PDA

View Full Version : Federal ‘solutions,’ local consequences (editorial)


Buccaneer
08-30-2003, 09:36 AM
Senator asked about my anti-federal govt stance, in that most solutions cannot come from the federal govt. I strong believe that the majority of our (income) taxes should go to the local govt, then to the state and the smallest portion to the feds. That is why I will not vote for any politicians that looks to expanding the role of non-military federal programs or those voting against reducing federal programs. Coincidentally, in our local paper today, there was the editorial the sums up my beliefs very well.

Another major fedache

There are many sound reasons, reasons both of principle and practicality, for opposing the relentless push behind the federalizing of everything. The Constitution specifically says that only certain enumerated powers are delegated to the federal government, with all others reserved to the states and the people, reflecting the founders’ distrust of a concentrated, centralized power. They not only recognized that vesting too much power in the federal government was an invitation to abuse and tyranny, but that such a division of powers also makes practical sense.

Governments closer to the people tend, in general, to be more responsive and accountable to the people. And the imposition by Washington of one-size-fits-all policies often ignores important differences between regions and states, robbing them of the opportunity to address their own needs and challenges as they see fit, and imposes disproportionate burdens on some for the benefit of others, by those with their fingers on the federal purse strings.

But such arguments strike some as abstract, so let’s bring the matter down to specifics, using a local example of federal meddling to illustrate the absurdities. Even as El Paso County scrambles to trim $6 million from its 2004 budget, asking that overhead by reduced and government services be cut back, the cost of holding an election in the county is jumping by a third, to $1.3 million, in response to federal mandates imposed after the presidential election debacle in Florida nearly three years ago.

Because a few counties in Florida couldn’t get their electoral act together, and a few thousand Floridians couldn’t think their way through the balloting process, we in El Paso County must now waste our own precious money responding to federal demands that we take extra steps to verify signatures on absentee ballots and hire election judges to handle provisional ballots.

We haven’t had a problem with such things in El Paso County, but no matter. "Some people didn’t know how to vote in Florida, and it’s cost everybody else a lot of money," said Chuck Brown, chairman of the El Paso County commission, expressing a dismay that we share.

Why should we pay for the screw-ups of Palm Beach County, Florida? And why is our ability to balance county books being undermined by Washington? Putting the answer bluntly: Because the feds say we should. As it’s prone to do when we let it, Washington exploited the controversy surrounding the election debacle in Florida to impose a one-size-fits-all solution for a problem that doesn’t seem to exist in much of the rest of the land, including here in El Paso County.

And they do it because they can do it — because too few Americans rise in opposition to the relentless expansion of federal power, in matters large and small. Many even invite it, reflexively turning to the federal government for everything they’ve forgotten they ought to do for themselves.

We can blame such costs and meddling on "those people" in Washington who justify their existence by hyping every problem out of proportion, then overreacting to it, as they did in the case of Florida election foul-ups.

But they also share the blame who turn first to Washington for the solution to every problem, and don’t turn their backs when the men in blue suits show up in town speaking the eight most dangerous words in the American lexicon: "We’re from Washington, and we’d like to help."

Copyright 2003, The Gazette, a division of Freedom Colorado Information. All rights reserved.

JPhillips
08-30-2003, 10:48 AM
Considering Bush has raised discretionary, non-military spending by close to 20% in his first three years, I guess you'll not be voting for him in 2004!

Buccaneer
08-30-2003, 11:18 AM
It is Congress that makes the laws for President to sign and in agreeing to sign, he caved in to special interest groups (like AARP and Big Labor). It is shameful that if there weren't those politicians screaming crying bloody murder and 'it's for the children' extortion, it becomes less of a political issue. It is those such politicians in Congress that needs to be replaced and a re-education of the American voters on the case against federalism. A tough road when one major party's platform is about federal programs and socialism.

