Does U.S. Need To Split Along Political Lines?

Investors.com ^ | April 5, 2010 | WALTER WILLIAMS

[rockhardo]

Whatever works. I think Constitutional limits + 2/3 popular vote would be protection, but I’m not one to argue with even more stringent safeguards.

[MrB]

The tendency towards tyranny is one of the consequences of the Fall.

Examine Satan’s lies in Gen 3:4-5,
“you will be like God, knowing good and evil”

In other words, there are those among you that are “elite” and should be deciding right and wrong for everyone else.

[fightinJAG]

Excellent points to ponder.

First, I want to ask you: you talked about an “amicable separation.” I wonder how your points could be handled if there were no separation, just a return to federalism that would then allow the states that did not want to participate in socialism to do so.

Just kicking around some thoughts. Because, yes, what you have said is horribly true in all respects. Clearly, this is not something that would happen overnight.

Bush’s proposed way out of the Social Security mess might be a model or a starting point for a model. The key idea was that there were those who were vested, and would receive what they had planned to receive, and there were those who were not yet vested, who could opt out. Something like this seems to be the only way to phase out such an entitlement and, taking a generation or so to do it, doesn’t seem too bad considering it allows for a stable transition.

Instead of opting out, there might be a way to cut off further Social Security enrollment completely and transition the next generation to a different, state-run or private system.

It wasn’t the young people who were yammering against Bush’s proposed Social Security reforms. It was the Rats using lies to seniors that Bush was going to take their checks that killed Social Security reform.

Bottom line: sometimes it seems hypocritical that people who are so for limited government at the same time don’t want their Social Security or Medicare cut. But that’s precisely based on what you say: these are the people who often have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into these programs over their working lifetime — and who have often never had a dime in government “assistance” until they get Social Security and Medicare. Go see any financial planner and notice that one thing they factor in, even if with an asterisk, is these entitlement payments.

I agree that it’s important to realize the rug cannot be pulled out from under those who have been planning around this entitlement for decades. At the same time, there can be a path to changing the system over a generation.

In the “return to federalism” scenario some have been discussing on this thread, that would be happening concurrently with a generation-long phasing out of the old entitlement programs and a gearing up of new ways (even if entirely private) to meet those goals for/by individuals.

[fightinJAG]

These things require Federal taxes to pay for because they are Federal obligations, and that tax burden dwarfs the tax benefits of moving to one state or another.

One other point on your post:

Yes, even in a "return to federalism" scenario, federal taxes would continue to be necessary to (1) pay for the PROPER functions of the federal government, and (2) clean up this egregious mess the Progs have created and now are speeding toward a tipping point.

However, if the federal government really did stop spending everything else it spends, and federal taxes were capped at what was necessary to do (1) and, gradually over time (2) above, I think you'd still see a HUGE amount of "new" money remaining in the hands of those who earned it and available for state taxation.

Yes, we'd still be paying for stuff, but if most things were done by the states, there'd be much more accountability. But the main thing would be that each state would be able to use funds from its citizens for its citizens and not be forced to pay for the citizens of another state.

So, yes, we'd have to keep paying federal taxes for national defense and national debt type stuff, but imagine if federal Social Security and Medicare (and now Obamacare) programs phased out over the next 40 years. That would be huge.

[fightinJAG]

I don’t understand your point about McCarthyism. Sorry.

I do agree with you on education, morality and responsibility.

However, there is nothing saying that a state could not make it legally (constitutionally) impossible for the legislature to create entitlement programs, raise taxes in certain ways or to certain levels, and so on. IOW, to outlaw the actual vehicles by which a government becomes run along socialist principles.

That’s what I’m saying. This in and of itself would dissuade some people from moving to such states. And if they did move there, they could vote for Socialists all they wanted to, but the State constitution would never allow socialist policies to be enacted.

[fightinJAG]

no taxation at the interstate level -- all taxes must be state or local.

I just posted about the continued need for SOME federal taxation. We were talking about how we could possibly phase out Social Security and Medicare and also handle other federal obligations.

HOWEVER. The amount of federal taxes needed to do this would be miniscule compared to what we are paying now, not only for skyrocketing entitlements, but for Honey Bee Research in Indiana and doggie poop bag boxes at parks in Alabama. Read: PORK.

If we greatly decreased federal taxes to the amount necessary to fund a limited, proper federal government, and also required all further taxes to be state or local, there would be an incredible resurgence in America.

[Axeslinger]

Not an attack here, but your view is short-sighted. The problem isn't that "someone in government ignores or attacks the Constitution". The problem is that a significant portion of the citizens of this country SUPPORT that viewpoint. And they enthusiastically support the opposition's defeat.

How do any two peoples reconcile their differences when they are DIAMETRICALLY opposite from one another? I don't want to live in the country they're trying to make (and as a veteran, that grieves me to say). They don't want to live in the country I would like to make. Potentially, each side is willing to die for their beliefs...so, I ask again - how is that reconciled?

[Red Boots]

Many Conservatives have had so much taken from us over the 30 or 40 years of our careers to fund this idiocy that we can’t afford to retire without it.

I'm in this boat. However, if the opportunity arose to live in freedom, but I had to relinquish any claim to either Social Security or Medicare , I'd do it in a heartbeat. I wouldn't want my children to have to bear that burden- it's unfair. I'd just have to chalk it up to the bad breaks of life. It'd be worth it to be free, and to have my children and yours also be free.

