We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

[JamesMorrison]

In regards to those, like Erza Klein, that question the relavancy of the U.S. Constitution by way of claiming that " the 200 year old language used" makes it hard to "understand" exactly what the founders intended, our friend Walter Williams gives us clarification of the founders' (and other notables) thoughts by way of well, what they actually said:

You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying:

"Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."

Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?

What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners?

Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?

Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.
Walter Williams: Were the Founders ignorant of their own Constitution? | Washington Examiner

Emphasis mine (JM)

JM

 

[Flopper]

In regards to those, like Erza Klein, that question the relavancy of the U.S. Constitution by way of claiming that " the 200 year old language used" makes it hard to "understand" exactly what the founders intended, our friend Walter Williams gives us clarification of the founders' (and other notables) thoughts by way of well, what they actually said:

You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying:

"Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."

Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?

What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners?

Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?

Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.
Walter Williams: Were the Founders ignorant of their own Constitution? | Washington Examiner

Emphasis mine (JM)

JM

I certainty am no constitutional scholar but Article 1 Section 8 Subsection 7 certainly appears to grant the power to federal government "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads", even if it does not appear to Madison that the government has that power.

I rather doubt that the Supreme Court would ever hear a case that challenge the right of federal government to build and maintain US highways and the Interstate Hwy system. The House can certainly spend the next two trying to determine the constitutionally of every line in federal budgets in which case their control of the House will be a short one.

It might come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of people in this country are not interested in dismantling the government regardless of what the constitution says. Abolishing the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Energy is just not going to happen.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I certainty am no constitutional scholar but Article 1 Section 8 Subsection 7 certainly appears to grant the power to federal government "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads", even if it does not appear to Madison that the government has that power.

I rather doubt that the Supreme Court would ever hear a case that challenge the right of federal government to build and maintain US highways and the Interstate Hwy system. The House can certainly spend the next two trying to determine the constitutionally of every line in federal budgets in which case their control of the House will be a short one.

It might come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of people in this country are not interested in dismantling the government regardless of what the constitution says. Abolishing the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Energy is just not going to happen.

Good point, however your first two paragraphs do not address the fact that the Federal government neither possesses or creates any wealth that it might legitimately distribute in any way as it (in the form of bureaucrats) sees fit. Said wealth is created in the states by individual citizens and we must therefore accept that the Federal government has no more wealth than the people as a whole. Any Federal monies for this or that originates from individuals. Further, we in the U.S. must now focus on both legislative processes and goals that reduce Federal spending overall to avoid going over a financial cliff. Requiring a literal interpretation of our constitution is the most legitimate place to start when looking for cuts. While a legitimate constitutional argument for the Eisenhower interstate system can be made it would properly be based in the Fed's responsibility of national defense. That said, there is nothing stopping a state or group of states forming commissions or partnerships (public/private) with the object of building and maintaining infrastructure and, in fact, they did so even before Tom Jefferson became President:

The first private turnpike in the United States was chartered by Pennsylvania in 1792 and opened two years later. Spanning 62 miles between Philadelphia and Lancaster, it quickly attracted the attention of merchants in other states, who recognized its potential to direct commerce away from their regions. Soon lawmakers from those states began chartering turnpikes. By 1800, 69 turnpike companies had been chartered throughout the country, especially in Connecticut (23) and New York (13). Over the next decade nearly six times as many turnpikes were incorporated (398). Table 1 shows that in the mid-Atlantic and New England states between 1800 and 1830, turnpike companies accounted for 27 percent of all business incorporations.
Turnpikes and Toll Roads in Nineteenth-Century America | Economic History Services

But it might actually be the case that Madison was already thinking about the unintended consequences of centrally concentrated power and not just ignoring the postal road thingy in the constitution regarding his veto (It's possible, also, that he found the bill in question was simply not about 'postal roads' at all). Remember, federal highway funds come from people in the states being taxed with use taxes (Fuel Taxes being the largest taking). These funds are then redistributed to various state road projects thru the federal government. So that even Wikipedia recognizes that: "The dominant role of the federal government in road finance has enabled it to pass laws in areas outside of the powers enumerated in the federal Constitution. By threatening to withhold highway funds, the federal government has been able to force state legislatures to pass a variety of laws”

Of course, some laws passed this way like seat belt and minimum drinking age laws are beneficial but many infringe upon states authority to set their own laws that might better apply locally. The federal mandate for a 55mph speed limit was bad law because it made perfectly law abiding citizens lawbreakers overnight. Many times when the dollars come back from the feds they come with mandates meant to help special interests. Federal mandates for highway fund usage often specify that a 'prevailing wage' (union wages) be paid thereby raising cost and eating up as much as 80 percent of the received federal funds. ( The Road to Privatization: Let States Take Charge of Highway Dollars [Mackinac Center] ) Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is now making noises about how he would like to ban all cell phone use in cars, even 'hands free' units! Fed education funds could be denied, via the Solomon Amendment, to those Universities that deny ROTC access on their campus. The list goes on and on. Following Madison's example would uphold the constitution's purpose of protecting state's rights and individual liberty.

