So, I've been turning over this idea in my head and so far it seems like it would work. I'm just looking for the input and viewpoints of others. Originally, our nation was set up to give the individual states the majority of the power, and to have a small federal government just to enforce the constitution and unionize the states. So what if we cut expenses such as public welfare at the federal level and distribute the excess money to the individual states until the national budget was at it's equilibrium point and left it up to the states to provide such programs(if wanted). This is how I see it; It's better for states to be indebted to the federal government than to have our nation indebted to other countries. Also, many states (primarily republican states) do not believe in welfare programs so this would give the people the oppurtunity to decide what they wanted. And if someone decided that they needed the welfare, while their state didnt provide it, they could relocate. -This is not limited to just welfare programs, that was merely one example. So let me know what you guys think, and show me the flaws with that idea:thumbsup:
taking the case of welfare... wouldn't that mean that everyone who wanted to be on welfare would all move to the same areas? It would be awfully hard to tax those on welfare in the welfare US State in order to pay the same people back a welfare check. Not that I disagree with the principles you have mentioned... Unfortunately, (and the same reason why many are against the welfare system) too many people have made a living out of working the system, and this would further limit resources. Sure would be nice though to relocate to a state that adheres only to laws that I agree with.
That's the problem, eventually so many people are going to be on it that it will be the same way with the federal government. So instead of everybody failing together we would have 50 little social experiments going on. The states that are failing, which I imagine would be the welfare states, would be forced to eliminate things such as welfare and people would have their eyes opened to the flaws of that paticular system. Did that make any sense?
As I said, I just used welfare because it was an easy example to incorporate into the state government system. Although, welfare programs do cost quite a bit of our governments revenue.
Greed starts at the top and only gets worse as those under them start taking what they want. There are many duplicate programs and too many agencies that could be consolidated very easily into just a few instead of thousands that they made up. The more they can print, the more everyone will pay until the day comes when there will be a total melt down and no one will be working.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I say cut everything and make it the states responsibilty unless it is absolutely necessary that it is centralized by the federal government. I could see the need for things to be centralized, such as: -the post office -the treasury(and the FED) -national defense -etc. But there are many things that could be regulated at the state level, like: -any public welfare programs (social security, WIC, food stamps, workfare, etc.) -All transportation system costs -"national" parks -and anything else where centralization isn't absolutely necessary You have to at least see where I'm coming from.
Presumably you want everything cut except the things that benefit you. Suppose there was a plan that cut federal spending, but one of the provisions required you to relocate to a reservation. Or, we could make it more fair and have homeowners chosen by random selection, and they would have to move. The government could take the property and give it to the needy, to get the housing costs down. There's all kinds of solutions which are different versions of your idea insofar as welfare is concerned, which are just variations on an old theme. One that comes to mind is A Modest Proposal. That solution, by the way, could eliminate the need for the USDA meat inspection department.
So, for example, the Departments of Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines could be consolidated into one department? Suppose that was the decision. Where does the cost benefit come in? You mean, print currency? Suppose the US eliminated it altogether, and replaced it with plastic and electronic payment. Would that would solve the printing problem you're referring to? Seems easy enough, compared to the alternatives.
Say that there was only the military, not every branch. That would eliminate many people from being in charge of say supply. Now the supply employees are needed in each division but if there were only the military then there would only have to be one to oversee the supply department not 5 as now exists. Those employees of the supply department could do what those that are there now are doing but with fewer people , a streamline effect if you will, to downsize but still manage the entire system. I ask why do we need 5 separate branches when they are all working for exactly the same military only called different things? So by eliminating personnel from the supply departments and consolidating its way of working we could save billions. I'm suggesting that by streamline departments and consolidating them into smaller more officiant departments there will be substantial savings but by only duplicating services and adding newe departments, like the airport security department which could have been handled by the military, there could be substantial savings across the board. The more the government grows in people the more it needs to feed itself which causes taxes to rise and debts to grow to pay for those new departmentments. Reducing the people and services will be a problem for some but in the long run only benefit the taxpayers and reduce the burden to the entire system.
No, I am not saying that we should cut the these programs altogether. I'm saying that we should cut it at the federal level and give the individual states more power. Not only could I see this helping our governments spending, but it would give people the oppurtunity to live with or without the programs that they choose. I was only using welfare as an example. And none of my suggestions are infringing on anyone's rights. I don't understand how you are comparing moving people to reservations to limiting federal power and increasing governing power at the state level. @Buddha12: That combing the military idea is a really interesting one, do you think that it would decrease the potency of our military in any way?
