A Modest Proposal

That doesn’t involve the eating of children.

It occurred to me today that no matter what you think caused this most recent mess, whether it be pushing from Congress to produce loans that were untenable and unwise, or the repeal of governmental controls over the industry, such as the Glass-Steagal Act, that the root of this entire mess all boils down to one thing:

Governmental interference and incompetence affecting the markets. You can argue all day about whether it was democans or republicrats that caused the problem. I don’t really care. The fact is, the government caused it.

Care to argue?

(As an aside, upon researching all of this a bit more, it does appear that the root of the problem stems from the pushing, by congressional members such as Frank and Dodd, to produce more and more “cheap” yet unwise loans in order to “diversify” home ownership. Glass-Steagal merely gave them a method to conceal the problem for a bit longer, by allowing them to securitize the bad debt, but all of this is irrelevant to the main point above, that it was governmental incompetence and interference that caused this mess to begin with).

Of course, the remedy to this mess is the same thing as the cause. More. Governmental. Interference. It boggles the mind, does it not?

Look, it has become abundantly clear to me over the last 8 years that I can no longer hitch my stock to the Republican party (not that I was ever a particularly staunch ally of their’s to begin with). They are the party of cronyism and greed, and big government. I also continue to assert that the Democratic party is no better, and perhaps worse. They are the party of hope, change, and gigantic, nanny-state government juggernauts that suck the life out of the economy, and the American people, in order to pay for it’s insatiable need for more and more of our money to fund programs that we don’t need (or could pay for more efficiently at local levels, ourselves).

I can only hope that the Democratic joins the republican party in a complete implosion, so that the American people are left with the desire to turn to a more freedom-loving alternative that will proceed to reign in the size and scope of our Federal government, and put things back to where they should be. I believe that all people, from all political agendas, can agree with what I’m saying here, and if you take the time to read this proposal, I think you will, too.

PART 1 – The Reduction of Federal Government Power and the Return to Power of the State

If our Founding Fathers understood one thing, it was that a distant, centralized government was wholly incapable of fairly and evenly governing. King George proved to them that a government removed from the people became numb to their petitions and grievances, and simply continued on it’s merry way despite the will of the people. It is for this very reason that the Founding Fathers designed a system of government that would allow LOCAL governments to preside over the people, directly, with one centralized federal government to oversee the actions and interactions of the individual local governments.

This is a common complaint, and not one without merit. How many times have you heard someone mention that Washington, DC just didn’t get life in “X” location? This was anticipated in the development of our government. A perfect example of this is the Federal Minimum Wage Act. How in the name of all that is holy can a centralized, Federal government determine what a fair minimum wage is across all of the states? What is it now, something like $7.50 an hour? That may be a decent (barely) living wage in Topeka, Kansas, or rural Arkansas. But in downtown New York? Los Angeles? Seattle? You couldn’t even pay your utility bills with $7.50 an hour in those more expensive locales. This very clearly illustrates how ludicrous it is for the Federal government to be in the position of determining policy for the people as a whole, don’t you think?

I believe that State governments, and even better, local city and county governments, are much better suited to make the decisions as they pertain to the provision of health care, minimum wage, tax rates, etc, don’t you?

Does it surprise you that this is exactly, to the TEE, what the Founding Fathers had intended upon the development of our great nation? That this is how it used to be, prior to about the 1920’s, when a group called the “progressives” got into the Federal government and started centralizing power? (Second aside: The purpose of this centralization of power was to eventually move us to Communism, which was quite in vogue back in the 20s, being as we had no concrete examples, at the time, of it’s pure and unadulterated evil. In my opinion, the centralization serves no purpose once you remove the desire to become Communist, which I think we have definitely moved past at this point).

PART 2 – The Customization of Local Governments to Local Desires

This is the best part. It is obvious that certain parts of our country have certain desires that are not only different, but divergent and mutually exclusive from those of other parts. A perfect example would be to compare the State of Idaho to the State of New York. Residents of the State of Idaho have no use for government, don’t want it, need it, or expect anything from it besides the creation of municipal water systems, roads, and very, very few other basic, common needs. Residents of the State of New York tend to view the government as a partner in everything that they do. They don’t mind paying more taxes, when it means that the government provides them with transportation, income supplementation, retirement, healthcare and so on and so forth.