It might come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of people in this country are not interested in dismantling the government regardless of what the constitution says. Abolishing the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Energy is just not going to happen.

Well, if I remember correctly the Reagan Administration came very close to abolishing the Dept of Education. Given a political change in the next two years this might actually be accomplished. It is not at all certain that it, among other departments of the Federal leviathan, will avoid major cutbacks in the future. Further, both recent polls and the Nov 2nd elections have demonstrated that a majority of Americans want smaller government and that they favor major cutbacks in federal spending. Additionally, conservatives in the lower house will be examining not only all fed agency spending but the recent usurpation of congressional power by agency regulatory fiat. The national mood is about both decreased Federal spending and increasing individual liberty. The majority of Americans feel, correctly, that there is a inverse relationship between the two.

Maybe politicians will choose to reason necessary cuts according to Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste" or, perhaps, they will simply look to our Constitution as a foregone tried and true remedy which, formerly, used to be consulted before legislating.

One can almost hear Madison saying "I told you so".

JM

 

[Flopper]

In regards to those, like Erza Klein, that question the relavancy of the U.S. Constitution by way of claiming that " the 200 year old language used" makes it hard to "understand" exactly what the founders intended, our friend Walter Williams gives us clarification of the founders' (and other notables) thoughts by way of well, what they actually said:

You might think, for example, that there's constitutional authority for Congress to spend for highway construction and bridges. President James Madison on March 3, 1817 vetoed a public works bill saying:

"Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled 'An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,' and which sets apart and pledges funds 'for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,' I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States and to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated."

Madison, who is sometimes referred to as the father of our Constitution, added to his veto statement, "The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers."

Here's my question to any member of the House who might vote for funds for "constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses": Was Madison just plain constitutionally ignorant or has the Constitution been amended to permit such spending?

What about handouts to poor people, businesses, senior citizens and foreigners?

Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill to help the mentally ill, saying, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. (To approve the measure) would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

President Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill for charity relief, saying, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."

Again, my question to House members who'd vote for handouts is: Were these leaders just plain constitutionally ignorant or mean-spirited, or has our Constitution been amended to authorize charity?

Suppose a congressman attempts to comply with the new rule by asserting that his measure is authorized by the Constitution's general welfare clause. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

John Adams warned, "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." I am all too afraid that's where our nation stands today and the blame lies with the American people.
Walter Williams: Were the Founders ignorant of their own Constitution? | Washington Examiner

Emphasis mine (JM)

JM

As far back as I can remember, the public has been asking for cuts in federal spending, but when those cuts effect the local community, such as the closing of a military base or cuts in federal programs that effect the community, the voters are on the phone with their local congressman demanding action. Voters see the federal government as an organization that takes their money and gives nothing in return. When the highway doesn’t get built or the special ed classes are cancel because there are no federal funds, those voters who cried for cut backs in spending will be crying out but with a very different message.

Assuming we eliminate many federal programs, leaving the funding of these programs to the states where they can be run more efficiently, we hit on several problems. Considering the political climate, the spending cuts may result in not tax cuts. Savings from spending cuts will probably be used to reduce the deficit, possibly for increases in defense spending, other federal programs. Even if there are tax cuts, the amount of money that will flow back to a state will be proportionate to their tax burden, not to their need for the federal programs. So poorer states such as Mississippi, which pay less taxes per capita and are heavier users of federal programs are the losers. Likewise the wealthier states, which pay more taxes and make less use of federal programs, are the winners. The poorer states that need more services of the federal programs are less likely to continue them and the wealthier states that make less use of them are more likely to continue them.

Another problem is the assumption that the federal programs if run by the states will be more cost effectively. This is not necessarily true. Many federal programs require very few state administrative employees within each state. Once the administrative function disappears from Washington, then the work of the federal administrative employees has to be duplicated in each state.

The more serious problem of transferring responsibilities of the federal government to the states is that the states begin to look more like nations than states. In essence, we become more of a federation of states than a nation. The states become more diverse, poorer states become poorer and wealthier states become wealthier because the federal government is no longer taxing the stronger states to help the weaker states. Power would be more concentrated at the state level giving citizens more control, but also creating an allegiance to the state instead of the nation. In short, we become a nation that is divisible where justice and liberty depends on what state you live.

I seriously doubt that many people who favor the dismantling of the federal government really have given any thought to where that leads. We can make all the cuts in federal spending we need without taking the government apart.

