Government Corruption: Is it too late to stop it?

[Montrovant]

How do you propose handling the migration of people from states with underfunded social programs to those with fully funded social programs?

Why should that be a problem for her?

It would be a problem for me if I had a state government that encouraged dependency with overly generous welfare benefits and therefore excessively taxed the people of that state. If I found the taxes too oppressive, I would move to a state that had a better and more compassionate system. (You see, I don't consider ENCOURAGING dependency to be at all compassionate.)

If enough people see it that way, the state that is losing people and businesses and their tax base will either have to reform its policies or be consigned to a reputation as a terrible place to live, start a business, raise a family etc. And chances are, the people themselves will eventually put people in their state government who are responsive to the will of the people.

The Founders believed that a free people allowed to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have would need some trial and error to find what works best, but will eventually get it more right than any authoritarian government ever could.

Take the federal government out of the equation in how the people will use their money and live their lives, and we will again have a much better country with all our freedoms and choices and options and opportunities restored.

Now I'm confused. You seem to be saying that the people of a state will realize the errors of their ways and vote to change them, but that the people of the country will not do the same (isn't that sort of the point of this thread?). Why are people going to be so much more sensible on a state level than a federal one?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even theocratic governments are (and have been) corrupt. Limiting corruption requires laws that the current corrupt lawmakers won't enact for obvious reasons.

The concept of limited government is also flawed because we don't live in the same word at 200 years ago. It was only through government programs such as education, transportation and energy that we have managed to reach our current state. To reduce government back to the state that it was 2 centuries ago would be a serious mistake in my opinion.

So we are left with the only option which is to try and reform the government of the people and by the people so that once again it is for the people.

I was going to go through and sum up what is wrong with your argument point by point, but you managed to do it so much more concisely than I would have. Tell me something, why are the only alternatives available to us a choice between a government that is corrupt and the system you are describing? Keep in mind that you yourself have admitted you haven't actually thought this all the way through, but you still think you have the only answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should that be a problem for her?

It would be a problem for me if I had a state government that encouraged dependency with overly generous welfare benefits and therefore excessively taxed the people of that state. If I found the taxes too oppressive, I would move to a state that had a better and more compassionate system. (You see, I don't consider ENCOURAGING dependency to be at all compassionate.)

If enough people see it that way, the state that is losing people and businesses and their tax base will either have to reform its policies or be consigned to a reputation as a terrible place to live, start a business, raise a family etc. And chances are, the people themselves will eventually put people in their state government who are responsive to the will of the people.

The Founders believed that a free people allowed to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have would need some trial and error to find what works best, but will eventually get it more right than any authoritarian government ever could.

Take the federal government out of the equation in how the people will use their money and live their lives, and we will again have a much better country with all our freedoms and choices and options and opportunities restored.

So your position is that the federal government must have no role whatsoever in the welfare of the people? Is that an accurate summation of where you stand?

How does the federal government taking money from the states, and then giving it back to them, serve as an example of efficient use of resources?

 

[LilOlLady]

ALL social programs will be transferred to the states who will also fund them.

Government, state, federal and local has always been corrupt because corrupt men control it. Transferring social programs to state will not change them because the tax payers will still pay for them and states will raise state taxes and expect federal funding. RomneyCare gets funding from the federal government but it only provide healthcare for Mass.

How Romney paid for Romneycare, with federal help
How Romney paid for Romneycare, with federal help

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why should that be a problem for her?

It would be a problem for me if I had a state government that encouraged dependency with overly generous welfare benefits and therefore excessively taxed the people of that state. If I found the taxes too oppressive, I would move to a state that had a better and more compassionate system. (You see, I don't consider ENCOURAGING dependency to be at all compassionate.)

If enough people see it that way, the state that is losing people and businesses and their tax base will either have to reform its policies or be consigned to a reputation as a terrible place to live, start a business, raise a family etc. And chances are, the people themselves will eventually put people in their state government who are responsive to the will of the people.

The Founders believed that a free people allowed to organize whatever sort of society they wished to have would need some trial and error to find what works best, but will eventually get it more right than any authoritarian government ever could.

