Social Programs: Federal v. State

The States should direct and administer social programs according to stringent Federal Guidelines, with responsive liason, effective cross-state coordination and rigorous, objective accounting. For real ... not the transparent, rickety sham of that our current laws have produced.

An addendum: As long as we are on this planet, if great money is involved, so will be incompetence and malfeasance. Sad, but inescapable. We must make our plans and take our actions in light of that.


timber

The only problem I have is I don't really have a lot more faith in state governments than the federal government (are the politicians in state governments some kind of different animal?). I can see timber's ideas working and that the states would get no federal funds unless they comply with the rules which is the way many programs are set up now. Right now, the state governments are in fiscal disarray so money coming from the federal government for social programs would have to be watched closely. The bureaucracy just to distribute and manage funds given to states is likely to be just as large as centralized social programs -- looks to me like no matter what, it's often going to be biting off more than can be chewed. On a state level, cooperating with churches or other independent entities could make more sense. For instance, on sentencing for DUI's, AA cooperates with the courts and it costs the taxpayer nothing. If this system could be set up with other social programs, it seems like a better way.

LW - What you describe--the feds withholding funds unless states follow federal guidelines--is already done. The problem is, this is running an end-around the separation of federal and state powers. The Constitution explicitly cedes to the states and the people any and all powers not enumerated as belonging to the feds. When the feds take tax dollars from the people, then offer them back to state governments with conditions, those conditions invariably constitute federal intrusion into an area reserved for the states alone.

Put simply, the federal government is then using our tax dollars as a carrot (or more to the point, uses the threat of withholding those dollars as a stick) by which it entices states into doing those things it has no legitimate power to require of them.

Now, to my mind, anything the government does to take more power than it is supposed to have is a bad thing. You?

I don't see helping the states out financially as taking power away from the states. The financial condition of our so-called well managed state economies is about to be severely tested. dubya leaving out any aid to the states in his tax relief bill is going to torpedo it in the legislature (not the only reason, of course). This operates on the premise that the people (people run our governments and people are fallible) of each state install a government which never gets into trouble (or never wants to secede from the Union...)

Helping the states out financially? Let's remember whose money they are "helping" them with. By straying into the province of states rights, the federal government requires a larger chunk of tax dollars from citizens than it would otherwise require. Much of the taxes taken by the feds would otherwise go directly to the states as state taxes and would be used to do the very things you write that the feds are "helping" them with.

Further, you seem to have missed my main point. (Probably my inability to articulate it clearly enough!)

Let's assume that the feds have a legitimate power to build interstate highways derived from the interstate commerce clause. Fair enough. Now, what if the feds want to pass a federal law requiring all motorists in all states to wear a seat belt, and for now let's not debate whether they have the power to pass such a law and assume that they don't, that only the states can mandate such a thing by law.

The feds begin doling out or tax dollars to the states for highway construction and maintenance, money the states can't raise themselves, since the feds already took that money as taxes. But before the feds give the states the money, they say, "You only get this money if you first mandate seat belt use in your state." The states--for the most part--comply, because they are over a barrel.

So you see, the feds have effectively legislated federally in an area where they are not permitted by the constitution to do so. This is what I was attempting to describe. Does it seem like a good thing to you?

Let's also remember that states also tax their citizens. Right now in California because of the unprecendented deficit, taxes are inevitably going to be raised. It's happened before and resulted in some businesses leaving the state. Well, we are bulging at the seams with industry now, so the prospect of some industry moving to another state and somewhat downsizing our economy isn't a terrible prospect. We'll see where this goes but historically the states has rebounded and begins to draw industry back to the state. Silicon Valley has such exorbidant housing costs right now that continuing to keep those business in the area for the reason of any environmental advantage for their employees is not looking so good.

You're last question is one requiring action instead of words. If the federal government is doing something unconstitutional, then it should be tested in the courts.

My, you do sound like a Southerner, tresspasser. Are your sure you're not planning an petition to secede from the Union?

I live in the South but was born and spent my first 18 or so years in the Northeast. (Still love the snow, too!) Still a yankee at heart.

while i agree that the feds are amazing with their largesse especially their welfare for large corporations and military spending, there are also problems with "local control". i believe it was under the administration of L.B.J. that direct fed program funding was defered to "revenue sharing" with the result of monies intended for social programs such as methadone treatment programs-mental health programs etc being used to purchase shiny new firetrucks by the local county govts with the primary purpose getting relected by showing hard products to the community and dissing not so obvious but on a grander scale needed programs, before you diss methadone as a failed program i only mentioned it as an example, one could also make a fair example of local education spending that got diverted in order to buy the mayor or the police chief a nice new car.

I was involved in different degrees with the politic of three cities in Orange County -- San Clemente, Laguna Beach and Newport Beach. If you think the federal government is creaky, try getting involved with your local government! Pettiness abounds, collusion and graft is just a matter of course and people frankly care less about what their local governments are doing. I've gotten used to addressing building code problems in, say, Laguna Beach because I've become adept myself at using the right people. Fortunately, I've never stooped to using graft but I know it occurs frequently.

TW


Many are, at a shared cost. Medicaid is.
If you are trying to say the national politics [Government] is inefficient and corrupt I will agree however it doesn't hold a candle to the corruption of state and local governments. Without federal intervention and control it would be far worse. The federal government is a controlling element.

We are veering off track so soon! I do agree totally that there isn't the scrutiny from the media especially on state and local governments. When Newport Beach went through the banking scandals of the late 80's (three small indendent banks went down in scandal involving city hall, including one name Bank of Newport!) I can't imagine these state, county and local governments administering social programs without oversight. I don't believe there's enough oversight and that's where the machine breaks down.

(The money for social programs is wasted at the lower end rather than at the top).