The return to power of the State means that this can happen. Each state can custom-tailor their governmental methods and leanings to the specific desires of its constituency. Idaho can be just as small-government conservative as they choose to be, while New York can be as big-government liberal as they choose. The Federal government could never provide this level of satisfaction to the constituency. The Federal government is far too liberal for Idaho’s taste, while being far too conservative for the tastes of those in New York. It cannot be everything to everyone, just as the Founding Fathers understood and anticipated. Delegating the power over the people, directly, back to the individual States, as was originally intended, would almost surely completely heal the right/left divide that we see in America today.

PART 3 – The Re-Organization of the Federal Government

This proposal would likely accomplish two things. First, the Federal government would shrink in size drastically, and second, local and State governments would likely grow, to varying degrees, depending on the desires of the constituency, as detailed in Part 2. However, we must be careful, in this effort, to not let the Federal government shrink too much, nor lose too much power. It was the very impotence and ineffectiveness of the Federal government prior to the 1860s that led to civil war. It was also the centralization of the Federal government’s power that lead, in many ways, to our current status as a superpower. As it were, there are many legitimate functions of government that are best left to a centralized power. Among these are:

1.) Defense;
2.) Grants for research and scientific study (so as to not duplicate efforts);
3.) Environmental protection;
4.) Interstate relationships and commerce;
5.) The control of tariffs, import/export, and ports;
6.) Postal services (though I am becoming more and more convinced that this could as easily become well-regulated private enterprise as opposed to a Federal entity);
7.) The census;
8.) Foreign relations;
9.) Setting of minimum educational standards, which the State must meet in their own way. No more, no less;

Can you think of any others?

Some of these are not powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal government (although they hold them all, and then some, by fiat today), yet I think that they need to keep at least these items. Therefore, I propose that in order to return to a Constitutional government, we pass a Constitutional Amendment specifically granting to the Federal government the powers that they currently hold by fiat, that we choose to continue to let them hold.

Within this proposal, the power of the Federal government to directly tax the people would be eliminated (although many would argue that they do not legally hold that power now). The Federal government would tax the States a fixed amount per State and per individual in that State, for the items that that particular State benefits from. The States would then tax the people in whatever way they saw fit, whether it be an income tax, a consumption tax (sales tax), or what have you. This may also surprise some people, but that, also, is the way that it was originally intended to be. It would also work quite well.

The Federal government would be removed, completely, from the business of providing services directly to the people. Healthcare, welfare, social security, unemployment protection, (am I missing any?) would all become the purview of the individual state. That way, a constituency that would rather save their retirement themselves, and take that risk on themselves, could do so without having to pay into social security, and a constituency that wanted cradle to grave entitlements via taxation could also have that. It allows for more diversity of choice for the people of America. How could that possibly be bad?

Of course, there are going to be some questions along the way, which will be difficult to answer, but I think that we can get through it. We always have before. Some sample questions that I would like to answer, since they already were asked of me earlier today:

Q:) Wouldn’t the return to power of the states cause an even larger inequity in the status of the states? I mean, without federal money, some states would be second, even border line third world!

A:) I don’t think so, and here is why. Arkansas used to be the poorest state in the Union. As a result of this, they had cheap property, a large, available, and inexpensive labor force, and low taxes. Guess what happened? They became attractive to corporations, and now they have Toyota, Nissan, Wal Mart, and a whole slew of other large companies that moved in to take advantage of these benefits. I personally believe that this will open the opportunity for lesser states to become MORE competitive, because they will control their overall tax rates, etc.

Q.) Why did you leave environmental protection under the purview of the Feds?

