If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight.
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities. There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government. The Federa
I agree with ArcherB; when people complain government is too big, immediately people jump into Washington Monument Syndrome and claim that shrinking government will take away the really valuable things that most people want... but more than that, it conflates different kinds of tax revenues and where and how they are collected and what they are used for.
If you take a look at the huge debate going on in Washington right now, you don't hear people complaining about gasoline taxes - which is what is supposed to be used for transportation infrastructure. In fact, despite the very high cost of gasoline (from a U.S. perspective), I don't hear people complaining about the fact that the government is making more revenue off a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies.
One of the reasons we can't have honest political discourse in this country is the knee jerk reactions to some people's stances:
too much government != no government
lower taxes != no taxes
government spends too much != no fire departments, no schools, no police, no roads, no nothing!
What he's saying is most taxes should be local. If that means the state government keeps track of the mining industry, so be it. Most local roads and transportation infrastructure should be done at the local level (except perhaps interstates and agencies like the FAA). There were half a dozen stimulus projects making major upgrades to intersections in my town... the upgrades (what's finished, anyway) are awesome... but here's the rub: I would have paid an extra $0.02/gallon in local taxes and not burdened people in Alaska and Hawaii with millions of dollars in road upgrades done in my little town in GA. Why should someone in CA care about fixing up a park in Lilburn, GA? If the people in Lilburn, GA want to fix it up, they should fix it up... it's really just that simple.
That's the kind of spending people complain about - 95% of governance should be at the local (state and below) level in times of peace (which we, more or less, are, despite troop deployments). If they'd stuck by the constitution and by the 10th amendment, the federal government wouldn't be in the mess it's in now, and all the while they could still be protecting you and me from the big businesses that don't "play fair." Win-win.
It's not even that we'd necessarily be paying less taxes... just paying more to the cities and states and less to the federal government. I have 1/330 millionth voice in the federal government. I have a 1/10 millionth voice in GA... I have a 1/790 thousandth voice in Gwinnett County, and I have a 1/12 thousandth voice in Lilburn, GA. THAT'S why governance should come more from the local levels.
Because different local populations all have their own brand of stupidity. Countless times the Feds have saved states from the consequences of bad policy, just as countless times state governments have stayed bad policies coming from Washington. Having the two systems offers another check and balance. One system harnesses the best the country has to offer to find the best overall policies. The other harnesses the region-specific knowledge to adapt those policies locally.
Why don't you investigate into why there are these two systems you speak of. I'm willing to be once you find that answer, you will not only stop confusing federalism (federalist) but maybe support their ideas in the process.
And BTW, in case you are wandering, it's the federalist who what a smaller federal government, not anti-federalist which I think you just invented out of ignorance.
I see your google fingers aren't broken, it's just your comprehension skills that are. I like the way you attempt to hide that by inserting what you think is a slam on my intelligence by associating my knowledge with that of the infamously evil Glenn Beck. Oh well, I guess this is why it's fun to watch the special Olympics.
Federalist wanted a stronger government then the articles of confederation allowed, but they were very much a practice of federalism which is focused more on the constitutional contract
To use it in the sense you did pretends that they are in practice today and we are still debating a constitution over the articles of confederacy. In fact, the federalism of today is actually more aligned with a strict adherence to the the US constitution which would require a smaller government and anything anti to that would be indicative of wanting a larger government.
...or that's what they like to tell themselves, and how they want to be portrayed. In fact, however, the modern tea party effectively wants a return back beyond even the articles of confederation. I chose that term specifically because it IS accurate. They are indeed that regressive.
Number 1, just moving taxes to the state level (or even the county/city level) is not going to fix the budget problem. It just means someone else is responsible for it. Number 2, a significant number of states manage to have a balanced budget only because of help from the federal government for infrastructure, health care, education and security. Increasing their budgets while reducing their revenue is going to make the problem worse. Number 3, there is the impl
"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth."
-- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments
Well ... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy enough (Score:0, Insightful)
If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Too bad government isn't voluntary, or t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight.
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy enough (Score:3)
I agree with ArcherB; when people complain government is too big, immediately people jump into Washington Monument Syndrome and claim that shrinking government will take away the really valuable things that most people want... but more than that, it conflates different kinds of tax revenues and where and how they are collected and what they are used for.
