In Massachusetts, there was a Puritan tradition with an austere but outspoken view of life and a history of repressive laws based on religion. In Pennsylvania, there was the Quaker tradition, based on tolerance, the "Gentle People. In Virginia, was the Royalist tradition, the people who had been against the puritans in the civil war and probably included some Papists. In Georgia, there was the start to the Southern Gentry and the Plantation Society.
These people had a very hard time trying to reach agreement, so they left much to the individual states. And that is what you are complaining about.
MANC that comes under the govt mandate under the contsitution to keep us safe .emergency powers will never be opposed under a libertarian govt provided the rules to declare a* emercency* are stated in NON political/religious terms
fema like the police ,customs, military ,FBI ,,fire ,firearms %alcohol , etc are covered under care for the citizens clause also
But don't you thing that in a way, leaving stuff up to the states results in MORE government because there is a lot of duplicate of effort. I mean, there are 50 different social service agencies, state agencies, state police, health services, etc... if they were all federalized, then they could be consolidated and then avoid duplication of everything. Its almost like having 50 different banks on the same street. Some could merge and the overall costs of each individual bank goes down.
John has been breathing in too much Texas air.
If he had his way the US would never have left the 19th century, when most of the west was run by cattle barons and the odd Wyatt Earp.
But don't you thing that in a way, leaving stuff up to the states results in MORE government because there is a lot of duplicate of effort. I mean, there are 50 different social service agencies, state agencies, state police, health services, etc... if they were all federalized, then they could be consolidated and then avoid duplication of everything. Its almost like having 50 different banks on the same street. Some could merge and the overall costs of each individual bank goes down.
Improper analogy, fifty banks would be an over supply, we are not over supplied with state troopers. If you federalized the state police you would still need as many troopers, corporals, lieutenants, and state chiefs. But you would add levels of bureaucracy above them. Think of them as a pyramid in each state, with the many troopers at the bottom rising to the one chief at the top. Now you would need a federal pyramid sitting on those chiefs. The same for the other agencies you mention.
Add to the mix, that some rube from the sticks, appointed because he raised most money for the president's election campaign, will be making decisions about the funding of inner city policing in the big cities.
MANC that comes under the govt mandate under the contsitution to keep us safe .emergency powers will never be opposed under a libertarian govt provided the rules to declare a* emercency* are stated in NON political/religious terms
fema like the police ,customs, military ,FBI ,,fire ,firearms %alcohol , etc are covered under care for the citizens clause also
so why doesn't healthcare come under care for citizens then?
who decides the list?
MANC that comes under the govt mandate under the contsitution to keep us safe .emergency powers will never be opposed under a libertarian govt provided the rules to declare a* emercency* are stated in NON political/religious terms
fema like the police ,customs, military ,FBI ,,fire ,firearms %alcohol , etc are covered under care for the citizens clause also
so why doesn't healthcare come under care for citizens then?
who decides the list?
The US will always put military first. It's a huge cash incentive not only to supply equipment to it's own military but to other "friendly" countries. Also in case every citizen needs a gun to defend themselves.
Health is controlled by a few big organizations who have unbelievable influence and will be difficult or almost impossible to dislodge.
Most of us need health care more than any other service and should not be in the hands of people that are watching the bottom line.
Yeah, granted you'd still need the same amount of Indians, but you'd need less State Chiefs, and less bureacracy because there'd be and integrated paperwork/computer/filing systems. OK, lets use a Doctors surgery analogy...instead of each surgery holding individual patient records and employing 2 people responsible for it, you could have an integrated office serving 1000 doctors but only employing 1000 people. Thus you have reduced the individual cost for each doctor.
Yeah, granted you'd still need the same amount of Indians, but you'd need less State Chiefs, and less bureacracy because there'd be and integrated paperwork/computer/filing systems. OK, lets use a Doctors surgery analogy...instead of each surgery holding individual patient records and employing 2 people responsible for it, you could have an integrated office serving 1000 doctors but only employing 1000 people. Thus you have reduced the individual cost for each doctor.
Most of the clericals are not involved with records. You could cut down if you made all payers use the same formats and methods etc. but then you would have a national health system, and horror of horrors, a welfare state.
Whatever tax system we have, we will need a department to collect the money and enforce the laws.
If you define a fair system as one that everyone considers fair, you can forget it.
I prefer a flat tax on income with allowances for each member of the family and the flat tax on the balance. No loopholes like charities, mortgage, local taxes etc. The problem with this is that it ceases to be a vehicle for public policy, i.e. encouraging home ownership, charities, etc. Along with this, all corporate taxes would be dropped to encourage companies to have their businesses here. This would appear to raise the rate for the tax payers, but with more companies, there would be more payers. It will never fly.
I just realised that I could be killed by this, I am a retired, empty nest, widower, living in our family home. My income is reduced but the cost of running the home are not much reduced, heating, cooling and taxes are about the same, food for one costs more than half of the cost for two. Where with our whole family there were 5 allowances to pay for the house, there is now only 1. I don't like it myself now.
I don't like the sales tax/VAT route, because it couldn't be extended to stocks and shares, and so the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.
Whatever tax system we have, we will need a department to collect the money and enforce the laws.
If you define a fair system as one that everyone considers fair, you can forget it.
I prefer a flat tax on income with allowances for each member of the family and the flat tax on the balance. No loopholes like charities, mortgage, local taxes etc. The problem with this is that it ceases to be a vehicle for public policy, i.e. encouraging home ownership, charities, etc. Along with this, all corporate taxes would be dropped to encourage companies to have their businesses here. This would appear to raise the rate for the tax payers, but with more companies, there would be more payers. It will never fly.
I just realised that I could be killed by this, I am a retired, empty nest, widower, living in our family home. My income is reduced but the cost of running the home are not much reduced, heating, cooling and taxes are about the same, food for one costs more than half of the cost for two. Where with our whole family there were 5 allowances to pay for the house, there is now only 1. I don't like it myself now.
I don't like the sales tax/VAT route, because it couldn't be extended to stocks and shares, and so the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.
This flat tax you speak of. Does that mean everyone would pay taxes?
Many poor people do not pay any tax.
As to VAT. In Canada we have GST (8%) and is applied to most items. It actually replace what were hidden taxes. When it came into effect some items such as cars actually dropped in price.
It's one of the fairest types of taxes and is not on essential items such as food. Also poor people get a GST rebate each tax year.
My wife and I have a moderate income and benefit from the GST rebate. We also pay approximately 6% of our gross income in Federal and Provincial Tax. That tax last year was $2230 and BTW also includes our health costs.
My wife just came out of hospital after 1 week. She was diagnosed with Diverticulitis. She had excellent treatment and is recovering nicely. We didn't have to go through any beuracratic insurance paperwork or pay one penny.