Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
It's a nice monopoly type board game limiting the players to a smaller set of options than are actually/theoretically available. The biggest problem is that the Federal Government operates politically. All money, no matter how much or how little that is collected will not only be spent, but spending will exceed the intake because government has the power to do it. Until that power is removed, we can play the game and aplaud how we balance the budget with the options the game provides, but the pols will play a different game. Devolving power from big government back to local government, I believe, would solve, at least, the National Government's spending problems. A balanced budget ammendment might help, might be a start, but that's been tried, and tricks get around such constraints. The Constitution, if followed as written and intended, would certainly limit the National Government to responsibilities that would greatly reduce its need for money.
|
Shrinking the Federal government might just make State and local governments larger.
Perhaps they could be more efficient...for instance it wouldn't be as easy to toss billions around with a smaller budget and fragmenting K Street would make it harder for wealthy interest groups to assert influence.
On the flip slide you would lose economies of scale. Also the introduction of more variability (state to state) could increase the costs of business to service local needs. Environmental regulations that impact everyone could set states against one another, or decisions made locally might not be in the interest of the country. A good example here might be ANWR. If left to the Alaskan people (who get a piece of the oil action) they might be biased in supporting exploration at the expense of damage to the environment that all Americans own.
Perhaps we simply need to pay our politicians better, then we could attract the real talent
-spence