they were moved by a philanthropic vision - but it flies in the face of freedom and democracy to REQUIRE that people support a communist way of life unless they choose to do so.
This is why a state by state approach to welfare, health care, housing, education, taxes... could work so well: it would give people the freedom to choose. They could literally vote with their feet. If Kansas taxes are too high, move to Nebraska. If Illinois is not providing the education or social services you want, move to Ohio. Each state could have discussion and debate to determine how high they wanted their taxes and therefore what programs they would provide at what levels. And if some people or companies strongly disagreed with their state's direction, they would have the freedom to relocate.
A(nother) huge federal program removes those freedoms. It forces on everyone, with little or no discussion and debate, the preferences of those in power.
Think about it on a small scale. If four families want to form a commune they are free to do so. They can set up a common fund, pool all of their resources, share their income and divide up responsibilities. Anyone in America is FREE to choose a communist life. But the resources they are pooling are their own; they only have the ability to work with and make decisions about the money, houses, cars and other stuff that they have contributed. Four families cannot set up a commune and then demand that 15 of their neighboring families also chip in $1,000/month to provide the commune's health insurance. But why not - if those 15 families earn more than half a million each - wouldn't that be fair and compassionate for them to support this well intentioned little community? Maybe - and I suppose they could if they were moved by a philanthropic vision - but it flies in the face of freedom and democracy to REQUIRE that people support a communist way of life unless they choose to do so.
This is why a state by state approach to welfare, health care, housing, education, taxes... could work so well: it would give people the freedom to choose. They could literally vote with their feet. If Kansas taxes are too high, move to Nebraska. If Illinois is not providing the education or social services you want, move to Ohio. Each state could have discussion and debate to determine how high they wanted their taxes and therefore what programs they would provide at what levels. And if some people or companies strongly disagreed with their state's direction, they would have the freedom to relocate.
A(nother) huge federal program removes those freedoms. It forces on everyone, with little or no discussion and debate, the preferences of those in power.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Why not strong states?
As debate rages across the country about health care and the spiraling costs - I have yet to hear a clear and compelling argument for strong states. This should be central to the republican platform, and should be what the GOP has been shouting for over the last generation - but has somehow fallen out of our thinking as our leadership has sold out to big federal government. Yet it seems increasingly to me that it may be the only way to save our great nation.
Think about it - well over half of our federal budget is what President Obama calls "mandatory" - social security, medicare and medicaid. (How ironic that something minor and insignificant like national defense is now considered discretionary spending. How soon we forget that at first defense was the ONLY federal reason to exist.) The only chance we have of eliminating our projected $9 trillion defecit and beginning to pay off our nearly $12 trillion debt is to make massive, across the board changes.
So WHY NOT discuss moving every federal program that can possibly be moved TO THE STATES?!? Why do things like welfare, education, housing and the arts need to be federal programs? Why shouldn't we release the states to create and develop their own unique approaches to all areas of society? Doesn't it make much better sense to empower 50 separate and smaller regions to debate and experiment in order to find the best ways to create a powerful and compassionate nation - than it does for one central government to decide and implement massive nationwide programs that cannot help but produce huge amounts of inefficiency and waste?
I have yet to hear any political leader asking this question - if you hear of one, please let me know so I can support him or her!
Think about it - well over half of our federal budget is what President Obama calls "mandatory" - social security, medicare and medicaid. (How ironic that something minor and insignificant like national defense is now considered discretionary spending. How soon we forget that at first defense was the ONLY federal reason to exist.) The only chance we have of eliminating our projected $9 trillion defecit and beginning to pay off our nearly $12 trillion debt is to make massive, across the board changes.
So WHY NOT discuss moving every federal program that can possibly be moved TO THE STATES?!? Why do things like welfare, education, housing and the arts need to be federal programs? Why shouldn't we release the states to create and develop their own unique approaches to all areas of society? Doesn't it make much better sense to empower 50 separate and smaller regions to debate and experiment in order to find the best ways to create a powerful and compassionate nation - than it does for one central government to decide and implement massive nationwide programs that cannot help but produce huge amounts of inefficiency and waste?
I have yet to hear any political leader asking this question - if you hear of one, please let me know so I can support him or her!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
10,000 Pennies
A quick glance at the $3.5 Trillion federal budget shows how incomprehensible these figures are. This link shows President Obama's summary tables - the simplest presentation you can find at whitehouse.gov. It's basically a barrage of information, links to complex documents and a labyrinth of tables. All under the overall title of responsibility and compassion.
10,000 pennies - Matt Shapiro's youtube visualizations - gives a much clearer picture of the reality of where our new President's plans are taking us, with clear language like: "this is money we have - this is money we don't have." That first video demonstrates the scale of Obama's commitment to trim $100 million from the budget in 90 days.
This video is a fantastic presentation of the deficit - shown in miles per hour (to stand for dollars over budget per year). It demonstrates the tragic reality of the recent President Bush's departure from true conservatism as he actually accelerated the deficit and debt to unheard of proportions. But even more it reveals that Mr. Obama intends to put the pedal to the floor (he already has, in fact), driving us headlong into sheer economic disaster.
Employment reality - Politicians always make promises and rarely deliver. The stimulus package is that principle elevated to unimaginable proportions. It promised to save millions of jobs. The pennies tell the true story.
Over 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson argued for strong states against the Federalists who wanted to centralize control. President Jefferson, like all of us, had his vices and blindspots - but in this I believe he was absolutely right on. Now more than ever true conservatives must raise the clarion cry for strong states and begin the transformation of our bloated and terminally ill federal government before it brings our great nation to its knees.
10,000 pennies - Matt Shapiro's youtube visualizations - gives a much clearer picture of the reality of where our new President's plans are taking us, with clear language like: "this is money we have - this is money we don't have." That first video demonstrates the scale of Obama's commitment to trim $100 million from the budget in 90 days.
This video is a fantastic presentation of the deficit - shown in miles per hour (to stand for dollars over budget per year). It demonstrates the tragic reality of the recent President Bush's departure from true conservatism as he actually accelerated the deficit and debt to unheard of proportions. But even more it reveals that Mr. Obama intends to put the pedal to the floor (he already has, in fact), driving us headlong into sheer economic disaster.
Employment reality - Politicians always make promises and rarely deliver. The stimulus package is that principle elevated to unimaginable proportions. It promised to save millions of jobs. The pennies tell the true story.
Over 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson argued for strong states against the Federalists who wanted to centralize control. President Jefferson, like all of us, had his vices and blindspots - but in this I believe he was absolutely right on. Now more than ever true conservatives must raise the clarion cry for strong states and begin the transformation of our bloated and terminally ill federal government before it brings our great nation to its knees.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)