Contact
Federalism is key to America’s future
Paul J. Gessing
Without actually debating the issue head on, the concept of federalism is back as a central focus of American political debates. Federalism, at least as conceived by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, meant that the central government in Washington had a few, strictly-limited powers, but that an overwhelming majority of what was to be done was to be left to the states and people.
The belief that Washington’s powers were few and limited was so important to the founders that two separate amendments essentially re-stated this. The 10th amendment clarifies the issue, simply stating, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
To say that we have strayed far from this concept over the past 225 years or so would be an understatement. Federal policies now dictate state actions in education, health care, environmental policy, and a wide variety of other regulatory powers (to name just a few).
None of the aforementioned policy areas were named in the Constitution and, given the strict limits placed on federal activities, it seems worthwhile to at least discuss whether Washington has a role in these policy areas at all. But we have obviously crossed that bridge in the courts and Congress, and now we have a $14 trillion federal debt to show for it.
Pragmatic principles
Rather than relying on constitutional principles alone, it is time to restore federalism based on three basic, pragmatic principles:
- States can and should compete with each other and should provide 50 “laboratories of democracy” instead of one centralized government in Washington.
- Americans can no longer rely on government debt and cost-shifting to continue favored government programs. In other words, if the citizens of a given state want the government to provide certain goods and services, the citizens of that state should pay for them.
- The citizens of New Mexico are likely to want a different government than the citizens of Maine.
Rep. Paul Ryan most recently spurred this discussion in the areas of Medicaid and Medicare (so-called “entitlements) as well as the food-stamp program. This is an important step. It is even more important to recognize that the block-grant model worked (on a bipartisan basis) in the 1990s when President Clinton and a Republican Congress successfully reformed welfare.
The “entitlements” are the biggest programs, but the federal role in education has had no positive impact, and federal housing policies and programs in fact led to the recent housing bubble. These are just a few areas that would be better managed by the states.
Both sides must agree
Efficiency and responsiveness to local needs will likely improve under the federalist model I’ve outlined above, but the more important reason for a dramatic devolution of government to the states is the out-of-control debt. New Mexico, like other states, must balance its budget every year. Unlike Washington, we can’t just borrow more money or print it in a dangerous economic game of “chicken.”
These constraints force prioritization and avoid the issue of Washington bribing us with our own money, as is currently done in Medicaid, where New Mexico receives three federal dollars for every one dollar we spend on the program.
Liberals and conservatives can and should debate the relative size of government and what it provides in their respective states. Citizens of some states will likely want more government spending and higher taxes while others would likely opt for a more minimalist government. The beauty is that we could “vote with our feet” by moving to the place that suits us.
Regardless of one’s preferences, both sides must agree that our current situation is unsustainable and that sticking others – whether they live in other states or in future generations – is simply wrong. Restoring a truly “federal” government as the founders of our nation intended would resolve many of today’s thorniest problems.
Paul J. Gessing is the president of New Mexico’s Rio Grande Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational organization dedicated to promoting prosperity for New Mexico based on principles of limited government, economic freedom and individual responsibility.
17 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What is it about those associated with the Rio Grande Foundation that they write columns consisting of unsupported assertions and then refuse to respond to criticisms except by silence, citations to ideological sources, or personal attack?
My answer is that they cannot stand scrutiny and cannot address the issues raised by criticism of views held as extensions of their core identities..
qofdisks:
I certainly don’t disagree, but since Mr. Molitor did choose to make the emphasis on professional qualifications (which I’m fairly sure everyone already knew the answer to) in the same thread of comments in which he’d also unwisely claimed that I lacked understanding of something for which my “on paper” qualifications easily trumped his own, it was far too easy to resist.
What is this emphasis on credentials and degrees? We are blog commentators. Expertize is only important for the guy writing the article. His cred can be brought into question perhaps, but the rest of us may or may not just be average pendejos. Degrees and formal education is not very well related to wisdom. As adults with active minds, we continue to learn and pick up information from any and all sources. I would welcome comments from any wise person with ideas regardless of education or expertize. As bloggers, it is fair game to shoot holes in each other’s logic, but not so much at each other. The point is to try to learn from each other, see other points of view on topics and come up with some solutions for serious problems in this non-linear world.
I for one enjoy shooting holes in Paul J. Gessing’s reasoning because so much of it is just wrong and indefensible in the context of what is best for the common good and sustainability. With his backing coming from The Rio Grande Foundation, it is interesting to see the mentality working against the working and middle class that is transforming our nation into a third world class country.
Some questions and an elaboration of aprevious comment.
Paul, you write, “The belief that Washington’s powers were few and limited was so important to the founders that two separate amendments essentially re-stated this. The 10th amendment clarifies the issue, simply stating, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Question: which “two separate amendments”?
Questions: is the tenth one of them or a clarification of them?
Questions: what is the tenth clarifying?
Elaboration: if these one, two, or three amendments are “so important to the founders,” I find the centrality of the “federalism” which they presumably address oddly situated as amendments. I would think that something so important, itc., to them would not have been an add-on two years later than the Constitution itself. Perhaps you can explain the discrepancy between the position of the tenth as the last of the first ten amendments approved after a lapse of two-years, and the importance which you impute to it.
