Hello, I’m new here and have joined because I have only relatively recently become particularly interested in politics. In the past, I mostly considered myself fairly centrist/apolitical, but I’ve felt compelled to really investigate the issues at hand because it seems the latest election and results that followed have plunged the USA into the most divisive and angry political discourse environment that I can ever remember.
I’d like to start a discussion about a constitutional amendment that might have the capacity to placate the various political camps and promote greater tranquility as the constitutional framers had defined as a goal. The amendment would come with two sections. The first section would explicitly constrain the spending powers of the federal government to the “enumerated” powers listed AFTER the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 8 as well as any spending powers granted by constitutional amendments. The second section of this amendment would instruct Congress that it has the duty and power to guarantee that all US citizens who live at or below the poverty line, have access to affordable healthcare amenities.
The way I see it, this amendment could seem very appealing to individuals across the political spectrum. For one, it could allow for the federal government to greatly downsize its involvement and interference with matters that states can manage themselves. The federal government could probably even, without much controversy, simplify the personal and business income tax code down to a much lower fair and flat rate. I would even advocate for a small national sales tax, to get everyone’s “skin in the game”, but that could be a discussion for another time.
This amendment could also allow for the elimination of the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare. This money would essentially be redirected back to the states, wherein the states could develop their own systems to addressing these concerns. To make this work, I think everyone who has now paid into the Social Security and Medicare systems, should in some way be refunded the amounts they have paid in.
Now at this time I feel like I should discuss my reasoning a bit. I happen to live in a majority Democrat area of the country, and have discussed this idea with a couple of my Democrat friends. At first they are aghast at the possibility of essentially repealing Social Security and Medicare as federal entitlements, but then I point out some of the glaring problems with these programs. For one, they are the single largest drivers of the national debt and deficit; and the way I see it, they are driving us into debt solely because they are implemented at the federal level. At the federal level, we as a nation have proven completely lacking the political will to either cut the spending associated with these programs, or raise the taxes sufficiently to keep them solvent. At the state level, I think there could probably be enough political unity to develop fiscally sound social programs. At least I believe my state could manage it better than the federal government. But it would require the state having access to all the funds that are currently siphoned off to the Feds. This includes eliminating the federal business tax deduction for health insurance. I do believe that by getting most of the social spending out of Washington DC, corporate tax rates could be reduced so far that loosing that deduction wouldn’t really be a big deal anymore. It would also remove a major distortion from the healthcare funding system. Most liberals I’ve talked to actually become fairly receptive to this idea, when I explain it in terms of them just being able to make policy decisions at a more local level.
Also concerning the second section of the amendment, I do think it’s necessary to set a baseline health safety net under which no American can fall through. It’s a matter of some people just not wanting to live in the same country as other people who would let their countrymen fall into an impoverished abyss with no aid at all. I think that this section of the amendment would allow the federal government even spend public funds for food, clothing, and shelter for any American at or below the poverty line; because if you literally are struggling that much, then food, clothing, and shelter ARE essentially healthcare. Above the level of poverty, I think states should take it upon themselves to help ease people out of poverty.
Returning to the topic of domestic tranquility, I believe this has great potential because “liberal” states that fund and manage their own social policy, really wouldn’t have much to fear from a “conservative” federal government; and vice versa. But that being said, I’d like to open the discussion up to liberals and conservatives alike on this forum. Is there anything about this idea that seems unacceptable or particularly worrisome? I’ve thought a bit about the ramifications of the “enumerated spending powers” section of this amendment, and have decided that the only other spending power that really might have to be amended into the constitution would be funding for NASA (and I think that could be authorized fairly uncontroversially).
I’d like to start a discussion about a constitutional amendment that might have the capacity to placate the various political camps and promote greater tranquility as the constitutional framers had defined as a goal. The amendment would come with two sections. The first section would explicitly constrain the spending powers of the federal government to the “enumerated” powers listed AFTER the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 8 as well as any spending powers granted by constitutional amendments. The second section of this amendment would instruct Congress that it has the duty and power to guarantee that all US citizens who live at or below the poverty line, have access to affordable healthcare amenities.
The way I see it, this amendment could seem very appealing to individuals across the political spectrum. For one, it could allow for the federal government to greatly downsize its involvement and interference with matters that states can manage themselves. The federal government could probably even, without much controversy, simplify the personal and business income tax code down to a much lower fair and flat rate. I would even advocate for a small national sales tax, to get everyone’s “skin in the game”, but that could be a discussion for another time.
This amendment could also allow for the elimination of the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare. This money would essentially be redirected back to the states, wherein the states could develop their own systems to addressing these concerns. To make this work, I think everyone who has now paid into the Social Security and Medicare systems, should in some way be refunded the amounts they have paid in.
Now at this time I feel like I should discuss my reasoning a bit. I happen to live in a majority Democrat area of the country, and have discussed this idea with a couple of my Democrat friends. At first they are aghast at the possibility of essentially repealing Social Security and Medicare as federal entitlements, but then I point out some of the glaring problems with these programs. For one, they are the single largest drivers of the national debt and deficit; and the way I see it, they are driving us into debt solely because they are implemented at the federal level. At the federal level, we as a nation have proven completely lacking the political will to either cut the spending associated with these programs, or raise the taxes sufficiently to keep them solvent. At the state level, I think there could probably be enough political unity to develop fiscally sound social programs. At least I believe my state could manage it better than the federal government. But it would require the state having access to all the funds that are currently siphoned off to the Feds. This includes eliminating the federal business tax deduction for health insurance. I do believe that by getting most of the social spending out of Washington DC, corporate tax rates could be reduced so far that loosing that deduction wouldn’t really be a big deal anymore. It would also remove a major distortion from the healthcare funding system. Most liberals I’ve talked to actually become fairly receptive to this idea, when I explain it in terms of them just being able to make policy decisions at a more local level.
Also concerning the second section of the amendment, I do think it’s necessary to set a baseline health safety net under which no American can fall through. It’s a matter of some people just not wanting to live in the same country as other people who would let their countrymen fall into an impoverished abyss with no aid at all. I think that this section of the amendment would allow the federal government even spend public funds for food, clothing, and shelter for any American at or below the poverty line; because if you literally are struggling that much, then food, clothing, and shelter ARE essentially healthcare. Above the level of poverty, I think states should take it upon themselves to help ease people out of poverty.
Returning to the topic of domestic tranquility, I believe this has great potential because “liberal” states that fund and manage their own social policy, really wouldn’t have much to fear from a “conservative” federal government; and vice versa. But that being said, I’d like to open the discussion up to liberals and conservatives alike on this forum. Is there anything about this idea that seems unacceptable or particularly worrisome? I’ve thought a bit about the ramifications of the “enumerated spending powers” section of this amendment, and have decided that the only other spending power that really might have to be amended into the constitution would be funding for NASA (and I think that could be authorized fairly uncontroversially).
