Politics, Government & Public Policy: March 2010 Archives
Williams G. Shipman proposes an interesting idea for changing the political balance of power between states and the federal government. (The Washington Times headline writer leaves much to be desired.)
If America wishes to change this trajectory, it needs new and bold thinking. Here is one candidate: Repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (ratified Feb. 3, 1913) which gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, and replace it with an amendment that requires each state to remit to the federal government a certain percent of its tax revenue. This would change the game. Here's why:Let's assume that each state would have to transfer one-third (it could be a different ratio) of its tax-and-fee revenue to the federal government. The federal government would have to constrain its spending, for it would not control its source of revenue. New programs would be severely limited because there would be no authority to finance them. This dynamic would force the creation of new programs by the states because they would still have the authority to tax. The federal government could still issue debt, but given the discipline of markets, this would be self-limiting because the government would not be able to tax in order to pay principal and interest when due. New entitlements would be limited for the same reason. Federal spending ultimately would be limited to the necessities of government. Other spending and programs would now be the states' purview. But here, too, the dynamic would change.
Under the assumption that one-third of state revenue goes to Washington, each state would have to raise taxes equal to 150 percent of any program's cost. This premium would compete in the open market, which could provide the same service for one-third less. States would find it difficult to persuade their residents to pay such a premium. This would be true even if our country had only one state. But with 50 states, each would be constrained not only by the price premium but by the competition from the other 49 states. More goods and services would be provided by the market because the costs would be less. State governments would be priced out because of the one-third transfer, and the federal government would be constrained because it would have no taxing authority, even though it would have tax revenue. Goods and services would be provided by markets through the free decisions of producers and consumers, and at a fraction of government costs.
I like the idea, but I'm not sure it would be more effective than simply repealing the 17th Amendment which enabled the direct election of Senators. If state legislatures were once again empowered to select Senators, the federal government would immediately become more local and more responsive to the needs of the states.
Maybe we could do both?
It's not at all clear to me that he has the authority, but Missouri Republican Lt. Governor Peter Kinder is seeking to join a multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare... despite lack of support from our Democrat governor and attorney general.
Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, the state's lone Republican statewide official, announced today he will seek to join a lawsuit led by 13 attorneys general across the country to stop President Obama's health care reform from being enacted.As a constitutional officer and the state's official senior advocate, Kinder claims he has the right to become a party to the lawsuit on the state's behalf.
"I intend to join with officials from 13 other states to challenge the legality of this federal health care bill and any unconstitutional provision" it may contain, Kinder told reporters.
I definitely support the states' efforts to oppose Obamacare, but I think this announcement by Kinder is mostly a publicity stunt intended to draw attention and put pressure on our other statewide elected officials.
(HT: RB.)
Representative democracy is dead in America. The Democrat's forcing of their health care takeover in direct opposition to the will of the people is just the latest demonstration that our government is no longer operating with the consent of the governed. Fortunately we still live under a Constitution that empowers us to overturn this horrendous abuse of power in November, and I'm confident that we will. The Democrats should be thankful for the Constitution, because if there weren't an election looming I expect they'd be facing crowds with torches and pitchforks.
To motivate you for November, ruminate on how the Democrats got 60 Senators.
Mary Landreiu - wins by 5788 votes, after fraudulent vote counting - goes on to win with incumbent advantages Al Franken - loses on election night, but with help of ACORN Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, gets votes counted that are left in cars, are double counted, and are viewed differently in Democratic districts than Republican ones.Paul Kirk - Massachusetts state legislature changes law after Teddy Kennedy dies to allow governor to name replacement, despite changing the law in 2004 to prevent governor from naming replacement.
Frank Lautenberg - Robert Torricelli withdraws from the campaign against his Republican challenger after taking illegal contributions. New Jersey Supreme Court changes the law to allow Lautenberg, a former Senator to take his place, despite a clear law stating this can not happen (bonus points - this same issue came up in Texas with Tom Delay. His name was left on the ballot, and Democrat Nick Sampson won a narrow contest).Arlen Specter - switches allegiance to Democrats when his vote on stimulus funding ruins his primary chances. Given committee assignments to make switch. Now a lapdog.
Jim Webb - Washington Post decides to make macaca most important aspect of 2006 campaign. Running dozens of stories has an effect - Webb wins by a few thousand votes.Mark Begich - wins election by less than 4000 votes after Ted Stevens is indicted. Stevens indictment is thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct after the election.
Channel your anger into action.
An insightful chart that illustrates how President Obama is remaking the process of governing.
(HT: Paul in Houston and Americans for Prosperity.)