 

[sangha]

Good point, however your first two paragraphs do not address the fact that the Federal government neither possesses or creates any wealth that it might legitimately distribute in any way as it (in the form of bureaucrats) sees fit.

That is just flat out not true. The govt, through its credit programs, has created a VAST amount of wealth. It's regulation of the money supply has insured that our currency remains valued and, as a result, the US has benefitted from the trillions of dollars that foriegners have invested in the US. The govt gaurantee for bank deposits, and its' regulation of banks, created the trust people need to save, creating the investment dollars an economy needs to grow

And then there's all the wealth created by people who design practical applications for the knowledge gained at govt expense. The Internet, aviation (including space travel), medical research, and on and on, the govt has developed technologies that have americans (ex Bill Gates) rich.

And as far as spending money, the govt can spend money in any way it chooses, so long as it's not forbidden by the Constitution (which forbids little in the way of spending)

Well, if I remember correctly the Reagan Administration came very close to abolishing the Dept of Education.

Only if you consider promising to do it, and then not even trying to do it "coming close"

 

[Foxfyre]

As far back as I can remember, the public has been asking for cuts in federal spending, but when those cuts effect the local community, such as the closing of a military base or cuts in federal programs that effect the community, the voters are on the phone with their local congressman demanding action.

But that is because of the favoritism and largesse that corruption has built into the system. Why should "WE" give up our base when "THEY" get to keep theirs? Why should "OUR" program be cut when "SOMEBODY ELSE'S" program continues to be funded?

Such a system makes people defensive and protective. BUT if we go with my request for a law that the federal government is not able to legislate/authorize benefits or beneficial installations etc. for one constituency without equal benefits/installations provided for everybody else, that problem is solved. Legislators would jockey for positions of course--do we want the new airforce base or the national lab? But they would know they can't have both.

And then we slowly, carefully, and methodically return the existing entitlement programs to the states where they belong and make it illegal for the federal government to create any new ones or to use the people's money for any form of benevolence, and we are on our way to a balanced budget, retirement of all national debt, and we have returned accountability and integrity to government. It also takes most of the corruption out of the lobbying business.

A bonus will be that elected officials will no longer be able to use our money to buy fame, prestige, influence, power, or increase their personal fortunes. So the people who run for elected office will be far more likely to be good people who want to serve their country instead of the opportunists in it for personal gain. And THAT will take care of campaign financing problems that currently exist.

It is the old way of thinking about government which would be a whole new way for this generatioo.

 

[sangha]

What would be a "new" way of thinking for a wingnut would be for them to stop demanding their SS and Medicare while complaining about how much the govt is spending on entitlements. But that will never happen

Instead, you'll pretend that we can build military bases so that they're evenly distributed amongst the 50 states, instead of putting them where we need them to be for our national security

You'll pretend that the next time a hurricane like Katrina floods an entire city, the US govt should and will do nothing because it only benefits ONE constituency

 

[Flopper]

As far back as I can remember, the public has been asking for cuts in federal spending, but when those cuts effect the local community, such as the closing of a military base or cuts in federal programs that effect the community, the voters are on the phone with their local congressman demanding action.

But that is because of the favoritism and largesse that corruption has built into the system. Why should "WE" give up our base when "THEY" get to keep theirs? Why should "OUR" program be cut when "SOMEBODY ELSE'S" program continues to be funded?

Such a system makes people defensive and protective. BUT if we go with my request for a law that the federal government is not able to legislate/authorize benefits or beneficial installations etc. for one constituency without equal benefits/installations provided for everybody else, that problem is solved. Legislators would jockey for positions of course--do we want the new airforce base or the national lab? But they would know they can't have both.

And then we slowly, carefully, and methodically return the existing entitlement programs to the states where they belong and make it illegal for the federal government to create any new ones or to use the people's money for any form of benevolence, and we are on our way to a balanced budget, retirement of all national debt, and we have returned accountability and integrity to government. It also takes most of the corruption out of the lobbying business.

A bonus will be that elected officials will no longer be able to use our money to buy fame, prestige, influence, power, or increase their personal fortunes. So the people who run for elected office will be far more likely to be good people who want to serve their country instead of the opportunists in it for personal gain. And THAT will take care of campaign financing problems that currently exist.

It is the old way of thinking about government which would be a whole new way for this generatioo.

I think your idea has merit but it also has flaws. If we need an air base in Alaska are we to build one in each state to be fair. If a hurricane hits the southeastern states creating a national disaster are we to provide disaster relief funds to all states. No, I don't see how this would work.

Entitlement programs include Social Security and Medicare. If each state had their own version of Medicare and Social Security do you really believe it would be more cost effective than the current programs. You would need to have the equivalent of a Social Security Administration and a Center for Medicare Services in each of the 50 state. The states would probably provide the same benefits. The only cost difference would be higher overhead. Medicare (CMS) has an overhead rate of 2.3% much lower that private insurance companies. Social Security operates through regional customer service centers that seem pretty efficient to me. We could save quite a bit of money by shipping all these jobs to India. Of course that would not be considered politically correct.