Take the federal government out of the equation in how the people will use their money and live their lives, and we will again have a much better country with all our freedoms and choices and options and opportunities restored.

Now I'm confused. You seem to be saying that the people of a state will realize the errors of their ways and vote to change them, but that the people of the country will not do the same (isn't that sort of the point of this thread?). Why are people going to be so much more sensible on a state level than a federal one?

Let me see if I can explain the problem I see.

The federal government is huge, and constantly growing. They are following the model of a lot of states that used the economic boom as an excuse to increase spending, and then found themselves in a trap when the boom did not supply enough revenues to support the spending levels they were used to. Looking back, we can clearly see that the larger states weathered this better than the smaller states, mostly because their individual economies were smaller. Every single state had to reduce spending to match their actual revenue, and some adjusted better than others.

Now we are facing the same thing at the federal level, except the federal government has unlimited power to borrow money. They increase spending during booms, and increase it more during busts, operating on the theory that government spending smooths things out.

Do we have any idea of what happens when a government combines the power to borrow with a policy of spending without limit? Take a look at Europe and see for yourself.

The US government is huge, but, eventually, we are going to pay the price. It might take 200 years, but this is unsustainable. Everyone admits it, but no one in power wants to do anything about it. That means we need to take back the power and force them to deal with the problem before it becomes a disaster.

 

[Montrovant]

I agree that federal spending has gone way too far, especially in view of economic troubles.

That doesn't really answer the question though, and really, it's specific for Foxy. I may be misreading her posts, but she seems to be advocating that people on a state level will self-correct but on a national level are somehow unable to do so. It's not a question so much about the government as the voters.

 

[Foxfyre]

For me the bottom line is that in order to reduce spending, you have to limit what the politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to spend money on. If the federal government is prevented from using the people's money to excise favor from any demographic or group, and if the tax structure is distributed proportionately without respect for political party or socioeconomic status, the people themselves will demand austerity and discipline from their elected leaders. Only those who have no dog in the fight, i.e. those who pay little or no federal taxes, don't care how much the government spends, most especially if they can get some of it.

And once politicians can no longer benefit themselves personally without benefitting everybody, the career politicans go out of business and you have true public servants running for office who are interested in doing things better instead of what will enrich them.

Most of the corruption in government and among the beneficiaries of government benevolence/largesse is eliminated immediately.

And it is accomplished with an iron clad Constitutional amendment prohibiting any member of Congress or any bureaucrat from enacting any law or regulation that will benefit any state, locality, person, entity, organization, or demogrraphic that does not benefit all without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. As quickly as it can be accomplished without creating chaos, ALL social programs will be transferred to the states who will also fund them.

Also baseline budgeting will be ended so that there is incentive for government to be economical and save instead of waste money.

How do you propose handling the migration of people from states with underfunded social programs to those with fully funded social programs?

How about preventing it in the first place. We can only support so many till they capsize the ship (we are dangerously close to that point now) thus the only option is to limit the immigration to levels that can be supported.

I would guess that very few people would come into the country illegally if nobody was authorized to give them work or wages or even barter for their labor, if they were not allowed to access social services, schools, or healthcare other than for immediate humanitarian emergency. Such is the rules in most other countries. Even in the EU, non-citizens of an EU country generally cannot be hired without a work permit and these are quite difficult to get. So acknowledging the need to improve our immigration system and establish a decent visitor workers program, let's set the illegal immigration issue aside as as a separate issue for now.

The question remains that if California has more generous welfare benefits than Arizona, what keeps the poor in Arizona from going to California to access those better benefits? And eventually overwhelming California?

What prevents that is California establishing its own rules and regs for who can access its programs and not putting new citizens on the welfare roles immediately if the people of California choose to have a welfare program. A six-month waiting period would be pretty discouraging to somebody who intended to live off of government money. A lengthy one to two year residency requirement to qualify for in state tuition, scholarships etc. could also be implemented and was once the rule almost everywhere.

And if California wants to be mom, dad, and Santa Claus on a everybody come and be served and nobody is turned away basis, that would be their prerogative too.

With the federal government out of the welfare and other benefits business, it would have no say, the federal courts would have no jurisdiction in California policy, and California could have whatever sort of courts they wanted to have.