Federalism & Freedom

CandA · Site Admin Joined: 08 Mar 2008 Posts: 22

This country was founded on the principles of Federalism. In short, those principles are as follows: the central federal government shall exercise power over some issues, while the state governments exercise power over others; the powers of the federal government shall be divided among the executive, legislative and judicial branches; and the states shall exercise checks and balances of the federal government. All of these provisions were designed to keep the democracy and individual freedoms of the United States in tact. As we move forward through history, however, these ideals, bit by bit, become jeopardized in favor of an "it takes a village" mentality. The federal legislature has enacted laws and implemented countless programs intended to improve our quality of life, ensure equality among all Americans, and provide for the less fortunate. While well intentioned, our representatives have stumbled down the wrong path. The government you'll find in place today is one far more overreaching and expansive than our forefathers could ever have imagined. The privilege of checks and balances that states once exercised over the federal government has given way to federal mandates and legislative bullying. What's more, what was once decided by the ultimate democracy, the free market, is now subject to government regulation and the influence of powerful special interest groups. America's government has become too big and cumbersome to effectively deal with the social and economic problems we face today. And what has been the root cause of those problems? America's big and cumbersome government. Federal legislators have become overly concerned with enacting law after law in lame attempts to solve these problems when, in fact, the best resolution is to hand jurisdiction over these matters to the lowest possible levels, whether that be city councils or individual participants in the free market (think "what's good for some is not necessarily good for all"). When the power to fix these problems is spread across several localized governments and American consumers, the result will be solutions better tailored to the individual citizens of that region and, ultimately, to the country as a whole. Specifically, Medicare and Social Security are two programs that could be improved exponentially through a decreased governmental role.

In 2007 Medicare spending accounted for over 14% of the federal budget, or, $394,500,000,000 (yes, you read that correctly). Medicare Part D (the prescription drug plan) is one aspect of this comprehensive program in need of reform. While Part D has no doubt been a tremendous help to low-income seniors in need of prescription drugs, it has also been a huge burden on the American taxpayer. At the risk of being accused of over simplifying the problem, I'll continue. Eliminating the federal government from this particular market would mean eliminating an enormous amount of deep-pocketed demand for prescription drugs. The actual amount of demand would remain the same, but as the low-income beneficiaries (read: consumers) must now buy their drugs directly, drug companies would find themselves with a much bigger incentive to lower prices in order to remain competitive in a free market environment; and let's not forget that American consumers can do something that the government can't--negotiate for lower drug prices. Not by bartering with the pharmacist, mind you, but through price-competition. The volume of prescription drugs that major manufacturers are able to sell at current prices would be unsustainable were the government to suddenly stop subsidizing the cost to beneficiaries. A large percentage of that market would find themselves unable to afford the drugs at such lofty prices without assistance. While this is a certainly undesirable short-term effect of a reduced government presence, the long term effect would be a far more attractive situation in which low-income seniors receive prescription drugs at low prices sparing the expense of the taxpayer. I'll submit that this would by no means be a quick process, but it would in time be effective nonetheless. Handing jurisdiction over this matter to the free market is the perfect solution to a growing problem that is creating a wide chasm between taxpayers and beneficiaries. American consumers, collectively, are more than capable of forging a resolution that would satisfy both the individual in need of affordable prescription drugs and the American taxpayer forking over a generous portion of his or her hard earned income.

The Social Security conundrum we face is another that is perfectly suited to be sorted out in the free market. As we continue to adopt and implement ambitious federal programs, the federal budget continues to be sucked dry, and that includes money intended to provide Social Security benefits to the millions of Americans that have been paying into the program for their entire adult lives. As it stands today, the Social Security Trust Fund (from which benefits are paid) is forecast to be depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration). Privatization has been and is the key to successfully bailing us out of the mess that this government controlled "social insurance" program has gotten us into. We must act quickly, though, and provide young Americans entering the workforce with the opportunity to take control of their finances and contribute to private accounts. The rest of us must also be provided with the opportunity to opt out of the Social Security program in favor of private accounts. Had our contributions been deposited into private accounts from the beginning, the risk of depletion is a risk that neither the federal government nor we would be faced with. And not only that, with a privatized system, we, as individuals, would be able to exercise control over how our money is invested. After all, individual responsibility is exactly what this country is lacking as the "it takes a village" mentality spreads.

As power continues to be plucked out of the hands of individual Americans and local and state governments by our federal "representatives," so spreads a culture of democratic totalitarianism in which representatives elected by citizens to protect their interests enact laws and implement federal programs that, more often than not, stretch beyond the reach our forefathers intended the American government to have and right into the pocket of the American taxpayer. A return to the federalist ideals of the founding fathers would be a return to a democracy of, for, and by the people it was designed to support. The answers to our problems will not be found in federal welfare programs and government mandated restrictions on the greatest free market in the world; they will be found through preservation of our individual freedoms and by limiting the size and scope of our federal government.