If you take a look at the huge debate going on in Washington right now, you don't hear people complaining about gasoline taxes - which is what is supposed to be used for transportation infrastructure. In fact, despite the very high cost of gasoline (from a U.S. perspective), I don't hear people complaining about the fact that the government is making more revenue off a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies.
One of the reasons we can't have honest political discourse in this country is the knee jerk reactions to some people's stances:
too much government != no government
lower taxes != no taxes
government spends too much != no fire departments, no schools, no police, no roads, no nothing!
What he's saying is most taxes should be local. If that means the state government keeps track of the mining industry, so be it. Most local roads and transportation infrastructure should be done at the local level (except perhaps interstates and agencies like the FAA). There were half a dozen stimulus projects making major upgrades to intersections in my town... the upgrades (what's finished, anyway) are awesome... but here's the rub: I would have paid an extra $0.02/gallon in local taxes and not burdened people in Alaska and Hawaii with millions of dollars in road upgrades done in my little town in GA. Why should someone in CA care about fixing up a park in Lilburn, GA? If the people in Lilburn, GA want to fix it up, they should fix it up... it's really just that simple.
That's the kind of spending people complain about - 95% of governance should be at the local (state and below) level in times of peace (which we, more or less, are, despite troop deployments). If they'd stuck by the constitution and by the 10th amendment, the federal government wouldn't be in the mess it's in now, and all the while they could still be protecting you and me from the big businesses that don't "play fair." Win-win.
It's not even that we'd necessarily be paying less taxes... just paying more to the cities and states and less to the federal government. I have 1/330 millionth voice in the federal government. I have a 1/10 millionth voice in GA... I have a 1/790 thousandth voice in Gwinnett County, and I have a 1/12 thousandth voice in Lilburn, GA. THAT'S why governance should come more from the local levels.
Re: (Score:2)
Because different local populations all have their own brand of stupidity. Countless times the Feds have saved states from the consequences of bad policy, just as countless times state governments have stayed bad policies coming from Washington. Having the two systems offers another check and balance. One system harnesses the best the country has to offer to find the best overall policies. The other harnesses the region-specific knowledge to adapt those policies locally.
Obviously, the system is broken,
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you investigate into why there are these two systems you speak of. I'm willing to be once you find that answer, you will not only stop confusing federalism (federalist) but maybe support their ideas in the process.
And BTW, in case you are wandering, it's the federalist who what a smaller federal government, not anti-federalist which I think you just invented out of ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you get your history from the Glen Beck show...
The Federalists were dominated by businessmen and merchants in the major cities who supported a strong national government. The party was closely linked to the modernizing, urbanizing, financial policies of Alexander Hamilton. These policies included the funding of the national debt and also assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, the support of manufactures and in [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see your google fingers aren't broken, it's just your comprehension skills that are. I like the way you attempt to hide that by inserting what you think is a slam on my intelligence by associating my knowledge with that of the infamously evil Glenn Beck. Oh well, I guess this is why it's fun to watch the special Olympics.
Federalist wanted a stronger government then the articles of confederation allowed, but they were very much a practice of federalism which is focused more on the constitutional contract
Re: (Score:2)
To use it in the sense you did pretends that they are in practice today and we are still debating a constitution over the articles of confederacy. In fact, the federalism of today is actually more aligned with a strict adherence to the the US constitution which would require a smaller government and anything anti to that would be indicative of wanting a larger government.
...or that's what they like to tell themselves, and how they want to be portrayed. In fact, however, the modern tea party effectively wants a return back beyond even the articles of confederation. I chose that term specifically because it IS accurate. They are indeed that regressive.
Re: (Score:3)
What he's saying is most taxes should be local.
But should it, really? And how local is local?
Number 1, just moving taxes to the state level (or even the county/city level) is not going to fix the budget problem. It just means someone else is responsible for it. Number 2, a significant number of states manage to have a balanced budget only because of help from the federal government for infrastructure, health care, education and security. Increasing their budgets while reducing their revenue is going to make the problem worse. Number 3, there is the impl