Topsez

The focus of this debate is on whether a large federal government or smaller federal government is in the best interest of the citizens of the nation. According to the 10th Amendment,
Does the federal government have a revenue source that the individual states do not have access to? If not why are they better able to fund programs like SCHIP than states, after all these are state programs and differ from state to state. This logic can be applied to any number of other programs now located at federal level. For example, why couldn’t each state use its current staff to manage all education within the state? Logic would imply that significant layers of management already exist within the states and many of the federal level functions could be managed by existing state employees with state funds.

Prior to the Civil War the federal government had little influence on state citizens. Following the founding of the nation the federal government placed a tax on whiskey to pay for the war that outraged many Americans because they had just fought a war to end burdensome taxations. Yet the federal government didn’t have control over individuals until decades later when following yet another war, the Civil War.
Brief History of IRS

Following the ratification of the 16th Amendment yet another war was a basis for federal tax to fund WWI, yet Washington, DC remained largely out of citizens’ life. Following the war veterans marched on Washington demanding pensions and promises be paid, yet once again the federal government still didn’t have that much influence on the state citizen until the Great Depression. Following the Great Depression numerous social programs were started that directly tied the state citizen to the federal government to bypass the constitution using a round about method outlined in the Buck Act. The Buck Act and the social security federal number for state citizens along with the 16th Amendment continues to tie state citizens to the federal government.

Returning to the focus of the debate, America prospered for decades without burdensome large federal programs. One must ask how were “needs” met during the period these social programs now in law? Who provided for older American needs when they could no longer work? Who provided health care? Who administered education, welfare, unemployment and so many more programs now managed by the federal government?

Questions for debate:
Is the federal government better equipped to manage social services than state governments? If so why?

If the federal government were limited to functions identified in the US Constitution could the additional state taxes better fund these services at state level?

__________________
"New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is running for
president. Which is good because every day we have thousands
of new Mexicans who enter the country." --Jay Leno

Guest1

NO
I see no part of the constitution that allows the federal government to tax one person for the charity of another.

This seems to be a loaded question, but I will take a stab at it anyway.
The federal government should be limited to the constitution. That was the whole purpose of the constitution, to limit federal powers.
Most states have a state constitution as well. They typically mirror the federal constitution, which also limit taxing one person for the charity of another. The states would be better equipped to handle such matters than the feds, but again, it is not within their authority either.

I believe the framers of the constitution would be appalled by what our government has turned into. The rest of us should be appalled as well.

American

I like your intro, but I can't say I like the wording of your questions. You hang around another debate site by chance?

Is the federal government better equipped to manage social services than state governments? If so why?
First I disagree with the builtin premise of this question. Debate who can do it better overlooks the fact that the federal govt shouldn't be part of the equation to start with. But to indulge this discussion, no it is not better able therefore it shouldn't.

If the federal government were limited to functions identified in the US Constitution could the additional state taxes better fund these services at state level?
Notwithstanding a State's own constitution and the fact that the fed shouldn't be involved, yes the tax dollars would be closer to the problem and thus should be a more efficient approach.

__________________
It's Obama's fault!

American

I get your point, but in fact many constitutions (of the original thirteen) of the States are older than the US Constitution. Actually the US Constitution mimics them.