 

[JamesMorrison]

That is just flat out not true. The govt, through its credit programs, has created a VAST amount of wealth. It's regulation of the money supply has insured that our currency remains valued and, as a result, the US has benefitted from the trillions of dollars that foriegners have invested in the US. The govt gaurantee for bank deposits, and its' regulation of banks, created the trust people need to save, creating the investment dollars an economy needs to grow

The fact that governments do not create wealth is well known. The best proof of this is the answer to the question: Why doesn't our government just print more dollars and distribute them to every American? The answer to that question and another obvious question: Why does our government have deficits, can't they just print more money to pay those deficits? can be found in the history of the Weimar Republic in 1930's Germany. Wealth is created by individuals and groups of such, not by government. Your second paragraph's "And then there's all the wealth created by people who design practical applications for the knowledge gained at govt expense" even admits to this. (your "government expense" is correctly recognized as 'taxpayer expense': see my 3rd paragraph below)

The FOMC (Federal Reserve) has much to answer for regarding its role in causing both the housing bubble and the resultant Great Recession that we are slowly recovering from (As does the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Congress). The U.S. has prospered for many years without a central bank meddling in the credit markets. Some, such as Rep. Ron Paul will be examining this in up coming congressional hearings. Needless to say, the Federal Reserve is not the best example for those promoting governmental involvement in monetary policy. As far as government guarantees to bank accounts, we have seen the FDIC (and its Savings and Loan counterpart) do good (and silent) work mopping up failing banks but there certainly is no reason to believe that government is the only answer for this. A free and transparent risk market and insurance industry might accomplish this same goal without those capital inefficiencies created by government. Further, the FOMC's success with preserving the value of the dollar continues to be questioned to this day by the commodity markets especially gold and oil. Additionally, many are now investigating the feasibility of the return to a modified gold standard to further lessen damge to economies by political manipulations with our fiat money. There won't be much saving unless people expect the dollar to hold its value (see the 80's and 90's consumer spending spree because of the Fed's monetary policies).

What "credit programs" are you referring to? Remember, before any entity may extend credit it must have the actual wealth to remit to those accepting such credit (Banks or governments, well, governments should anyway, posess the capital equal to the credit they extend). So, where would our government obtain their full faith and credit from? The answer, of course is the American tax payer. But when the government takes ever greater amounts of capital from individuals less of it becomes available to those that actually make wealth. Government debt worsens this further by increasing the cost of capital for those entrepreneurs. Governments necessarily promote the inefficient use of capital.

And then there's all the wealth created by people who design practical applications for the knowledge gained at govt expense. The Internet, aviation (including space travel), medical research, and on and on, the govt has developed technologies that have americans (ex Bill Gates) rich.

There is nothing to say these, in some form or another, could not have been created by private enterprise like the telegraph, telephone, electric light, auto, steam engine and shipping industries.

And as far as spending money, the govt can spend money in any way it chooses, so long as it's not forbidden by the Constitution (which forbids little in the way of spending)

Since your reference is to "the Constitution" I will assume you mean the U.S. "govt" here. This is a perfect example of Pelosianism that progressives in the U.S. ascribe to. Many, so believing, seem to get more in either money or political power than they give from such governmental policy. Those that end up paying the bill for this tend to read the constitution more literally. Constitutional spending is conditionally limited to that benefitting the "general welfare". That term is implicitly defined in Article 1 section 8 which limits the powers of our legislature. It limits because those powers are enumerated and, therefore, finite. Towards this explanation we find that during the creation of our Constitution Alexander Hamilton was against insertion of The Bill of Rights into that robust document simply because he felt that such enumeration would constrict future interpretation of our rights and be used to limit them. He favored the interpretation that it was us, as individuals, that possessed all the rights and it was the government that was to be restricted.

To all those who feel the federal government can tax, legislate, and spend on all good and sundry, I would ask: Is there something you hold so dear as to forswear government power over? If so, envison the mechanizations of a congress passing Obamacare, reconcilliation and all, in the middle of the night so disallowing your fondest right or object. Would you then long, perhaps, for a more literal interpretation of the constitution?