JPhillips
08-30-2003, 11:25 AM
Buc: Come on. The education bill was Bush's baby. The farm subsidy bill was embraced by Bush quite willingly. Bush is pushing for a drug benefit. You have to lay some of the spending blame on Bush. Your guys control both houses and the White House. The bills beng signed by Bush aren't the fault of the minority. I know its easier for you to blame all of this on the Dems, but maybe Bush really is the "mother of all big spenders" that the Cato Institute claimed.

extra credit question- During the first three years of Clinton's presidency how much did non-military discretionary spending increase? (remember th first two years there was a Democratic congress, so it should be huge)

clintl
08-30-2003, 11:35 AM
I find it rather amazing that someone picked this issue to complain about the feds overstepping their authority, because the Constitution clearly gives the federal government the power to enforce voting rights.

Buccaneer
08-30-2003, 12:02 PM
JPhillips: I do but my point was tht if he had been proposing to cut waste, who would be screaming the loudest? Case in point: Bush's proposal to privatize up to 450,000 federal workers to help reduce wastes, costs and perhaps become more efficient. Guess which major lobbyist group that is screaming that we shouldn't do this?

Also, don't say "your guys". Even though I like Bush as a person as our President, I have never been a Republican and voted for non-Republicans and 'none of the above' more times than not.

clintl: But it is the "one size fits all" mentality that is wrong and very ineffecient/impractical. Let Florida with the oversight of the feds fix their problems. Don't mandate something for all just because that's the way the bloated bureaucracy wants to operate.

clintl
08-30-2003, 12:17 PM
It does not seem to me that "extra steps to verify signatures" and "hiring election judges to handle provisional ballots" are unreasonable burdens. How does anybody in El Paso County know whether there's a problem or not? Nobody in Florida knew they had a problem, either, until a really close election illuminated them. It is hard for me to believe that Florida is special in that respect. When it comes to elections, the most important thing is to get it right, not to keep costs to a minimum. They are a very small part of the typical local budget, anyway.

JPhillips
08-30-2003, 12:25 PM
Buc: Sorry about the label. I shouldn't have done that.

As to he privatization stuff I have a real problem with Bush's proposal. I'm fine with privatization if you can show that costs will be reduced and some sort of civil service protections will be in place. I don't want these private jobs to become a new patronage system. Bush's plan doesn't offer proof of either of these two points. In the Florida model that Jeb! has produced costs aren't cheaper and there has been instances of contracts going to campaign contributors. I don't want either party to turn the federal job system into a givaway for financiers.

On the larger point, I just don't understand why small gov types are drawn to Bush. He has shown quite clearly that heis not a small gov guy. Not only has fed spending increased, but so has the authority of the gov. Justice has a multitude of new powers, states have been sued over laws that conflict with the Bush agenda, and one of the main priorities of the Bush pesidency is to strengthen the power of the executive branch. Bush may talk small gov, but his actions over and over again show him to be quite the fan of expnded governmental authority.

JonInMiddleGA
08-30-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by clintl
It does not seem to me that "extra steps to verify signatures" and "hiring election judges to handle provisional ballots" are unreasonable burdens. ... When it comes to elections, the most important thing is to get it right, not to keep costs to a minimum.

I agree with your points.

Buccaneer
08-30-2003, 02:32 PM
But how does the Feds know that the "extra steps" and extra judges will make a difference? Have they evaluated our process here in the county to determine if there is a real problem or just assumed so. If we have been doing good (as the Sec of State in Colorado had verified), we should we spend funds we don't have when we are cutting staff and services? The problem lies in not the intent but by it (and many others) being an unfunded mandate. When we have poor county roads and overcrowded jails on top of a serious local health problem (West Nile virus), we don't need some bureaucrat in Washington telling us to spend money on a problem that they have no clue whether it exists or not.

clintl
08-30-2003, 02:41 PM
As unfunded mandates go, this one is fairly benign. I'd be a lot more concerned about the unfunded Homeland Security mandates, which really are a big fiscal burden, and which really are fundamentally a federal responsibility that the Bush administration is shifting to local governments without compensating them for it.