CDZ Blue Staters, Reclaim Your Sovereignty

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by MPS777, Dec 17, 2017.

  1. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    45,751
    Thanks Received:
    7,534
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +26,398
    :biggrin: Well we certainly know -- that a major effect will be to REDUCE the Blue State SALT subsidies which were NEVER COUNTED in the "maker/taker" silly ass Red State/Blue State meme. Had THOSE been added in -- there would also have been MUCH LESS of a disparity in (Fed Bennies In) / (Fed Tax $$ Out)..

    Yet another reason why that simple ass mathematical contortion was never accurate.. Just mean and partisan.
     
  2. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    10,522
    Thanks Received:
    1,589
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,653
    So you are currently opposed to federal funding for health care unless/until a Constitutional Amendment is passed? (YES or NO)
     
  3. MPS777
    Offline

    MPS777 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    118
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Ratings:
    +58
    Yes; I think the federal government uses a too broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause to derive its authority to appropriate funds for healthcare. If the US congress can interpret the General Welfare Clause as justification to spend treasury funds on anything, then there’s basically no longer any wall between State spending responsibility and federal spending responsibility. That’s how we end up with States that rely on federal assistance for 40 percent of its revenue. Go too much further, and states are essentially no more than vassals at a certain point. All the power becomes concentrated in Washington DC.

    That’s why the founders listed the explicit spending authorizations after the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 8. It limits the federal government to only being able to spend on very specific issues. And yes, I support adding the authority (via constitutional amendment) for congress to appropriate funds in the specific circumstance where there are US citizens who literally have no way to pay for healthcare. This is often the point where I (as a centrist) run afoul with conservative-federalists. They would say that appropriating funds to be only available to the impoverished is no longer general welfare, but specific welfare. My philosophical stance is that having a basic healthcare safety net in place promotes the General Welfare because anyone MAY need it given unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances.

    I see healthcare as similar to the due-process right. For people who can’t afford a lawyer, one has the right to legal representation at the public expense. Maybe these two federal spending authorizations could be combined in the same amendment. It could also form a constitutional foundation for federal disaster relief.

    To resolve the conflicting general/specific welfare controversy, I could propose a constitutional amendment such as:
    “Whereas circumstances beyond one’s control can bring physical and economic ruin to any citizen of the United States, the knowledge that financial support can be available in such circumstances is beneficial to the General Welfare of the United States. Such circumstances must be specifically defined in the text of this Constitution.”
    I don’t know, that’s just something I’ve come up with off the top of my head. It would have to be vetted by constitutional scholars and lawyers of course.
     

Share This Page