JM

 

[JamesMorrison]

What would be a "new" way of thinking for a wingnut would be for them to stop demanding their SS and Medicare while complaining about how much the govt is spending on entitlements. But that will never happen

This is a red herring and an old one at that. This might be a legitimate avenue of attack if, perhaps, the wingnuts in question had actually had a choice whether to participate in SS or not. However, since they did not, excoriating those to whom SS benefits were promised (later), in exchange for some of their hard earned money (now), for actually expecting our much vaunted government to fullfill that promise is rather disengenuous. The entitlement bankruptcy is a seperate issue. That's why it "will never happen". This is an odd position to hold for someone who seems eager to convince us all the value of depending on our government for ever increasing entitlements and wisdom: "Stop your bitching or we will show you who's the Boss"

JM

 

[Foxfyre]

As far back as I can remember, the public has been asking for cuts in federal spending, but when those cuts effect the local community, such as the closing of a military base or cuts in federal programs that effect the community, the voters are on the phone with their local congressman demanding action.

But that is because of the favoritism and largesse that corruption has built into the system. Why should "WE" give up our base when "THEY" get to keep theirs? Why should "OUR" program be cut when "SOMEBODY ELSE'S" program continues to be funded?

Such a system makes people defensive and protective. BUT if we go with my request for a law that the federal government is not able to legislate/authorize benefits or beneficial installations etc. for one constituency without equal benefits/installations provided for everybody else, that problem is solved. Legislators would jockey for positions of course--do we want the new airforce base or the national lab? But they would know they can't have both.

And then we slowly, carefully, and methodically return the existing entitlement programs to the states where they belong and make it illegal for the federal government to create any new ones or to use the people's money for any form of benevolence, and we are on our way to a balanced budget, retirement of all national debt, and we have returned accountability and integrity to government. It also takes most of the corruption out of the lobbying business.

A bonus will be that elected officials will no longer be able to use our money to buy fame, prestige, influence, power, or increase their personal fortunes. So the people who run for elected office will be far more likely to be good people who want to serve their country instead of the opportunists in it for personal gain. And THAT will take care of campaign financing problems that currently exist.

It is the old way of thinking about government which would be a whole new way for this generatioo.

I think your idea has merit but it also has flaws. If we need an air base in Alaska are we to build one in each state to be fair. If a hurricane hits the southeastern states creating a national disaster are we to provide disaster relief funds to all states. No, I don't see how this would work.

Entitlement programs include Social Security and Medicare. If each state had their own version of Medicare and Social Security do you really believe it would be more cost effective than the current programs. You would need to have the equivalent of a Social Security Administration and a Center for Medicare Services in each of the 50 state. The states would probably provide the same benefits. The only cost difference would be higher overhead. Medicare (CMS) has an overhead rate of 2.3% much lower that private insurance companies. Social Security operates through regional customer service centers that seem pretty efficient to me. We could save quite a bit of money by shipping all these jobs to India. Of course that would not be considered politically correct.

If you read my post more carefully you'll see that I don't expect an airbase for all states if one state gets one. But if Alaska gets the base then its representatives will know they aren't going to also get the new national lab or funding for a national park etc. etc. etc. Federal installations of what every type will be spread throughout the country as equitably as possible based on population. If New Mexico has three airforce bases (which it does) and other states only have one, when it comes time for base closures, New Mexico can expect to give up a base. The ONLY reason New Mexico still has three large bases is because it is a swing state at election time. That kind of national 'management' needs to stop cold and it will if lawmakers are forbidden by law to show favoritism to any person, group, or state.

And since EVERY federal entitlement the federal government manages is now bankrupt and unsustainable, yes I believe the states will manage programs like social security, medicare, etc. much more efficiently than the federal government has managed them. Most states are required to operate with a balanced budget. Those who aren't doing so now aren't doing so because of federal bailouts that absolved the local officials of their responsibility to do that. That kind of incompetence and corruption also has to stop cold and it will if the Federal government is no longer allowed to bail them out.

The USA has made tens of millions of Americans dependent on government and that has happened by increments over many decades. To reverse that without causing unsupportable misery and hardship on many people, we will have to slowly, carefully, and incrementally back out of those programs.

And we need to start now to wean people off the government teat and teach them how to develop a work ethic, how to get an education, how to earn a living, and how to manage finances to support themselves, a family, and prepare for retirement. Tens of millions saved little or nothing because they knew that social security check would be there in their old age.

We need to turn that around with a whole new way of thinking about government.

 

[Foxfyre]

One other thing, the federal bureaucracy is enormous and more expensive than the entire budget for many smaller countries.

Every federal tax dollar, fine, or fee collected has to pass through that bureaucracy where much of it is siphoned off in costs of building and maintaining huge buldings, paying huge staffs, and supplying the peripherals all that costs. Leave the money home in the states in the first place and you save all that enormous expense.

When federal elected representatives mismanage the money, it is all too easy to point to the other guy and absolve oneself from any responsibility. And because that is all so far removed from our everyday lives, there seems no way to 'audit' the behavior of our elected representatives and no way to know who is mismanaged the money. I am guessing that the feds waste not tens of millions, but tens and even hundreds of billions every year.