As for the many seniors who would also be in this situation, we'd band together to make a life for ourselves. We are perfectly capable of doing it, we don't need the government to do it for us. It would be a privilege to serve each other that way.

[Axeslinger]

Thanks for that link...I've been espousing a similar proposition on several threads here on FR. I knew that surely my thoughts could not have been that original.

Let the Feds tax the states, let the states tax their citizens.

[Axeslinger]

First, thanks for all your thoughts throughout this thread.

Second, there WOULD be federal taxation, but it would be derived, or "billed" as it were, to the states. How to divvy those taxes up equitably between the states is a matter for a separate discussion.

Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with your desire for a return to Federalism and its incumbent state's powers. My very grave concern is that it is virtually impossible with nearly half the population supporting a diametrically opposite viewpoint of the role of government. In several generations, education MIGHT be able to counter some of this thinking, but when the other side controls education, how is one to even start making those inroads...before time runs out.

[MrB]

It’s not just that their views are diametrically in opposition.

Someone can prefer the color black and another white and each think that their preference is superior without causing strife.

The real problem is that one group insists on the enslavement of the other group and is willing to use force to implement their goals, and the other group insists that they not be enslaved.

This is a situation that requires a separation or a violent conflict to resolve.

[Safrguns]

>>> I don’t understand your point about McCarthyism. Sorry.

My point about McCarthyism was that this country has been fighting communism on the inside for a long time, and what we are dealing with now in Obama is nothing new.

from Wick: McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. The term specifically describes activities associated with the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from the late 1940s to the late 1950s and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

McCartyism itself is a negative label against anyone who would question the patriotism of a fellow lawmaker. Even though the threat was real, the tactics used to expose anti-American figures turned into sort of a witch hunt that backfired on the anti-communist efforts.

A similar term one might use today would be "Birther".

Even though the issue is legitimate, those who are demanding evidence of eligibility have been effectively silenced for fear of being called a birther.

[Axeslinger]

Yes, of course.

I actually posed the question to my resident crazy-a$$ liberal at work. If 9-11, for instance, could only bring us together for about 6 months, how do two groups of people with such vastly different viewpoints on how the country should be run, ever coexist?

He conceded my point and admitted that he saw no way either.

[fightinJAG]

Thanks for elaborating on that for me. I wasn’t sure where you were going with it. And, yes, I agree with you completely on the internal threat to freedom.

[Jack Black]

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_AcUcmQa6xbA/SPOwgCVpsWI/AAAAAAAAA9Q/xPIBqZ-gvVs/51600011small.jpg

[Jack Black]

oops, there we go!

[fightinJAG]

Some of the practical concerns about transitioning from the Eurosocialistweenie Road to Serfdom that we are on now to federalism lies in that this would also — very important, within new financial constraints — gives states freedom to continue to pursue or even expand statist policies.

IOW, there would be enclaves where people who support that form of government could go to be under statist State governments.

(Of course, until the money ran out. Shhhh!)

[fightinJAG]

Good discussion is still happening on this thread. Thanks to Walter Williams for the thought-provoking article and to you for posting it.

I can’t even imagine this level of intellectual and thoughtful discourse taking place at . . . other sites.

[fightinJAG]

In several generations, education MIGHT be able to counter some of this thinking, but when the other side controls education, how is one to even start making those inroads...before time runs out.

Another thought on your fine post.

We were talking elsewhere upthread about Bush's proposed model for transistioning out of Social Security. Basically, treating some people as vested and allowing those who were not vested to opt out. In the federalism scenario, you should be able to have many different ideas come to the fore about how or whether to do a "social security" type entitlement.

But what do you think? It seems to me that simply closing new enrollment to these programs (however you get there, see above) is the best education of all! The only reason people depend on these programs and plan their lives around them is because they exist (and earners are forced to fund them).

In the "return to federalism" scenario, only the Red states would tend toward accepting fewer state services in exchange for less taxation. And only the Red states would even consider returning to a system of individual responsibility, with a reliance on private (targeted, accountable and local) charity to provide a community-based safety net. (I would truly love to be able to better exercise my God-given obligations to help my fellow man by not having my charitable giving forced by and outsourced to the government.)

Those who didn't like that would stay in statist states or move there. Then they could figure out what to do next when the state's monies ran out. If the state could keep going because it had a lot of very wealthy people willing to fund statist policies, okay.

But I do think you can accomplish this without having the need for people who love socialism to understand or agree that socialism presents problems. They just get educamated by TOUGH LOVE, the Thatcher reality that you eventually run out of other people's money, if that comes about.

[Axeslinger]

I agree with your theories with the downstream effects of Federalism...wholeheartedly.

My point is that I don't believe...or rather, I fear, that Federalism has little chance of gaining a foothold in the first place, given the divided nature of the populace.

We see these first little "green shoots" of Federalism with the state's lawsuits in opposition to the healthcare debacle, gun rights, etc. If those take root (pardon the pun), we may be able to save this union and your propositions may have the opportunity to bear fruit. However, those lawsuits may also be merely a band-aid on an amputation, if further steps are not taken. And finally, those lawsuits may be the death knell of this once-great country if they fail to result in a return to Federalism. Remember this battle is not taking place in a vacuum, the other side will be fighting each of these steps tooth and nail.

Is that enough mixed metaphors? :o)