Should We Have A Smaller Federal Government?

[mark46]

The open question is why we want decision-making to be at the federal level, even if we are insistent of having the federal governments take from the rich (states) and give to the poor (states). The is little evidence that the government is very efficient in federal programs, other than the passing out of checks (Social Security).

SOME THOUGHTS
1) Let the people of individual states decide how to distribute federal funds sent to them, subject to discrimination laws, and other restrictions.
2) Democrats should get on board with regard to the reduction in tax rates and lower program costs. Then the Democratic states will be MORE able to serve their own citizens. States like CA are quite large enough to have their own healthcare systems. States should be allowed to form compacts with other states to purchase services. Insurance companies should be able to sell policies that available in more than one states, to increase the size of the insurance pool. Of course, some states might opt for a state run healthcare system.
3) We might consider not having the federal government decide on the social service priorities of individual states.
4) There are many responsibilities that MUST be managed at a federal level: federal taaxation, military, homeland security, environmental protection, energy, workplace safety, drug safety, voting rights, justice for federal crimes, civil rights, and the basic safety net of Social Security, Medicare and Romneycare.

BOTTOM LINE
Let us put get the stimulus bills passed. Let's clean up Obamacare and a public option (or a large tax credit for using state or insurance systems. And then let us move on to truly federal issues such as the environment.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The farther government is from the citizen the less likely it will be that government serves that citizen well. We have local governments in place. Let them be where the most power lies to impact the individual citizens within the system. If it was up to me. the federal government's sole functions would be to see to the national defense and to adjudicate disputes between and among States.

 

[Basil the Great]

Should we? Perhaps, perhaps not, but either way, the government keeps getting bigger and will probably keep doing so, unless and until the budget deficit finally forces massive budget cuts....

 

[mark46]

Should we? Perhaps, perhaps not, but either way, the government keeps getting bigger and will probably keep doing so, unless and until the budget deficit finally forces massive budget cuts....

or reversals of trillion dollar tax giveaways

 

[mark46]

I think that we need to be real.

Current tax rates cannot support what the federal government spends. And we need to spend trillions to improve our infrastructure, especially our transportation system.

We will eventually bite the bullet and raise gasoline taxes to pay for roads and bridges. Unless we act soon, there will lots less gasoline to tax.

I would note that the Trump Tax Bonanza For The Rich provides for major tax increases for individuals starting in 2026, and of course no increase for corporations. I don't see these increases being reversed.

Sadly, I don't see the federal government being able to pass tax increases anywhere near enough to fund the social service that the vast majority of people want. We need to face this and allow the states to take more of the burden. Obviously, the Northeast and West Coast states will readily provide for their citizens and some other states who are willing to pay the required higher taxes. Other states like Texas and Florida, not so much.

 

[Desk trauma]

Sadly, I don't see the federal government being able to pass tax increase anywhere near enough to fund the social service that the vast majority of people want. We need to face this and allow the states to take more of the burden. Obviously, the Northeast and West Coast states will readily provide for their citizens and some other states who are willing to pay the required higher taxes. Other states like Texas and Florida, not so much.

If the burden of caring for citizens was more placed on state funded programs I think that Texas and Florida would step as they would have the economic means and there would be a push for citizens to do so. The problem would be found in the basket case states such as Mississippi who, if federal support was greatly lessened or removed, would be on near equal footing with Equatorial Guinea.

 

[mark46]

If the burden of caring for citizens was more placed on state funded programs I think that Texas and Florida would step as they would have the economic means and there would be a push for citizens to do so. The problem would be found in the basket case states such as Mississippi who, if federal support was greatly lessened or removed, would be on near equal footing with Equatorial Guinea.

Who are the states in such a situation? Aren't they all Republican states, other then FL and TX (as you noted).

Why should continue the farce in DC, where the Democrats INSIST on paying monies to the Republican states, and Republicans insist that the amounts should be lower.

 

[mark46]

If the burden of caring for citizens was more placed on state funded programs I think that Texas and Florida would step as they would have the economic means and there would be a push for citizens to do so. The problem would be found in the basket case states such as Mississippi who, if federal support was greatly lessened or removed, would be on near equal footing with Equatorial Guinea.