Not so much at the state and local level. The media and local watchdog groups will ferret out much of any corruption that exists and the local leaders are much more likely to be required to provide a full accounting for contracts let, money spent, results obtained.

Just think how long it takes you to earn a million dollars. How many of our annual tax bills would we have to pool togethered to equal a million dollars? I personally would like to think I'm getting my money's worth or every penny in tax dollars I pay in.

 

[Flopper]

That is just flat out not true. The govt, through its credit programs, has created a VAST amount of wealth. It's regulation of the money supply has insured that our currency remains valued and, as a result, the US has benefitted from the trillions of dollars that foriegners have invested in the US. The govt gaurantee for bank deposits, and its' regulation of banks, created the trust people need to save, creating the investment dollars an economy needs to grow

The fact that governments do not create wealth is well known.

Government definitely creates a safe environment in which individuals can create wealth. The United States is viewed by the world as a very safe place to invest. Investors are not concerned that the government will be overthrown. Federal regulations protect investors by requiring full disclosure to stock holders, prohibition against insider trading, and a number of other schemes. No one is concerned that if their bank closes they will loose all their money. We have serious financial problems as does most of the world, however we are still consider the bastion of financial security.

Does government actually create wealth? Maybe. If government operated a successful business then they would be creating wealth. However, the money needed to create that business belongs to the tax payers. The taxpayers are the owners therefore the wealth that the business creates belongs to the owners, the taxpayers.

 

[Flopper]

But that is because of the favoritism and largesse that corruption has built into the system. Why should "WE" give up our base when "THEY" get to keep theirs? Why should "OUR" program be cut when "SOMEBODY ELSE'S" program continues to be funded?

Such a system makes people defensive and protective. BUT if we go with my request for a law that the federal government is not able to legislate/authorize benefits or beneficial installations etc. for one constituency without equal benefits/installations provided for everybody else, that problem is solved. Legislators would jockey for positions of course--do we want the new airforce base or the national lab? But they would know they can't have both.

And then we slowly, carefully, and methodically return the existing entitlement programs to the states where they belong and make it illegal for the federal government to create any new ones or to use the people's money for any form of benevolence, and we are on our way to a balanced budget, retirement of all national debt, and we have returned accountability and integrity to government. It also takes most of the corruption out of the lobbying business.

A bonus will be that elected officials will no longer be able to use our money to buy fame, prestige, influence, power, or increase their personal fortunes. So the people who run for elected office will be far more likely to be good people who want to serve their country instead of the opportunists in it for personal gain. And THAT will take care of campaign financing problems that currently exist.

It is the old way of thinking about government which would be a whole new way for this generatioo.

I think your idea has merit but it also has flaws. If we need an air base in Alaska are we to build one in each state to be fair. If a hurricane hits the southeastern states creating a national disaster are we to provide disaster relief funds to all states. No, I don't see how this would work.

Entitlement programs include Social Security and Medicare. If each state had their own version of Medicare and Social Security do you really believe it would be more cost effective than the current programs. You would need to have the equivalent of a Social Security Administration and a Center for Medicare Services in each of the 50 state. The states would probably provide the same benefits. The only cost difference would be higher overhead. Medicare (CMS) has an overhead rate of 2.3% much lower that private insurance companies. Social Security operates through regional customer service centers that seem pretty efficient to me. We could save quite a bit of money by shipping all these jobs to India. Of course that would not be considered politically correct.

If you read my post more carefully you'll see that I don't expect an airbase for all states if one state gets one. But if Alaska gets the base then its representatives will know they aren't going to also get the new national lab or funding for a national park etc. etc. etc. Federal installations of what every type will be spread throughout the country as equitably as possible based on population. If New Mexico has three airforce bases (which it does) and other states only have one, when it comes time for base closures, New Mexico can expect to give up a base. The ONLY reason New Mexico still has three large bases is because it is a swing state at election time. That kind of national 'management' needs to stop cold and it will if lawmakers are forbidden by law to show favoritism to any person, group, or state.

And since EVERY federal entitlement the federal government manages is now bankrupt and unsustainable, yes I believe the states will manage programs like social security, medicare, etc. much more efficiently than the federal government has managed them. Most states are required to operate with a balanced budget. Those who aren't doing so now aren't doing so because of federal bailouts that absolved the local officials of their responsibility to do that. That kind of incompetence and corruption also has to stop cold and it will if the Federal government is no longer allowed to bail them out.

The USA has made tens of millions of Americans dependent on government and that has happened by increments over many decades. To reverse that without causing unsupportable misery and hardship on many people, we will have to slowly, carefully, and incrementally back out of those programs.

And we need to start now to wean people off the government teat and teach them how to develop a work ethic, how to get an education, how to earn a living, and how to manage finances to support themselves, a family, and prepare for retirement. Tens of millions saved little or nothing because they knew that social security check would be there in their old age.

