3:1
The states collected a record $593 billion in tax revenue in 2004. While this seems like a lot, the federal government collected almost $2 trillion. That's more than 3:1.
Why do we even have states? If you're giving $3 out of $4 of your taxes to the federal government, why not just hand it all over for efficiency's sake. Federalism has gone out the window.
Power tends to gravitate to the powerful, and over the past 60 years, the federal government's fewer than 500 elected officials have come to control 20% of our economy and 70% of all government spending.
Federalism is a useful tool. When government is closer to those it affects, it can be more responsive, more efficient and simply more fair. Imagine the debate on legalizing drugs, for instance. Legalizing drugs for a society of 300 million people is not only a huge risk, but it's divisive enough that a large plurality of people would, in their mind, be adversely affected. This is true of any divisive policy (abortion, gun rights, welfare, etc).
If a single state could legalize drugs (or change its drinking age, or legalize abortion...), other states could observe the affects of legalization on use, crime and general welfare. The policy may lead to other states legalizing or other states being glad they hadn't.
The same can be said for the welfare state. States could compete for citizens and business in a way that is nearly impossible now, especially with unfunded mandates.
The only way to reestablish federalism is to give the states true power: tax revenue. But our society is taxed to the limit. What we need is a reworking of government. I propose a constitutional amendment limiting the spending of the federal government to no more than that of all the states combined. One:one, so to speak.
Why do we even have states? If you're giving $3 out of $4 of your taxes to the federal government, why not just hand it all over for efficiency's sake. Federalism has gone out the window.
Power tends to gravitate to the powerful, and over the past 60 years, the federal government's fewer than 500 elected officials have come to control 20% of our economy and 70% of all government spending.
Federalism is a useful tool. When government is closer to those it affects, it can be more responsive, more efficient and simply more fair. Imagine the debate on legalizing drugs, for instance. Legalizing drugs for a society of 300 million people is not only a huge risk, but it's divisive enough that a large plurality of people would, in their mind, be adversely affected. This is true of any divisive policy (abortion, gun rights, welfare, etc).
If a single state could legalize drugs (or change its drinking age, or legalize abortion...), other states could observe the affects of legalization on use, crime and general welfare. The policy may lead to other states legalizing or other states being glad they hadn't.
The same can be said for the welfare state. States could compete for citizens and business in a way that is nearly impossible now, especially with unfunded mandates.
The only way to reestablish federalism is to give the states true power: tax revenue. But our society is taxed to the limit. What we need is a reworking of government. I propose a constitutional amendment limiting the spending of the federal government to no more than that of all the states combined. One:one, so to speak.
4 Comments:
Amen
By Mars, At 3:31 PM EDT
Good point. Does that mean that virtually all federal funding to state programs would be cut? With that being said would some states not be able to afford some basic necessities? (irrigation, highways, etc..)
By measures, At 3:41 PM EDT
current state governements are notoriously unreliable when it comes to public spending. nearly every single state is in a deficit and cutting programs. I agree that government spending is out of control, but i dont think the states do any better, (if not worse) then the federal government...
By Vig, At 3:49 PM EDT
To vig:
It's hard to run a state when your citizens are being taxed like crazy by the feds AND you have unfunded mandates from the federal government. For example, every state has to provide a certain level of medicaid and medicare to its citizens. This is mandated by the federal government, but the federal government doesn't pay for it.
To measures:
There are things that some states might not be able to afford, but at a 1:1 ratio, the federal government would have more than enough resources to redistribute revenue to poor states. That's still 1.3T each.
By Ben Polidore, At 4:00 PM EDT
Post a Comment
<< Home