A.) Because environmental protection is almost (almost) the same thing as interstate commerce. If it were not for the EPA, Idaho would still be dumping toxic heavy metals and poisons from their mine tailings into the Columbia (via the Spokane and Pend Oreille Rivers) and Snake River watersheds, which drain into Washington State. Washington would then be responsible for, and effected by, Idaho’s lax environmental policies, and would have no recourse besides invasion or some other sanction, to remedy the problem. We simply cannot have States quarreling amongst themselves over issues like this. States should not be applying trade sanctions against each other, or sending their National Guard/Militia units in after one another. The Feds need to be in charge of interstate issues, and this is definitely an interstate issue.

Q.) What about foreign aid?

A.) What about it? That falls under the foreign relations heading listed above, and would still be under the purview of the Feds. However, instead of taking the money directly from the people, who have no effective way of stopping the government from doing so (barring non-payment of taxes, which will get you thrown in jail) the Feds will have to get it out of the State governments, who have the ability to fight back, fight against it, form coalitions to stop it or limit it, etc. This will, in effect, give the people more say in what is being done with their money, because they can more easily and effectively leverage their local government to fight for their desires, as opposed to basically being forced through threats of violence , incarceration, and coercion to pay up, sucka, whether you want to or not, as is the current situation.

Q.) What about ideological divisions within the States, themselves? Aren’t there States with large, divergent populations?

A.) Boy, don’t I know it. King county has Washington State by the curleys, for sure. The entire state is a big field of red, with one spot of blue surrounding Seattle. It just so happens that there is a small majority of the population that resides in that one county, so they dictate to the rest of the State who we get to vote for in Federal elections. However, these issues can be more easily dealt with within the State, rather than the entire USA. I can go to Olympia a lot more easily than I can travel to Washington, DC, and once I get there, I will be heard much more clearly, because I am one voice in 5 million, as opposed to one voice in 300 million. Also, each State can choose to delegate more power to county and city authorities, letting each county and city dictate the local way of things, which will more likely fit the needs of that even smaller, more pared down constituency. Lets face it, though. States with mixed populations will tend to be more centrist, while states with big blue, or big red populations will more likely be to one side or the other on the scale. It is still imperfect (no system ever can be) but it is far better than what we are currently faced with.


I am very interested in your input on this idea. It is not a return to a full, as-intended constitutional government, but that is on purpose. There is a reason that we deviated from that in the first place, and that was because as good as our Founding Fathers were, they didn’t get it exactly perfect. The Federal government must have a bit more power than they originally granted to it. However, it will be within the realm of the Constitution once again if we get rid of the government by fiat, and start adding amendments, like we are supposed to do, in order to get the changes that we need and want.

I think my plan will serve to make everyone happy. Folks like HLF can watch on with glee as we greedy good for nothing individualists struggle with the unintended consequences of our political stances, and folks like Steve, Spider, Jimbo, and you other good folks can watch on with glee as the lazy, do-nothing collectivists struggle with unintended consequences of their own. We’ll all prance about, bragging about how much better we are doing than they are (and vice versa), but in the end, we’ll be happy, because we will have a government more in line with what we want, and if we don’t it is a short move across the border to a State with a government that more closely aligns with our individual ideology.

HLF would likely get his socialist utopia, here in Washington, and I could move the 5 miles that I need to move into Idaho, where I could live under a small, conservative government, and commute an extra 5 miles to work every day. Instead of arguing over who is right, we could both live the way we want to live, and let the chips fall where they may. He could probably calm down a bit, stop calling people names so much, and focus on getting up in everyone else’s business in an effort to make the Seattle area a better place, whereas I could live as I choose, without the government telling me how I have to invest my money, which health insurance company I must go to (to get lesser service and coverage than I am already paying for), with lower tax rates, but more direct expenses because the government isn’t giving me anything, and so on and so forth. That would lead me to stop railing on about the liberal agenda, and all that I disagree with about it, because it would not affect me anymore. It would probably cause HLF and his brethren to do the same. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

I’m interested in what HLF will think about this, and the rest of you. What problems can you come up with as they relate to this idea?

Oh, and HLF, since you have become very predictable, would you please refrain from your first response being about how you’ll love to sit by and watch the greedy republicans argue over who has to pay for things, and see the whole mess blah blah blah… and try posting something we haven’t already heard? I am seriously interested in what you think about this, remember that.