We need to turn that around with a whole new way of thinking about government.

It's a nice idea that federal spending be more equally distributed among states, but I don't see how it's practical. It would lead to misappropriation of resources. True, there are federal facilities that are located where they are due to an earmark in some legislation but most facilities are located where they are due to practical reasons rather than political.

It just doesn't make sense that a federal government entitlement such as Social Security would become a state responsibility. If we felt that many states would abolish Social Security or sharply cut benefits then it might make sense. However, I think it's likely that if the states had control of social security, benefits would be just about the same. Instead of having one Social Security Administration, you would have 50. It would end up costing the tax payer more money not less.

The major problem I see with transferring of federal programs to the states is the inequality it would create between states. The wealthier states would become wealthier and poorer states would be poorer.

The federal government provides the ties that hold the country together. When you break those ties it weakens the nation.

BTW Social Security is far from being bankrupt. Bankruptcy is the inability to meet one's obligations. Social Security can continue to meet it's obligations till 2041. Even if Congress does nothing Social Security taxes would continue to pay 75% of the benefits.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's a nice idea that federal spending be more equally distributed among states, but I don't see how it's practical. It would lead to misappropriation of resources. True, there are federal facilities that are located where they are due to an earmark in some legislation but most facilities are located where they are due to practical reasons rather than political.

It just doesn't make sense that a federal government entitlement such as Social Security would become a state responsibility. If we felt that many states would abolish Social Security or sharply cut benefits then it might make sense. However, I think it's likely that if the states had control of social security, benefits would be just about the same. Instead of having one Social Security Administration, you would have 50. It would end up costing the tax payer more money not less.

The major problem I see with transferring of federal programs to the states is the inequality it would create between states. The wealthier states would become wealthier and poorer states would be poorer.

The federal government provides the ties that hold the country together. When you break those ties it weakens the nation.

BTW Social Security is far from being bankrupt. Bankruptcy is the inability to meet one's obligations. Social Security can continue to meet it's obligations till 2041. Even if Congress does nothing Social Security taxes would continue to pay 75% of the benefits.

Well, we aren't bulding any more military bases these days because we have too many and the fight from the states not to lose what they have goes on. So assuming we still need to close a lot more bases, the solution I offered for that makes sense to me.

I'm willing to hear why the state with three bases should not have one closed instead of the state with one. And there are literally hundreds or thousands of federal agencies scattered around the country. Some are located where they have to be, but many can function quite well anywhere. Mission Control, for instance, makes zero sense to be in Houston and the only reason it is there is because Texas legislators, including LBJ, had more clout than folks in Florida at the time that program was authorized.

And don't look, but every state in the union already has at least one social security administration office in the state. The one here in Albuquerque occupies almost an acre of ground, is housed in a massive building with high security. And that doesn't even count all the field officea with one or more in every city of any size--that's where you go to file your social security claim. We wouldn't miss the horrendous bureaucracy in DC--have you ever seen THAT building? It rivals the Smithsonian and I understand they rent office space on top of that.

I am tired of being told that it is what it is and we can't change it. That's the old way of looking at government. I want a whole new way of looking at government.

 

[Flopper]

One other thing, the federal bureaucracy is enormous and more expensive than the entire budget for many smaller countries.

Every federal tax dollar, fine, or fee collected has to pass through that bureaucracy where much of it is siphoned off in costs of building and maintaining huge buldings, paying huge staffs, and supplying the peripherals all that costs. Leave the money home in the states in the first place and you save all that enormous expense.

When federal elected representatives mismanage the money, it is all too easy to point to the other guy and absolve oneself from any responsibility. And because that is all so far removed from our everyday lives, there seems no way to 'audit' the behavior of our elected representatives and no way to know who is mismanaged the money. I am guessing that the feds waste not tens of millions, but tens and even hundreds of billions every year.

Not so much at the state and local level. The media and local watchdog groups will ferret out much of any corruption that exists and the local leaders are much more likely to be required to provide a full accounting for contracts let, money spent, results obtained.

Just think how long it takes you to earn a million dollars. How many of our annual tax bills would we have to pool togethered to equal a million dollars? I personally would like to think I'm getting my money's worth or every penny in tax dollars I pay in.

I worked for a number years for a government contractor. I found federal agencies I worked with were tough negotiations, very knowledge, with no hint of waste and inefficiency. I worked for the State of Florida and my opinions are the opposite. The much maligned Medicare operates with an overhead of only 2%. Social Security is less than 1%. So, I am not convinced that just transferring functions to the state would save money. However the poorer states would have to drop programs.