If that is the case, REPUBLICANS in Washington should be the ones proposing the large transfer of money.

And perhaps, even in many of the rural states, the states would step up some. Now, they just leave welfare costs to the feds, and do other things with their state monies.

 

[Speedwell]

So I clicked into this thread expecting a wide-ranging discussion on the size of the Federal Government, and all it turned out to be was just another complaint about social safety net programs.

 

[Clare73]

Should We Have A Smaller Federal Government?

Absolutely! The sooner the better, but don't hold your breath.

 

[Speedwell]

Should We Have A Smaller Federal Government?

Absolutely! The sooner the better, but don't hold your breath.

How would you have it become smaller? What would you do away with?

 

[Clare73]

How would you have it become smaller? What would you do away with?

Some departments altogether, many bureaucrats, for starters.

Am I mistaken, or hasn't at least one new department been created in the last two months?

 

[Speedwell]

Some departments altogether, many bureaucrats, for starters.

Which departments?

Am I mistaken, or hasn't at least one new department been created in the last two months?

Hadn't heard of it--what is it supposed to do?

 

[Clare73]

Which departments?

I'd have to do some homework for an informed answer to that. . .don't intend to do it until it would matter.

 

[Ringo84]

No.

Smaller government as it has been popularly understood for the past 40 or so years - cutting services to the marrow to make room for raining money on billionaires and defense contractors - only serves to make the poorer poorer and the richer richer.

The same people who complain that "gummint can't do nuthin' right" because of bad public schools, pothole-laden roads and unresponsive government are some of the same ones who make it that way by electing Republicans who lead them down the primrose path with false promises of "low taxes == everyone is happy".
Ringo

 

[Arcangl86]

I do think so, but probably not in the way most people talk about it. I think the federal bureaucracy is incredibly bloated and needs to be pared down. A lot of it can be done by combining agencies and potentially departments, because there is a lot of redundancy that can be dealt with that way. If desired I can go into more detail tomorrow after I get some sleep, but this is something I've thought about and if i ever run for federal office is something i would try to push.

 

[mark46]

State and local governments should spend lots more on services to the poor and needy.

The federal government should spend less on administering service. Monies can be sent to states like MISS if they must.

Please tell me how the federal government should make decisions on the fixing of potholes.

Yes, less should be spent on defense.

Yes, the Trump Tax Debacle should be reversed.

PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS
The FEDERAL government shouldn't have huge departments to decide and administer to the needs of the poor in rural South Dakota.

No.

Smaller government as it has been popularly understood for the past 40 or so years - cutting services to the marrow to make room for raining money on billionaires and defense contractors - only serves to make the poorer poorer and the richer richer.

The same people who complain that "gummint can't do nuthin' right" because of bad public schools, pothole-laden roads and unresponsive government are some of the same ones who make it that way by electing Republicans who lead them down the primrose path with false promises of "low taxes == everyone is happy".
Ringo

 

[Speedwell]

State and local governments should spend lots more on services to the poor and needy.

The federal government should spend less on administering service. Monies can be sent to states like MISS if they must.

Please tell me how the federal government should make decisions on the fixing of potholes.

Yes, less should be spent on defense.

Yes, the Trump Tax Debacle should be reversed.

PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS
The FEDERAL government shouldn't have huge departments to decide and administer to the needs of the poor in rural South Dakota.

Most of the programs people think of as "welfare" such as TANF and SNAP are actually administered by the states, supported by Federal block grants. The idea that the Federal Government micromanages welfare programs is a myth.

 

[mark46]

Most of the programs people think of as "welfare" such as TANF and SNAP are actually administered by the states, supported by Federal block grants. The idea that the Federal Government micromanages welfare programs is a myth.

The administrative costs of Social Security payments is 0.6%. The cost of direct payments through a tax provision is also very little.

Are you suggesting that costs of other programs is also very low?

 

[Speedwell]

The administrative costs of Social Security payments is 0.6%. The cost of direct payments through a tax provision is also very little.

Are you suggesting that costs of other programs is also very low?

"Low" is a judgment call, and the administrative costs will doubtless vary from state to state. My point was, that the administration of these programs is the responsibility of the states.