Thomas Molitor advises Icarus Phoenix that he “might be a better informed commentator if you started your day with a few minutes of reading the Constitution.” From the businessman who espouses economic views but cannot defend them from criticism except by personal attacks, we have this wisdom that the meaning of the Constitution is somehow self-evident to any reader (if he or she agrees with Molitor; otherwise, they have spent too much time in the New Mexican sun or something). Except that it is not, as the Founding Fathers so well knew: thus, the Judicial Branch as defined by the Constitution provides for the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. I wonder whether those who claim to read the Constitution actually read the all, even any, of it.
Paul Gessing apparently thinks the Constitution means only what he wants it to mean, not what the courts have established it to mean in over two centuries. I do not expect Paul to be a legal scholar or, as an oil-and-gas man, to have much understanding of Constitutional law; I do expect him to have a sufficient knowledge of American history, perhaps as taught in high school, to know that the kind of government which he advocates here was defined by the Articles of Confederation (1783), which took fewer than half a dozen years to prove its worthlessness; the result was the Constitution, which established a strong central government. The last of the first ten amendments was a giveaway to people like Paul. But the general intent of the Constitution and the purpose of government appear in the Preamble; those terms are general ones which permit a great deal. For instance, Paul, what does “General Welfare” mean and why do you think that it does not properly encompass Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a whole lot more–which permit a great deal. By the way, the Constitution does not provide for any particular economic system; nowhere does it mention mercantilism, capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other economic ism.
This-back-to-the-past-to-move-into-the-future-because-I-hate-modern-America-and-the-modern-world-to-boot silliness is so infantile and uninformed that, arguably coming from adults, it astonishes someone who is used to such stuff in Freshman English classes and Sophomore bull sessions.
The answer to that question, Mr Molitor, is political science, history, and (for bizarre reasons I’ll not go into for now) anthropology. However, my experience in economics is, by unfortunate necessity, rather more intricate than I would like (to be quite frank, as an academic discipline, I rather distrust the whole field), and it hardly takes an economic degree to notice that more of the theories promoted by yourself and Mr. Gessing are frequently mathematically questionable… to say nothing of historically and legally unsound.
That being said, it was rather foolish of you to try that tack with someone whom you had just accused of having no understanding of the Constitution. Put simply, if we were to compare mere academic disciplines, who do you think is going to have the better grasp of the document in question: the political scientist and historian, or the economist? I would have thought ten seconds of logical thought would have told you that was an unwise argument to make under the circumstances…
@IP
Do you even a degree in economics, IP? I do. Please clarify your educational degrees.
Mr. Gessing, states are already allowed to do those things; is there Federal over-reach? Of course. Indeed, in your three examples, the over-reach in the first is well-documented, and in the second we have laws like DOMA that blatently violate the Constitutional requirement that states honor each other’s contracts. Therein lies your problem; you are completely incapable of realizing that not only are you promoting a specifically anti-Federalist viewpoint, but that your proposals would actually lead to fewer rights for individuals, not more, for they would involve scrapping large swaths of the Constitution. I also like the part where, in your self-imposed blind ignorance, you seem incapable of noticing that the actions of one state affect the surrounding states… which is why we scrapped the Confederation system that you actually think we adopted. My favorite part of your last post is the end:
Once again, Mr. Gessing, you have shown that you’re either a really bad economist, or you actively disdain the 95% of Americans who don’t have six-figure incomes. I’m hoping it’s the former. How exactly do you propose states with lesser infrastructure and natural resources pay for these things? Your non-existent grasp of American history is superseded only by your inability to do basic math.
Mr. Molitor:
Therein lies your problem (and your colleagues, of course). I read the Constitution, and then I move on to read the history surrounding the document’s inception, the documents that came before it (including those rightfully discarded), and over two centuries of American jurisprudence stemming from the document. You read the Constitution from the frame of mind that it means something specific, and conveniently enough, you find the meaning you were searching for. Of course, to do so, you end up obsessing over little things like the tenth amendment (which no court since the end of the Civil War has ever upheld the meaning you’ve given it), and in the process manage to ignore large swaths of the Constitution… like Article II and the entirety of the Fourteenth Amendment. In short, there’s two versions of our Constitution in this conversation; there’s the heavily annotated and dog-eared copy referencing specific legal and historical precedents that I keep in my pocket, and then there’s the version in your head that quite frankly is based on self-imposed ignorance and a desire to refight a Civil War that people with your viewpoint lost… quite badly, actually.
The North won the Civil War. This argument for returning to some kind of Southern anti-federalism is pandering to the teabagger base with absolutely no intention of carrying it out.
I have found that both Democrats and Republicans only respect state’s rights when it is politically convenient. Or in this case, it would serves the purpose of divide and conquer for further corporate wealth stripping. The inconsistency is annoying. Republicans especially run for federal office on pro- state’s rights and propagandize the virtue of divisiveness and then do an about face once in power.
