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.

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!