As I have not done a reminder in a while, first a bit of a review:
1) There is NO government money. There are detailed explanations in other posts on this blog as well as many other sites. Just know that any time you hear something is being paid for with "federal funds", a "federal grant", "State funds'' or any other euphemism for government money, know what it really means is - taxpayer's money - either current or future.
2) Corporations DON'T pay taxes! PEOPLE PAY TAXES! You can put whatever tax rate you want to on Corporations and the taxes will be paid by their customers eventually. I have seen arguments that try to explain why the taxes will be paid by the company due to market forces or other reasons. This is not true in almost all cases. Every Corporate P&L (financial statement/planning) has a line item for taxes. It is a cost of doing business and computed into the finances like any other cost and built into the price of their wares/services.
There are other "truths" that I have outlined in other posts, but those are the two that I wish everyone could grasp.
Now for the main idea of this post:
We the people are at a strange time in our history. It used to be that people were divided and separated by political party just as we are today but the overarching goal for the country as a whole was pretty uniform. Now, we still differ on the path but we also differ on the end result. This is compared to a group trip where multiple vehicles are used. Formerly all the drivers would agree on a destination, if a long trip maybe even interim destinations during the trip. However, they may not always have agreed on the exact route. They may have started their journey from slightly different locations or had a route that took them to pick up a traveler that was unable to join at the very start. One may have used a new bypass that the other was not aware of or did not think was better. One may have avoided a particular route that involved bridges, toll roads, or some other impediment that they did not want to negotiate. However, they all knew that they would meet up at their agree upon final destination at some point. Now we not only have different routes politically, we do not even agree on the goal or destination. We are torn in where we are going and how we are to get there.
The Founders set up our Federal government to be contentious and to move slowly on most change. The Senate particularly was set up to be a slow and deliberative body with equal representation for all States. This was where a State like Rhode Island with a small geographic area as well as a smaller population would have equal say as the larger more populous States. There are (and were even more) rules and procedures that allow a small number of Senators to slow down and/or even stop a bill or resolution even if a majority is in favor of the bill. The Founders were greatly worried about and understood the downside of a true democracy - that of a 51% majority jamming through everything they wanted even if 49% disagreed. That is why we are a representative republic and why the Senate in particular has (or had in some cases) rules to allow for a minority to slow things down. Now, both parties have had occasion to change rules to "streamline" the actions and debate in the Senate. They have felt hamstrung and held back from carrying out what they wanted by the rules. These changes have come back to haunt each party at some point in the future once they were out of the majority.
The Founders, for the most part, were very concerned about a very powerful Federal government. (there were some that felt the opposite, but even they knew that absolute power in the Federal government would be troublesome and could lead to abuses similar to the Monarchy that they were leaving) They saw the day-to-day interactions of the government with the people being at the local level first. This was where the government was most responsive to the population and most aware of the issues and problems of each locale. Then the State government would be the next level of interaction and would be the identity that most would "rally around". (this raises a totally different topic maybe for another day that most do not understand when discussing the US Civil War. Most of the population felt they were fighting for their State, not their country. When their State seceded from the Union (or did not) they felt honor bound to support it) The States were to be a nexus of power with their own legislatures, courts, and executive branches to handle the majority of governing.
The Federal government was necessary to deal with other countries for trade (without it you might have two States dealing for the same trade deal and cutting each other down), for handling diplomatic relations - up to and including war if necessary, and for handling debt incurred in the Revolutionary War (and other items later). It was not felt that the Federal government and Federal laws would have a great impact on the day-to-day lives of most people. This has been changed greatly with Federal law and taxes having a great impact almost universally. There are posts on this site where I discuss the obligations and requirements of each of the three branches of government, so I will not go into as much detail here.
The Executive branch (the office of the President, Vice-President, the Cabinet, and all the government agencies) is one area that has become quite unwieldy. The human quest for power has driven the Executive branch into a mammoth and powerful home to almost 3 million employees! (technically the Armed Forces is part of the Executive branch and that adds another 1.3+ million) The problem is, these people outside of the President and VP are not elected. Most are not even directly appointed by the President/VP. they are just hired as bureaucrats. However, they are given immense power. In my opinion, as well as many Constitutional scholars, too much power that has been given to them in most cases by a Legislative branch that has not lived up to its obligations. For example, the EPA passes regulations that have the power of law and adds immeasurable costs to businesses and people throughout the country. Instead of passing specific laws that direct people to achieve a specific goal, they Legislative branch will pass a non-specific law that says the CO2 output needs to be reduced to some lower number. The actual rules and regulations are left to the bureaucrats that are not elected and not answerable to the people or businesses they are regulating.
I think a lot of our "arguments" could be resolved or at least mitigated by returning the power to the local and State levels. For example, the abortion issue. Roe vs Wade should have never been passed. I am firmly in favor of it being overruled. (for the record, I have no problem in abortion on demand -even as birth control - in the first trimester. Later in the pregnancy requires more space than I am willing to give to it here) I then think the laws need to be reviewed and or written/rewritten in each State to reflect the will of the people. If abortion on demand is the something that someone desires, they move to that State. If a ban on abortion is something that someone desires, they can move there. The State should be a reflection of the majority of the voting population in the State and then people could live where their ideals were being met. This could work with other contentious issues as well. It is not a panacea by any means. People could cross State lines to obtain products or procedures that were banned in their State. (in fact that is the only argument for Federal laws that makes sense) This could be resolved over time with agreements between States. Our "destinations" could be more agreed upon at the State level than they will ever be at the national area.
Sorry, this rambles a bit and is not exactly what I set out to write when I started, but in my defense it was done over two days. I am much better when I do something from beginning to end in one sitting. I hope it offers some ideas for thought and discussion.
Comments