.... get out of your lives, and see more responsibility turned over to the state and local governments? Wouldn't that give us more control as citizens and a greater ability to determine where your tax dollars are being spent?
2007-11-01 05:46:46 · 38 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I for one would love to see that. Many of the disgruntled citizens of this country accuse the Federal Level of government for not providing what they (personally) need. This country is too diverse to have one size fits all. The needs and beliefs in San Francisco are very different than Buzzard Breath, WY. The more local government provides for its immediate citizens the less sniveling.
2007-11-01 05:53:50 · answer #1 · answered by rance42 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The federal government is already limited to regulating matters that cross state lines, and matters that affect all citizens or a subset of citizens classified by demographics.
Matters that are local and confined to a state's borders normally cannot be managed or regulated by the federal government.
So, which of the matters that cross state lines do you not want the federal government involved in? --
Protecting national parks?
Regulating national resources like spectrum so you have an endless variety of wireless devices to use and choose from?
Ensuring everyone has at least a basic telephone?
Civil rights laws?
Title IX so girls can have parity in sports with boys?
Food purity and safety?
Representing US interests in commerce around the world?
and so on.
If the states had to manage these issues, they would have to spend HUGE amounts of money--and they would have to tax you to get the money. They would have to have a method of working together to accomplish goals that affect more than one state -- oh wait, there already IS a method of working together -- it's called the federal government!
I always wonder exactly which responsibilities people don't want the federal government involved in, and exactly how they think the state government mechanisms would work, and how they see the practicalities of having states manage interstate matters working.
2007-11-01 06:08:21 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, yes and no. I agree with you that the federal government often appears to be too big and overrides too much of what the states have historically handled (of course, we fought a Civil War over that very issue, didn't we?).
The only argument I can find in favor of federal control is the rich states vs. poor states issue. It seems like poor states like Mississippi and West Virginia would suffer under the state control plan, since they don't have (and based on past history, never will have) the revenues of big states like California or Florida.
Your sentiments are shared by a lot of people and this debate has been going on since 1789. I guess we still don't have it resolved yet. But there are times, frequently, when I agree with you.
2007-11-01 05:53:22 · answer #3 · answered by Bookworm 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes and no. Certain issues are just to large for individual States to either deal with alone or even afford. And quite frankly too much power in local government can lead down the road to chaos. However when the Federal Government fails to act the States should be able to do what is necessary to act instead. Illegal immigration, marriage laws and health care are a few examples.
2007-11-01 05:58:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not necessarily. CASE in Point, the Veterans Administration.."Federal Government". It is run by Regional Offices throughout the country. As a result, OHIO Veterans are compensated $5000 per year less than New Mexico Veterans for the same disabilities. If ONE standard were used for all, instead of the individual states making up their own krapola, the 1.1 million Ohio Veterans would be much better off.
2007-11-01 05:52:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely, I think everyone should have a voice in how their tax dollars are spent, especially at the local level, & lets not forget having a vote when it comes to frivolous things like a fat tax or smoking ban!
2007-11-01 07:12:46 · answer #6 · answered by Diamond24 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but people are notoriously apathetic about local government. Local government is easily corrupted. Then again, the feds aren't exactly choir boys and girls are they?
What I would like to see is Mike Huckabee as the next president. Check him out he is honest and makes a lot of sense and he hasn't been bought yet.
People please stand up for our great nation!
2007-11-01 09:54:35 · answer #7 · answered by morstar150 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In theory that's a great idea.
But we don't live in that theoretical world.
In reality, the current federal government wants to get in parts of lives such as the "marriage protection amendment." The only part of our lives that the current administration wants to get out of is interference with big business, especially big oil.
2007-11-01 06:14:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a LOT of Americans would like to see that.
I don't see that happening in the near future. It would take decades to weed out the rampant corruption in this country on a local and state level. God willing, perhaps my grandchildren will have a better country.
Politicians are in it for the money and perks... not because they care about the wellbeing of their fellow man.
2007-11-01 06:01:53 · answer #9 · answered by tiny Valkyrie 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am very prostates rights. I think each state should solve problems like abortion etc. at a state level and let the feds pay for roads, national defense.
2007-11-01 06:37:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