Dear Director Orszag:

For instance, at least two governors have proposed rejecting a program to expand unemployment insurance for laid-off workers. Economists consistently rank unemployment insurance among the most efficient and cost-effective fiscal stimulus measures; by one frequently cited estimate, it provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested. Thus, by denying this provision for their residents, these governors are not just depriving some of the neediest Americans of relief in a dire economy; they are undermining the overall stimulative impact of the package.

No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice. The composition of the package was rightly dictated by economic considerations; we should not let the implementation of the package be dictated by political considerations.

Sincerely,

"He seems to be trying to play both sides of the fence. He might refuse some of the money, he might take some of the money," said Louisiana Democratic Party spokesman Scott Jordan.

• Repeal of the 16th Amendment (Income tax)
• Review of the Fairtax plan
• More expressed limitations on the power of the federal government
• Other ideas proposed by smarter people than me

The US Supreme Court is not the only entity that can challenge the Legislative and Executive branches of the federal government. The States have forgotten their role as one of the checks on federal power. Instead they line up at the trough to beg for their fair share from the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. If by chance a leader arose in State government that could stand up and defend the US Constitution, a movement may be born. 

The Republicans, at the federal level, failed miserably when the opportunity was ripe for limiting the centralization of power and promoting classical liberalism. To make matters worse, it has been portrayed in the media and by the new administration that the conservative laissez-faireform of government was tried and shown to be ineffective. It is now up to the States to produce a movement to regain their sovereignty in the matters outside of national defense, foreign relations, and interstate/foreign commerce. 

There is no one size fits all solution coming out of Washington. It is arrogant for the powered elite to think they have the blanket solution that will solve the ills of a diverse and geographically dispersed people. Each State must be given the opportunity to create environments for its citizens to prosper without the central government’s excessive tax burden and string pulling. 

A nullification debate (crisis) would be healthy for our republic. The alternative is to amend the Constitution to consolidate power in the federal government and adopt a direct democracy. At least we would then be in line with our Constitution.

Federalist 10

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Federalist 46

….. should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

Are you ready to have a bureaucrat decide your treatment?  I cannot believe what they are cramming into this "stimulus" bill.  They will eventually have a board that determines if a treatment is cost effective or worth it for a citizen.  I look forward to the day I have to make my case for open heart surgery.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Thomas Jefferson

"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

William Henry Harrison

"The prudent capitalist will never adventure his capital . . . if there exists a state of uncertainty as to whether the Government will repeal tomorrow what it has enacted today."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Dwight David Eisenhower

"I never saw a pessimistic general win a battle."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

"And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Ronald Reagan

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!”

Barack Obama

“It is only government that can break the vicious cycle, where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the plan that's moving through Congress is designed to do.”

As part of his fear mongering campaign, President Obama cites the failed Bush policies of the last 8 years as a reason for not relying on tax cuts for economic stimulus. He fails to mention that along with his tax policies, President Bush unfortunately let spending get out of control. That aside, history has shown that tax cuts provide economic stimulus. If you coupled that with serious spending cuts, you have an excellent fiscal policy. President Obama would rather copy FDR’s successful formula of 7 years of plus 15% unemployment and then a war.

Here is a tax challenge for the Democrats regarding the “stimulus” bill that will stimulate the need for future tax increases.  Please look throughout US history and provide examples where increasing taxes (or allowing temporary tax cuts to expire) resulted in increased production and economic performance. If some concrete examples can be provided, I may join your ranks in the tax and spend army. Otherwise, you cannot argue that tax decreases do not have a stimulating effect on the economy and they need to play the most prominent role in any stimulus package.

The U.S. was founded on the principle of federalism where there is a centralized government with sovereignty in certain areas and sub-units (state and local governments) with sovereignty in other areas.

This separation of powers worked well throughout the 18th and most of the 19th centuries. Beginning in the late 19th, and accelerating in the 20th Century, the lines drawn between the central government and the state governments blurred to the point where the states cannot sneeze without federal approval or federal dollars.

Part of this came about as a result of the mindset change from the government staying out of your way so you can prosper to the government being the enabler of your prosperity. This fundamentally flawed approach to government has led to unprecedented federal growth and eliminated the awareness of our federalist form of government.

States and lobbyists have become the humble beggars for federal funds that Franklin Pierce warned us of when he was vetoing social bills in the 1850s. There is a way to resolve this that should satisfy both progressives and conservatives. It takes the understanding that there are certain precedents set, that although they fall out of line with the Founding Fathers' vision, they are political realities today. On the other side, people must realize that several of today's federal programs are duplicative and unnecessary.

By a balanced plan of devolution, retention, privatization and a new federal revenue sharing plan, our country can revitalize federalism for the 21st Century.

It is time to change the states' focus from fighting for their "fair share" of federal tax dollars to competing with each other in creating the most innovative solutions for their citizens. Ask your congressman what is a "fair share" of federal dollars. Is it based on a formula related to population (the general welfare) or is it get the most you possibly can?

Federal revenue sharing would be the cornerstone of revitalized federalism. My proposed federal revenue sharing plan would disburse federal tax dollars directly to the state governments, without restrictions on how this money would be spent. This would be coupled with the elimination or downsizing of several federal departments. The dollar amounts funneled to each state would be at least 20 percent less than the totals they are receiving today and would be based on population.

The large reductions in federal dollars would be offset by the elimination of federal oversight and the strict regulations stating how the money is to be allocated. The states would be responsible for creating the requirements for how this money is spent and managing their budget.

The federal government would retain its intended responsibilities of national defense, diplomacy, and foreign and interstate commerce. It would also be responsible for ensuring that the States retain the level of social justice that was fought for and won.

The feelings toward states' rights are tainted by the failure of many state governments to address civil rights issues in the past. This failure to promote freedom casts a pall on attempts to revive federalism. The established progress would not be reverted to the states.

This plan allows for the arguments between big government and little government advocates to be made at the state level. Fifty laboratories of democracy would be working toward solutions to such things as health care, education and urban development, to name a few. Successful programs would be mimicked and unsuccessful programs could be scrapped.

Competition is beneficial. Without it, there is little incentive to be productive. Our path toward a single central authority needs to be changed. We can do better.

Target Number 1- Department of Education