Constitution Day Question
As a companion to Terrence's post below, let me throw open a question: is it realistic to believe that we can return to genuine federalism?
Many people seem to assume that it's a hopeless case to try to restrict the federal government to it's enumerated powers because we'd have to get rid of so many "popular" federal programs. But why does that have to be? Why not just turn unconstitutional federal programs into voluntary programs that states can opt into -- or not. If medicaid, for example, is so popular, then presumably most states would opt in. Same with federal highways, social security, etc. Granted, there'd have to be some sort of grandfathering provision so that people in the "opt out" states get some return on the taxes they've been paying, but political pressure should take of that.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Jan '11
Re: Constitution Day Question
Because socialism only works if and when there's no competition, and the illiberal progressives know it. Therefore, they will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent any change in the compulsory nature of their great social works, right up until the day it all comes crashing down around our heads. And even then they'll blame the collapse upon a lack of sufficient funding.
Jul '10
Re: Constitution Day Question
Because then You'd have everyone moving Here to Texas.
Re: Constitution Day Question
Hm. As a matter of practical politics, I could only envision even a modest move in such a direction if either Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann were by some sweet miracle elected in 2012--and Republicans won both houses of Congress.
Am I wrong?
Dec '10
Re: Constitution Day Question
It is not realistic to believe we can return to genuine federalism. Having said that, mere realism is no argument against trying.
Jul '10
Re: Constitution Day Question
I agree with all of the previous comments. Well, some folks might summer in NH Jimmy.
Anyway, I'd note two things:
1) GWB proposed a partial opt-out for some individuals for Social Security, and that was DOA. Good luck getting entire states out of the loop.
2) One of the primary goals of governors and state legislatures nationwide is to maximize potential Federal matching funds. Frankly, opt-ins are often the means by which the Feds control states' policies. e.g. Fed-approved DUI limits for highway funds.
Of course, the mood is a little more favorable for the budget-cutting, Federalist-types than it's been in awhile. So, go for it.
But don't expect a return to antebellum America with electricity.
Mar '11
Re: Constitution Day Question
I agree that the only possible pathway is to cast every issue as one of individual freedom.
I can see how opting out of Social Security could be viable - but I don't see how to opt out of Medicare or Medicaid. The best options I have seen are bulk grants to states - but even grants will suffer from strings attached that will grow ever more burdensome.
We can solve this, in 200 word comments! We just need to brainstorm.....
Jun '10
Re: Constitution Day Question
iWc:
I can see how opting out of Social Security could be viable
I can't, people move between states all the time. If Texas opts out and California stays in, can someone work in TX then retire to CA and claim benefits (despite not having payed into the system)?
Re: Constitution Day Question
"...is it realistic to believe that we can return to genuine federalism? ..."
Was it realistic at the nation's founding? After all, the very foundation of this country is counterintuitive to most of human history. If there is any people on the planet that can get it right again, it is the American people. Of that much I'm sure. Will it happen? I suspect that we now have the best chance (and perhaps the last) for at least another generation.
At first blush, Adam, I like your general idea of returning the option to the states. I also wonder if the concept of vouchers, for example, might prove as popular and successful in other areas as it has in education. There is a lot of room for innovation (as Newt Gingrich demonstrates constantly).
The left like to think of themselves as radicals, and yet their ideas are tired and drab. The Founders were the true radicals, investing the full measure of their resources and devotion to the idea that people ought to be free from the designs, plunder, and coercion of others. Free to excel, free to produce, free to provide. It worked once. It can work again.
Aug '11
Re: Constitution Day Question
I keep finding myself thinking about it more and more. Is someone driving me to this line of thought? It only seemed theoretical before, but now it suddenly seems necessary. It seems like I am becoming more extreme in my desire for federalism with every passing day. Cutting the federal government has proved impossible. Destroying it seems necessary.
Jun '11
Re: Constitution Day Question
Dave Carter:
Was it realistic at the nation's founding? After all, the very foundation of this country is counterintuitive to most of human history. If there is any people on the planet that can get it right again, it is the American people. Of that much I'm sure. Will it happen? I suspect that we now have the best chance (and perhaps the last) for at least another generation.
At first blush, Adam, I like your general idea of returning the option to the states. I also wonder if the concept of vouchers, for example, might prove as popular and successful in other areas as it has in education. There is room for innovation (as Newt Gingrich demonstrates constantly).
The left like to think of themselves as radicals, and yet their ideas are tired and drab. The Founders were the true radicals, investing the full measure of their resources and devotion to the idea that people ought to be free from the designs, plunder, and coercion of others. Free to excel, free to produce, free to provide. It worked once. It can work again. · Sep 17 at 9:46pm
Think like true Americans and defeat is impossible.
Re: Constitution Day Question
Dave, thanks, belatedly for the post, I was hoping for a touch of the can-do spirit. And I completely agree with you about the dreary spirit of the left these days. As per my post the other day, the best that the "constitutional progressives" can come up with these days is a pledge not to change anything in the constitution.
Jun '10
Re: Constitution Day Question
A return to federalism might be possible, but it will require striking a fatal blow to the present culture of fiduciary dependency. Too many states depend on federal funds to balance their budgets. But, if the funds are cut off while simultaneously eliminating a whole host of unfunded mandates, perhaps the budget pain in dollars terms wouldn't be so bad. But will the public tolerate the inevitable reduction of "services"? They might, or if they don't, then they should demonstrate they are willing to pay more for them.
In broader terms, federalism may be the only viable alternative to more tyranny.
Re: Constitution Day Question
The restoration of federalism is not a hopeless case. But one must be careful to leave the federal government vigorous in its proper sphere -- which includes, let me add, the interstate road system.
In spheres like education, we could simply put an end to federal involvement. I have in mind bringing to an end federal aid to education, student loans, grants to colleges, and universities. With these grants come federal control.
We could also outlaw unfunded and partially funded mandates, and the same principles could be applied in other areas.
As for the regulation of interstate commerce, it should be restricted to interstate commerce. Intra-state commerce is a state concern.
We suffer from a lack of imagination and courage. Of course, if we choose as a standard-bearer another managerial progressive on the model of Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Bush the father, and Bush the son, we are done for.
Jun '11
Re: Constitution Day Question
Paul A. Rahe: The restoration of federalism is not a hopeless case. But one must be careful to leave the federal government vigorous in its proper sphere -- which includes, let me add, the interstate road system.
In spheres like education, we could simply put an end to federal involvement. I have in mind bringing to an end federal aid to education, student loans, grants to colleges, and universities. With these grants come federal control.
We could also outlaw unfunded and partially funded mandates, and the same principles could be applied in other areas.
As for the regulation of interstate commerce, it should be restricted to interstate commerce. Intra-state commerce is a state concern.
We suffer from a lack of imagination and courage. Of course, if we choose as a standard-bearer another managerial progressive on the model of Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Bush the father, and Bush the son, we are done for. · Sep 18 at 7:09am
We have to put the "dis" back in "interested."
Weeding through the various agencies, keeping what is useful and discarding what is nonsense will be no small task.
Those feeding at the public trough will loudly squeal.
Apr '11
Re: Constitution Day Question
Sorry, wrong thread.
Edited on September 19, 2011 at 12:33am