I thought I’d start out my blog by sharing this short essay I wrote about how I think the federal and state governments should interact. Especially since my desire to share this with the world was the impetus to start this blog. Here goes:
The 50 Plans Plan
One Plan for Each State
It occurs often in this imperfect republic that we, the imperfect people, elect imperfect politicians who enact imperfect laws. And yet it often is heard by those who oppose such imperfect laws “with what shall we replace it?” This is happening right now with the inaptly named Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obama Care.” Most Americans are opposed to it, yet the politicians they elect seem unable to agree on if or how it should be fixed, replaced or even abolished. To this question and so many more like it, I submit my own alternative plan. And though I know that my plan, like all others, is imperfect… I believe it to be superior to the majority (if not all) of the proposals currently being considered by Congress. And I also believe it can greatly benefit this nation depending on how thoroughly it is implemented.
I call this plan the 50 Plans Plan, and though some may deride my plan for its name… the name, like the plan itself, benefits from simplicity. The plan is to take most federal programs and institutions and incrementally turn them over to the individual states. Thus 50 plans, one for each state in the union. This is in accordance with the values our great nation was founded on. Just like the plan, our very nation has this concept implied in its very name. The United States of America… not the Empire of America, or even the Republic of America… but the United States. The very word “State” implies independence and sovereignty, and such was intended by our founders, that the majority of government power be reserved, not to the centralized federal government, but to the individual states and to we the people. I could go on at great length about the founder’s beliefs and philosophies, but that is a matter of history . It suffices for me to say that the founders believed that small, local governments could more easily fulfill the needs of the people.
As brief as I would like to be on this topic, considering that this, The 50 Plans plan relies entirely on the concept that smaller governments are generally superior, I feel the need to reinforce this idea with a few simple examples.
Consider two fictional states of equal population. Let us hypothesize an issue, over which the people of these states are unevenly divided. Let us also say that 60% of the first state takes one side of the issue and 60% of second state takes the opposite stance. If the federal government passes a law either way, half the total people will be dissatisfied. If, on the other hand, the states themselves are allowed to pass their own laws on the matter, each state will likely pass laws in accordance with the wishes of their respective populations, resulting in 60% of the people getting what they want. Furthermore, among the dissatisfied of the population of each state who did not get what they want, those who felt the most strongly about the issue may decide to move to the other state whose laws are more in agreement with their opinions, resulting in a greater than 60% fulfillment of the people’s desires. This is the first and most obvious benefit of decentralized government.
The second benefit of state run government is that if a local plan fails, no matter how well intended it was to begin with, it only harms a small subset of the people, instead of the entire nation. Also being localized, the damage will be easier to manage with other states or even the federal government able to send support instead of being swamped by a nationwide breakdown. Likewise, a good plan will benefit the state that adopts it, encouraging other states to follow suit. This is exactly how new medication and treatments are developed. A new experimental drug is not tried all at once on all potential beneficiaries, but rather is tested on a small subset of volunteers until its effectiveness and any possible side effects are fully documented. How many political side effects have we endured from well-meaning politicians passing laws paved with good intentions that could have been easily tried at the state and local levels and could have caused less damage if they had been? Common Core comes immediately to mind… but there are many others.
I could enumerate, but again, that is not my purpose. Having established that small government is usually better, the question then becomes “what federal functions should be delegated to state governments and what functions should be kept centralized?” While I believe the states should have most power, there are a few which benefit from centralization: National Defense, Standards of weights and measures… not many others I am certain on. But when I think of what programs would be better run by the states, I hardly know where to begin… or where to stop. Health care, Welfare, and Education spring immediately to the forefront, as these programs strongly benefit from being catered to the people they are supposed to benefit, but also because these programs are highly susceptible to corruption and it is easier far for the federal government to police the states than the other way around.
There are other federal programs which at first glance seem to need centralization, but which can, with careful consideration, relegate some or all of their functions to the states. We have recently heard of a number of scandals regarding the Veteran Affairs, with so many of our brave heroes receiving little to none of their promised and in many cases much needed medical care. And it might seem that since the federal government recruits the military and pays for the veterans who serve that this program, the Veteran Affairs, needs to remain completely federal. But there is much that can be delegated to the States. The federal government could, for instance, offer payment to the states for each veteran living within, (and according to the veteran’s service record, medical needs, and other considerations,) allowing each state to decide how best to serve the needs of resident veterans. Then, veterans unsatisfied with care in their home state, may decide to move to another state offering better care, taking their share of the federal paycheck with them.
Another federal program which might seem hard to split 50 ways is the EPA. Yet I’ve not heard of a state that doesn’t take pride in its local environment. Why can’t the state governments, elected by the very people living there, decide how to care for the land they live on? The EPA could easily be minimized to only handling disputes between state environmental agencies when issues cross state lines. For that matter, Congress or the courts could probably do that, eliminating the need for a federal EPA all together.
Even the IRS is not immune to The 50 Plans Plan. The states could each decide how to tax their respective citizens, then Congress could decide on simple percentage cut it takes equally from taxes collected by all state and local governments. Those states whose tax code benefited their economies would grow immensely, while those with broken tax codes would be forced to reform or watch as workers and businesses migrated to more tax friendly states. Imagine how the economy could grow if the only duty of the IRS was auditing state and local governments.
I could go on, but I think the core of the 50 Plans Plan has already been communicated. With each state competing over the best plans we will quickly weed out the bad ideas and prosper as a nation. The only thing I feel is left to be done is to address the primary argument against The 50 Plans Plan or other plans like it. I call this idea “Universal Participation.”
There are those who state that some things require Universal Participation in order to work properly. Health care, for example, is often said to only be possible if “everyone pays into it.” Not only do I believe this idea to be anathema to the principles this country was founded on, but I do not believe it is possible. We do not rule the world, nor do we, (as far as I know,) have any plans to conquer it. So any “universal plan” would only be limited to us, and as such, not truly universal at all. Furthermore, I believe any plan that can work on a national level, can work just as well if not better on a state level. And any plan that cannot work on a state level but is required to be forced on all citizens everywhere has no place in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Did not our forefathers leave their home countries and come here in many cases to flee such universalisms? Is that not part of the American Dream… to be free to choose one’s own course with minimal government intervention?
Simply said, any plan that claims to require universal participation in order to work, will not work because universal participation is impossible.
But some may argue that there are examples of where universal participation has worked. Are not our laws applied universally? Are not all entitled to equal and fair application of those laws? And yet I would point out that not all participate. Some choose to break the law… in fact; a great portion of the law details how to handle those who choose not to “participate.” We would prefer if all citizens were law abiding, but our laws do not require all people to obey them in order for the law to work.
And that is the difference and the danger. And that is why I reject the idea that such plans must be centralized in order to work.
I believe that the more centralized and the more powerful the federal government is, the more opportunity for corruption there will be and the less freedom and prosperity the citizens will enjoy. On the other hand, the more power is retained by state and local government and the more these entities compete to attract residents and businesses the more our nation will prosper, the more freedoms we will enjoy, and the better off we all will be.