And they'd cost a lot more, if we had to have 50 duplicate bureaocracies administering welfare instead of just one. Although, in point of fast, the stuff most people think of as "welfare" (i.e., poverty assistance) is already largely done by the states. The federal government's "welfare" spending is stuff like medicare, medicaid, social security and unemployment. To the extent that the Federal government funds actual welfare programs, they do so by giving grants to states to run their own.
Why? What's the point? And why stop at states? Why not get states out of the business, and devolve it down to counties or cities. What's special about states, and objectionable about the federal government? What about the economies of scale achieved by a single system, and the need to prop up poor states by transferring from wealthy ones? Why not just break up the Union entirely, and just vest all sovereignty with the states? If you don't propose actually cutting the programs, just moving them from federal to state administration, then it won't reduce government spending at all. In fact, it will increase government spending, since we'll now have to fund 50 duplicate bureaocracies to do the same work. What is that supposed to mean? Don't people already have the right to decline to take federal assistance? Yeah, the correct comparison would be to slavery and segregation. Because that's what "states rights" is a stalking horse for. Why are you in favor of institutional racism?
Why should it? Just because you streamline a way something is done, it doesn't change what it does that much but should make it better. There would be fewer things to do in order to get approval of doing something or ordering something for there are fewer people to go through. I don't know why they divided the services up to begin with for at one time there was only one military service. While there are different divisions they can be managed without having to separate them into different categories like Army, Navy etc. . Look at a well run business, although the military isn't a business in the strict sense, and you'll se only one CEO, one CFO etc.. Yet in that business there are divisions which are separate but still working toward the same goals.
There are many states that take from the fed more than they pay in taxes. Mostly red states actually. These states could not survive on their own without significant lowering of living standards.
The lowering of our standard of living is happening. Under Obama we've seen an acceleration in the transfer of wealth from the middle and lower class to the upper class. Out pacing even the Bush administration. Real wages continue to drop and once 2014-16 roles around we will have to have an increase in tax. Probably a consumption tax. Hitting the middle and lower classes even harder. Either that, or we walk off a cliff and all hell breaks loose in the US in a way that will make the LA riots looks like a walk in the park.
Power to do what. What do states need to do that they lack the power to do? You mean their legislatures would decide for them, just as Congress does? How is this different? If one person gets welfare in one state and not in another, the Constitutional right of equality would be violated. You brought up the idea of letting people move to other states if their welfare got canceled in the home state. I was suggesting maybe it would be more humane if your home were taken by the government and given to the poor, then you could go live on a reservation. The question is designed to put the shoe on the other foot. You didn't seem to pick up on that.
That presumes a lot about about how the forces supply themselves, how much their overhead costs are, and the extent of any overlap. Don't you think their accountants are routinely looking at this, to try to protect the troop strength, so essential people won't have to be fired to make up for waste in the supply departments? Do you think the supply dept. for an Air Force base, another at a Naval yard, and another that supplies heavy amored vehicles to the Army could reduce their cost by consolidating? I think you are overlooking how much work has been done in the DoD to reduce duplication of efforts, how much autonomy each service needs to make sure their materials meet the needs. Why do you think there is duplication? Why do think they aren't already efficient? Military training is expensive, just to turn them into jobs that untrained people can do. Then, for every military person you remove you will have to hire another. So where is the savings? If anything this sounds more expensive. Why does the government grow? Do they hire people without any work to give them, or is their workload growing? Your idea can only save money by stopping work. What will be the consequences of stopping work in government offices? Are taxes rising? Since the 2008 election, the decision was to keep taxes cuts for people below $250k and to remove the tax cuts for the rich. Of course, this was shot down by present Congress, so the rich kept their tax cuts too. So who is paying more taxes? This gets back to who gets the short end of the stick. Are you willing to give something up, or are you expecting someone else to? Here again you are assuming that taxes are climbing, or that they'e too high. Usually, firing people doesn't reduce the burden, it just increases it.
You mean gas is more expensive? You mean the income tax cuts for the rich, which Obama has opposed for 4 years? You mean the tax cuts for the rich might finally lapse? But that would be political suicide. Are the middle class getting wealthier compared to the poor? They would seem to be the ones who will crash first. The cliff was the crash of '08-'09. The actual behavior was to liquidate. Steps were taken to stop it, and they worked. They might have worked better if Congress had passed the bills in their original forms, as crafted by the economists who were consulted. Even short of starting riots, politicians worry about ending their careers.
