"The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their ties with the national government. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be freed from pressures of public opinion and therefore better able to concentrate on legislative business and serve the needs of each state. In essence, senators would serve as “states’ ambassadors” to the federal government.This made me laugh..."state legislatures would cement their ties with the national government." I guess the Founders did not anticipate the Fed government collecting such enormous amounts of our wealth and recycling some back to the various states which thoroughly "cemented the ties."Unfortunately, problems with this system soon arose, particularly when state legislators failed to agree on a Senate candidate, causing frequent Senate vacancies. By 1826 proposals for direct election of senators began appearing, but it took reformers nearly a century to achieve this constitutional change."
There's a good write-up at Wikipedia "Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
The problem is that constitutionally ignorant voters don't understand that most of the spending programs that candidates promise to get themselves elected as federal lawmakers are based on constitutionally nonexistent federal powers.More importantly, what they don't understand is that the money being spent belonged to the states. Now it is taken at the federal level via the 16th amendment and spent there or doled back to the states with strings attached.
What if the states never gave that money to the federal government, and instead spent it locally via state legislative authorization? Roads and bridges would get fixed. Jobs would grow locally. It would vary by state based on each state's needs.
Instead, the federal government taxes the money away from state use and then gives it to Egypt and Syria, spends it on failed alternative energy programs, or pays illegal aliens to reside here with food stamps.
Return control of the Senate back to the states, and then give the states a say in how much money is taken from them and how it is spent.
The GOP could block grant a lot of the federal budget back to the states for their use...and leave it open ended. They can spend it on entitlements or pay down debt or reduce state taxes, etc.They could also target “redundancy” by allowing states to enforce some regulations thereby eliminating centralized, national control and improving federalism - competition between the states.
What do you think?
I think this decision tree has many branches. Your suggestions accept the notion that that the states give up the money in the first place, and then trust the federal government to repatriate that money back in an honest way. That is the status quo.
Block granting the money back to the states still results in redistribution. I can see the arguments both ways. On the one hand: White flight, Rustbelt flight, Sunbelt flight, urban flight, whatever, is unfair to the people left behind who can't flee. Therefore the federal government must tax the rich states to preserve the poor states. On the other hand: the destination states have pro-growth policies that attract those willing to work, have favorable tax policies that let workers keep more of their earnings, have right to work policies that attract business, have Republican leadership.
The GOP has a terrible time making these arguments.
I can't imagine the federal government ceding redundant powers back to the states to perform locally for two reasons: 1) they would have to cede the funds back as well for the states to afford it, 2) the federal government today is suing states to stop redundant efforts. Redundancy ultimately leads to political conflict.
The radical alternative is to drastically cut federal taxes and let the states increase state taxes, concurrent with a reduction in federal services that would now be assumed by the states. The natural Leftist argument is that it is just tax cuts for the rich. The Right argument should be that is pays for the localization of government services, but the governments providing the services are the states, not the feds.
The Left would then fall back to my first point that states like Michigan with cities like Detroit could never survive on their own without federal aid, while the Right would say that it was Democrat rule that killed the state in the first place and caused its citizens to flee. Again, the GOP would be terrible at making that argument.
Finally, the Left wants "equal protection" in all things, including state character. They want Texas to be like New York, Florida to be like California, Utah to be like Oregon. The thought that someone in Utah some day might not be able to get an abortion without having to travel to Oregon is horrifying to them, even if they never set foot in Utah in their entire lives. The thought that Texans might keep their earnings in Texas to be spent locally by Texas politicians is equally horrifying.
Today, Senators from California, Oregon, and New York can dictate spending in Utah, Texas, and Florida. The poor states are actually stronger when they band together as a national party bloc that can raid the rich states, through the people electing Senators who will toe the party line. I can't imagine states taking a predatory view towards other states if their Senators were appointed by their respective legislatures.
So in the fight by liberals for national uniformity (to their will and vision) what’s more important? Money.Block grant it to the states and starve the federal government. It’s the supposition of liberals that the federal government is better than the state government. That’s not true.
Let redundancies that focus on intrastate issues be resolved within that state. Block grant the funds, ideally without limitation, and federalism thrives.
How else can you undo the federal monster politically? This is feasible and has the political cover necessary - we’re keeping the same funds, moving them closer to the people/issue/problem and therefore the solution.
People don’t trust or believe in DC.
I agree that block granting back to the states is more feasible than cutting off the money flow to the federal government at the start. We'll just have to live with the fact of the feds siphoning off money from the states just to (we hope) give it back to them later.
My original point had to do with party bloc politics as the motive for Senators, not state issues. The point of the Senate spending recklessly was supported by Senators owing fealty to the party because of the necessity of running for elections. They become obligated to endorse the party agenda because of accepting campaign cash.
This is also true regarding the liberal agenda that often conflicts with the wishes of the people of certain individual states. Liberals believe in national uniformity, as you state, whereas Republicans believe in more local control. My point is that I think it would be harder for Senators to fall in line with a liberal national uniformity agenda if they were appointed by their state legislatures. It's the need for campaign funds that pushes them to support the party bloc agenda over their respective state agenda.
In this case, the "money" is campaign money, not crony capitalism money, which is also a problem. My concern is that block granting back to the states is a de facto transfer of power from Congress to the states, which might make it also a difficult task to accomplish. Today, some money goes back to the states via federal programs, but much money also goes offshore as foreign aid. I'm not against foreign aid, but I want wise foreign aid. I don't understand why Obama would bypass a Congressional ban on purchasing Russian helicopters, when he could spend that money here on our own aeronautics industry. The same goes with funding questionable groups or countries, while at the same time claiming hurt with needed domestic services. If states only sent enough money to Washington to fund Constitutional services, and then let the states perform those services in place of the federal government, we wouldn't become the world's ATM machine.
If that vision were to occur, it would fly in the face of liberal national uniformity. They would complain that Rhode Island or Idaho won't be able to offer the same quality of social services as California or Massachusetts, so it won't be fair that the random act of being born there limits one's access to quality services. Then we'd get Obama's favorite strawman argument, which child is more important to you, the sick child in Idaho or the starving child in Rhode Island? Liberals think they need a behemoth federal government to make it fair and equal across the entire country.
Changing the nature of the Senate, first by the 17th amendment to take away state control, and now by packing the Senate with proportional representation like in the House, will totally destroy the purpose of federalism via a bicameral Congress, but will solidify the left's ability to force national uniformity of the liberal vision.
-PJ