 

[Foxfyre]

I worked for a number years for a government contractor. I found federal agencies I worked with were tough negotiations, very knowledge, with no hint of waste and inefficiency. I worked for the State of Florida and my opinions are the opposite. The much maligned Medicare operates with an overhead of only 2%. Social Security is less than 1%. So, I am not convinced that just transferring functions to the state would save money. However the poorer states would have to drop programs.

You must have worked in very different areas than I have. I have found administrators of Medicare to sometimes be as dumb as rocks, but even the competent employees, which was probably most, let tons of stuff slip through the cracks and there was more waste than efficient operation. I do not believe for a minute that the overhead is 2% and less than 1% and you would have to provide some hard evidence to convince me of that.

The point I think you are missing is that you are seeing everything remain the same but just change locations. It wouldn't. It would change because people would have to come up with better, more efficient ways to get it done. It would change because if government doesn't continue doing it badly, people will find a way to do it better.

We cannot continue as we have been. All the entitlement programs are broke and unless we change course now we are obligated for hundreds of billions or trillions of obligations we cannot cover for as far as the eye can see.

We have to find a whole new way to think about government.

 

[shintao]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

Yes, a new socialist government for WE THE PEOPLE, all of us!! Not some of the individuals. Where government controls it's own national Security. Everyone works for the greater good and has living wages and full benefits for life.

I am not sure a conservative can deliver on that promise.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Government definitely creates a safe environment in which individuals can create wealth. The United States is viewed by the world as a very safe place to invest. Investors are not concerned that the government will be overthrown. Federal regulations protect investors by requiring full disclosure to stock holders, prohibition against insider trading, and a number of other schemes. No one is concerned that if their bank closes they will loose all their money. We have serious financial problems as does most of the world, however we are still consider the bastion of financial security.

Does government actually create wealth? Maybe. If government operated a successful business then they would be creating wealth. However, the money needed to create that business belongs to the tax payers. The taxpayers are the owners therefore the wealth that the business creates belongs to the owners, the taxpayers.

Regarding your first paragraph I totally agree, and your first sentence is the proper distillation of the responsibility of the Federal government: The government should protect all law abiding citizens and their property and foster a safe environment for them to conduct business and their lives. All tax revenues should be collected and spent only in regard to acquiring the means to fulfill those important but limited responsibilities of government.

As far as a government being able to create a profitable business I have no doubt as to that possibility with taxpayers being the individuals making up such an entity not unlike venture fund groups. But the, supposedly, independent Fed Reserve is increasingly cited as becoming more politicized with its efforts now being blamed for past bubbles, recessions and, now, dollar devaluation (QE2 of 600 billion USD) and possible future inflation if and when we come out of this recession. Therefore individual businesses owned by the government would have irrepressible political pressures upon them thereby producing crony capitalism and measures that would favor that government entity over its competitors. Think Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and, now, GM (Especially their failures: do we bail them out and continue down that road to perdition?).

As to government regulation, while some is necessary this also can be used to political advantage of favored special interests.

JM

 

[Flopper]

Government definitely creates a safe environment in which individuals can create wealth. The United States is viewed by the world as a very safe place to invest. Investors are not concerned that the government will be overthrown. Federal regulations protect investors by requiring full disclosure to stock holders, prohibition against insider trading, and a number of other schemes. No one is concerned that if their bank closes they will loose all their money. We have serious financial problems as does most of the world, however we are still consider the bastion of financial security.

Does government actually create wealth? Maybe. If government operated a successful business then they would be creating wealth. However, the money needed to create that business belongs to the tax payers. The taxpayers are the owners therefore the wealth that the business creates belongs to the owners, the taxpayers.

Regarding your first paragraph I totally agree, and your first sentence is the proper distillation of the responsibility of the Federal government: The government should protect all law abiding citizens and their property and foster a safe environment for them to conduct business and their lives. All tax revenues should be collected and spent only in regard to acquiring the means to fulfill those important but limited responsibilities of government.

As far as a government being able to create a profitable business I have no doubt as to that possibility with taxpayers being the individuals making up such an entity not unlike venture fund groups. But the, supposedly, independent Fed Reserve is increasingly cited as becoming more politicized with its efforts now being blamed for past bubbles, recessions and, now, dollar devaluation (QE2 of 600 billion USD) and possible future inflation if and when we come out of this recession. Therefore individual businesses owned by the government would have irrepressible political pressures upon them thereby producing crony capitalism and measures that would favor that government entity over its competitors. Think Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and, now, GM (Especially their failures: do we bail them out and continue down that road to perdition?).

As to government regulation, while some is necessary this also can be used to political advantage of favored special interests.

JM

Considering the track record of the federal reserve, I'm not sure I would want them on my side. Over the last 30 years, they have consistently made the wrong calls. Granted it's not easy to determine the proper monetary actions to take since the results of actions may not be known for many months. I have always thought we would be just as well off if the Fed stayed out of the market and left interest rates alone.