I need some challenges to my views on the US government. (wages, healthcare)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the states and city governments are part of the problem. They mismanage and misappropriate all the funds they get from the federal government and there's very little accountability and transparency. Those in charge of the $$$ embezzle it and find other ways. Then they do not even spend it on the things they're suppose to.
If the Federal government didn't take much tax money from us, then the states could not misallocate it. The Federal government is still the source of the problem, either way you cut it.
The reason states can't raise taxes too high is because most people will leave for a much lower cost state. States are limited to what they can tax you for until population numbers plunge.
The Federal government can hit you very hard with taxes because, what are you going to do, move to Portugal? Most of us are tied to the USA for at least one reason and generally several reasons from language to family to jobs and economic opportunities, convenience, familiarity, constitutional freedoms.
There is a reason most people pay a small fraction in state taxes vs federal taxes. States know you will leave if they hit you too hard.
. I now see the federal government as too big and corrupt to do what's best for the citizens of the US. I also see the US slowly tearing itself apart due to tribal differences in ideology.
Whatever you propose, is moot mostly because of that one sentence that nails the situation. A nation or culture or community only exists because the people believe in and abide by the institutions created.
The nation and people are split, they no longer believe in or trust the institutions which more than likely spells the end at some point. Even a few years ago most Republican or Democrat or whatever would have said they mostly trust the institutions like the FBI or the CDC or the courts, or even the schools, now many do not.
Many now see institutions being weaponized against political opposition, even something that once was so non-partisan as the CDC.
When a nation is split between not caring for or not trusting institutions and most of all the Constitution there is no longer any tie that binds , no common thread that keeps it together, and probably no way to mend it.
And it is no where in the Constitution to even have a Dept of Ed.
"Overall, the fiscal year 2024 Budget requests $90.0 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of
Education, a $10.8 billion or 13.6 percent increase from the fiscal year 2023 enacted level (less rescissions)
Whatever you propose, is moot mostly because of that one sentence that nails the situation. A nation or culture or community only exists because the people believe in and abide by the institutions created.
The nation and people are split, they no longer believe in or trust the institutions which more than likely spells the end at some point. Even a few years ago most Republican or Democrat or whatever would have said they mostly trust the institutions like the FBI or the CDC or the courts, or even the schools, now many do not.
Many now see institutions being weaponized against political opposition, even something that once was so non-partisan as the CDC.
When a nation is split between not caring for or not trusting institutions and most of all the Constitution there is no longer any tie that binds , no common thread that keeps it together, and probably no way to mend it.
I get what you're saying, but don't you think that if states are no longer fighting each other over funding or social issues, it'll turn down the temperature a bit? It would make states more responsible for their issues, so they'll have no one to blame but themselves should they not succeed.
The feds will still play a role, just less of one.
I think the title says it all, but allow me to elaborate further.
My views on politics have been evolving lately and I need some people to challenge my views to see if they hold up under scrutiny. Also, if you think my views are okay, I'm more than happy to take the compliment as well
For most of my voting life, I've voted for Democrats because I, generally speaking, believe that the US should have universal healthcare, greater workers rights (parental leave, mandatory vacation days, etc), more public transit, quality public education, abortion should be legal (with certain reasonable limitations), and that people from all communities should be treated as equals.
My above views haven't changed much, but my belief that the federal government can enact my vision has severely waned. I now see the federal government as too big and corrupt to do what's best for the citizens of the US. I also see the US slowly tearing itself apart due to tribal differences in ideology.
As a New Englander, I briefly dabbled in the New England separatist movement, but I realize that it was untenable. The states need each other too much. Not to mention, with the globalized world, we still need a big, powerful country in order to promote our needs to the rest of the world. Just like I thought it was a bad idea for the UK to leave the EU, I think it would be a bad idea for US states to secede.
So what I propose is this. I'll call it "The Great Rebalancing" or something like that.
What that means is we give more power, and the ability to tax, to the states.
Basically, the US government would significantly lower its tax rates, with the expectation that the states will raise theirs to make up for the federal shortfall.
I don't know what an ideal federal rate would be, but I do see many programs that the federal government pay for could go back to the states, and that money could be spend more efficiently.
Under discretionary spending, a significant amount of the following could be cut on a federal level and simply administered on a local level:
1. Health
2. Education
3. Transportation
4. Income Security
I'm not what the exact price tag would be and how much we could lower taxes, but I'd imagine it would be significant. Most specifically, I'm not sure much of the corporate, income or payroll tax we'd have have to cut, but I'd imagine it would be pretty significant.
Still, the federal government could still play a role in mandating what the states spend their money on - the big difference is that the money would go directly back to the state without first going to the federal government.
---------------------------
As for social issues - I'll come back with some ideas a bit later. Gotta run now.
How does greater worker rights, something I support, square with government-run, taxpayer funded healthcare?
My employer provides my health insurance as a benefit of employment.
Why should I pay for something I'm already getting so that an international corporation doesn't have to?
It is what it is. And IMO that will not be changing. Too important, and too many involved elderly voters.
I think the government should play a role in healthcare for the public good. But individual states will be able to decide how they administer that care.
But I can tell you from the get-go that this general idea will fail simply because states are currency users, not issuers like the Federal gov't.
For instance HC/Medicare and probably SS cannot be done by the states.
If it cannot be done by the states, it cannot be done by the Feds either. We can't afford it. End of Discussion.
And that assumes I accept your basic premise that the government has ANY role in individual medical care or retirement planning, which I categorically reject.
Last edited by albert648; 06-01-2023 at 07:11 AM..
I think the government should play a role in healthcare for the public good. But individual states will be able to decide how they administer that care.
"Public good" gets perverted to "politicians' good" or "bureaucrats' good" 99.9999999% of the time. On the rare (statistically irrelevant) occasions that it doesn't, government is so incapable of executing anything efficiently that they wouldn't be able to navigate a paper bag. The public good is not served by an incompetent, bloated and wasteful bureaucracy forcing people to pay for something that, in many cases, they already get at no cost to them.
The market is still the best mechanism by which to allocate resources.
And I'm going to add to your views on the government and say that government at all levels needs to be downsized significantly but the federal government the most. The federal government needs to be cut down to a level we can afford - say a quarter of its current size - and any functions taken out of federal government scope either privatized entirely or taken up at the state or local level to various degrees, no doubt. And state and local governments need shrinking too - a good 20%.
Last edited by albert648; 06-01-2023 at 06:54 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.