State’s power is especially applied for social and issues of subjective morality such as reproductive rights, LGBT, medical marijuana etc. The states usually over step the constitution before the federal courts have to rein them in. An example is the constitutionality of the authoritarian rules for undocumented immigrates in Az.
I for one, think that it would be a good idea to let individual states come up with their own version of healthcare to some limited extent but only if state’s healthcare systems are prevented from being entrenched by conflicts of interests and bribery of politicians by status quo. Since evolution of systems is not possible under the current state government via bribery, states will be unable to adopt better, more cost effective healthcare plans proven by other states such as Vermont.
On the points:
“States can and should compete with each other and should provide 50 “laboratories of democracy” instead of one centralized government in Washington.”
Why? Is there any evidence that this would be better for the citizens or it this a divide and conquer strategy to enable big businesses to circumvent hard won federal standards for environmental protections, civil liberties, labor laws etc.? This sounds like a sure fire recipe for a race to the bottom.
“Americans can no longer rely on government debt and cost-shifting to continue favored government programs. In other words, if the citizens of a given state want the government to provide certain goods and services, the citizens of that state should pay for them.”
This is not a beneficial move for a state like NM and your proposing it here, in NM, would constitute a simple case of “voting against their own interest”. The logic of pooling all the states resources together to support a wider citizenry is the same as that of broadening an insurance base to reduce risk. Plenty of individual states lack the resources and income to support their population and NM is one of them. NM is poor because we don’t have very much water to support industry. Now our agricultural base is under threat by the Texas water grab so we will be even more destitute.
“The citizens of New Mexico are likely to want a different government than the citizens of Maine.”
This is more of the exploitive right-wing ideal of divide and conquer. States do have accommodation for differences in resources and landscape, but all people have a common humanity with the same requirements for qualitative life and dignity.
For all you naysayers, remember that for every state you don’t like (Arizona and Texas have been mentioned), federalism would give the liberal states (California and Vermont, for example) the chance to enact their own, more liberal policies. Drug legalization, gay marriage, and environmental protection to name just a few. There would be both a learning process in terms of states adopting ideas from others on a “trial and error” basis and there would also be a greater tendency of folks to sort themselves into the places that reflect their values.
From a fiscally-conservative point of view, the best feature of this is that all spending and programs would need to be paid for and would be paid for by the states in which they are enacted.
@IP
You might be a better informed commentator if you started your day with a few minutes of reading the Constitution.
Yea, Mr. Gessing, just give the states more power to abandon civil liberties, invoke segretation policies, dilute freedom of the press, establish their own military, etc. Sounds like you want them all to become independent states or to have more reason to secede from the union. And what if one state is more attractive than others and people flock by the millions to live there? You think they might adopt immigration laws and build fences? Sound far-fetched? Yes, maybe like Texas and Arizona are doing even now.
You know, just yesterday, I was thinking that it had been quite some time since Mr. Gessing had graced us with one of his tirades against reality, and lo, he delivers with an entire piece centered around a belief that the definition of Federalism is in fact the very system that it was designed to replace and an interpretation of the tenth amendment that pre-dates the Civil War. I particularly like the part where he ends it with an absolute belief that everyone must agree with his fantasies. Thank you, Mr. Gessing; I do enjoy starting my day with a hearty chuckle.
Paul, let’s start with this idea: Restore the Founding Fathers’ vision of a strictly-limited central government by strictly limiting its power to tax.
Federalism has grown because it can (1) print fiat currency to fund its insatiable desire to take on debt, and (2) legally plunder wealth from people and then buy votes with that stolen wealth.
Replace the Progressive Tax System with a 10 percent Equal-Rate System.
The progressive tax system is one of the roots of monstrous growth of Federalism because if creates an infinite demand for government services which is the major cause of the growth of Federalism. How so?
IRS figures show that the upper 50 percent of income earners in America pay nearly 97 percent of all income taxes collected. The lower 50 percent of income earners pay 4 percent. The bottom 25 percent pay zero taxes. This means nearly half of America does not pay federal income tax at all.
This creates a “something for nothing” voter mindset that produces an infinite demand for government services.
The progressive tax system should be replaced with a equal-rate income tax system.
An equal-rate income tax system means an across-the-board 10 percent tax rate on all individuals and businesses – no exemptions, deductions or privileges.
What will happen if an equal-rate income tax system is implemented? An immediate downsizing of the federal government. After all, if every American has skin in the game they may no longer want all the excessive government spending if they have to pay for it proportionally out of their own pockets.
Tax reform and monetary reform (the powers of the central bank) are two paths that will lead this country back to its Founding Fathers’ vision.
http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Understand-21st-Century-18th-Century/dp/B0020MMBMG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306325199&sr=8-1
Great book regarding the “Return to the Founders” mentality.
And we should return to the “True Intent of the Founders” 3/5ths, no women voters, Lets do away with Senator’s being elected by popular vote (Founder’s intention was to have State Legislatures choose the Senators) Lets do away with the presidential term limits, and bring back the poll tax, etc.
The past always looks good because we can view it how we want, we dont have to take a complete view.
And water is wet & fire is hot…