Supporting freedom by opposing federalism
Published August 28, 2015
by Sarah Curry, The John Locke Foundation, August 28, 2015.
This past week I had the pleasure of being invited to speak at Americans for Prosperity’s annual event, the Defending the American Dream Summit. I spoke about Washington’s power grab and how the growth of federal agencies is threatening our laboratories of democracy. Many of us know that Washington bureaucrats are out of control, but what many of us don’t think about are the impacts this has on states.
For example, let’s take a look at North Carolina’s budget. The total budget is around $50 billion, yet the General Fund is around $21 billion. The Highway and Highway Trust Funds make up an additional $5 billion, so where does the other money come from?
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013, North Carolina spent $20.8 billion in federal grants, which was a 47 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars over the precious 10 years.
In addition to a large portion of the state’s overall budget consisting of federal grants, the federal government also ties the state’s purse strings with unfunded mandates across multiple agencies and departments.
Reliance on federal aid can cause lasting problems for state budgets and lawmakers. Federal funding incentives often cause the state to engage in programs or projects it might otherwise choose to avoid.
After years of reliance on federal aid, North Carolina lawmakers find that federal edicts drive up the cost of government services. Even contractors who work with state agencies are vulnerable to these onerous federal requirements, which often increase the cost of their work to the state.
There is a way to push back against Washington, and that is through federalism efforts. Federalism concerns the division of power between states and the federal government. The federal government has outgrown its constitutional authority, and the mandates and regulations that it passes down to states and citizens have shackled our economy and limited North Carolina’s ability to serve its citizens effectively and efficiently.
States, including North Carolina, have become increasingly submissive to an overbearing national government. From light bulbs and ceiling fans, to the state highways you drive on, elementary school students’ educational standards, and your health insurance, the federal government has enacted regulations to keep a firm hand on seemingly every minute detail of our lives.
According to the most recent N.C. auditor’s report, the state has received an average of 42 percent of its total budget from the federal government over the last 10 years, with the exception of 2010 and 2011, when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the so-called “stimulus”) helped to boost federal funding to over 50 percent of the state’s total budget.
This federal overreach increases the cost of goods and puts faceless regulators in charge of spending North Carolina’s tax dollars on their priorities instead of our own.
Every state in the nation relies on the federal government for some portion of its budget, and North Carolina is no exception. North Carolina has become too dependent on federal aid, which leaves the state vulnerable when Washington cuts federal funding to the state in the future.
Whether it’s due to sequester, shutdown, or unsustainable spending, North Carolina needs to reduce its dependence and develop a plan to operate when this funding goes away. The question is not if the federal aid will go away, but when.
Many will argue that this is “free” money and if North Carolina doesn’t take it, then it will go somewhere else. Every tax dollar Washington sends to North Carolina is a dollar taken from taxpayers in North Carolina and other states.
Economists have found that federal subsidies to the states lead to higher state taxes and spending in the long run, because the federal “seed money” creates a demand for more government with current and future commitments.
North Carolina has set a powerful precedent by not accepting federal funding to expand Medicaid as well as rejecting the federal government’s extension of unemployment benefits. The state needs to continue down the path of sovereignty and continue to push back against Washington’s power grab.
August 28, 2015 at 10:58 am
Richard L Bunce says:
Should be the other way around... as authorized in the US Constitution. The Federal government would have very limited taxing power over the residents of the US. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments to eliminate the Federal Income Tax and return State Legislatures appointing that States US Senators. Then Congress passes a budget for the next fiscal year, signed by the President or veto overridden that specifies the Federal government revenue requirement for the coming year. That revenue number is then apportioned to the States to raise how they wish.
August 28, 2015 at 11:14 am
Bradley Berthold says:
What a preposterous perspective! Any thought that North Carolina can on its own replace the millions now provided by federal education money is totally daft!
The Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity and the John Locke Foundation, along with ALEC and its local government affiliate,
are wrecking our state before our very eyes, with tentacles aiding their evil efforts spread from the mountains to the coast.
The loutish ideologues in our pathetic legislature can't even pass a budget including the federal education money. Hard to contemplate what they'd do without it
August 29, 2015 at 10:19 am
Norm Kelly says:
George Soros ring a bell?
Socialists in the central planner ranks stealing money from states (taxing residents) for the purpose of then passing that money out to other states for the 'benefit' of that state? This makes sense?
Socialized medicine. This makes sense? Answer my question, the one that no lib/socialist has ever wanted or been able to answer. Where in the world does socialized medicine work better than ours used to? Where in the world has socialist policies worked better than our capitalist system? Which socialist nation has produced more wealth for more people, and allowed more people to move from one income category to another? When SCOTUS ruled that the 'fine' created by the law implemented by the IRS was actually a 'tax' so it was therefore legal, did it bother you that SCOTUS started writing laws instead of simply determining if the law was Constitutional? When SCOTUS decided that the bribe specifically put into Obamascare for states to create their own exchange so residents could get subsidies, and they changed the definition of 'state' to mean the central planners, did this bother you at all? How about if SCOTUS had changed the meaning of words, had changed the wording of a law, to support a Republican Congress or Republican President, would you be OK with that? And now that the precedent has been set that SCOTUS can change a law to make it Constitutional, when they do this for a Republican administration, will you sit back and accept it?
What part of taking money from all businesses in the state in order to give money (incentives) to a chosen business makes sense? Steal from all to benefit one or 2? How is this market forces and survival of the fittest?
Support for demonrats & socialism only makes sense if you can justify it, support it with facts, and be intelligent about it. Simply spewing forth the talking points of socialist politicians that want to take from producers to buy votes of non-producers is meaningless. So, unlike socialist politicians who want to raise the minimum wage to $10 or $15 but refuse to explain how it benefits anyone, how about someone like you who apparently believes socialism is better explain how taking from one group to give to another group benefits anyone in the equation. Documenting the benefits of socialism has never been a strong suit of the proponents of socialism in our country, like Billary, the ever-senile Harry Reid, or the current white house occupier who told us ahead of time he wanted to fundamentally transform America. And how does George Soros benefit when his allies implement socialist schemes? Cuz he wouldn't spend his money if he didn't benefit. Since they won't explain the benefits of their plan, and you support them, can you explain? I won't hold my breath.
None of this is a personal attack. All of this is curious how anyone still supports socialists. All of this is curiousness on my part to try to understand how socialism benefits the average person. All of this is curiousness on my part if those who support socialism, socialist pols, and socialist schemes can actually explain to another person why they believe their scheme is better than the proven success of capitalism. We have enough socialist states around the country to compare our successes with theirs that we ought to be able to make a useful comparison. But none of the leading socialist/demon pols take on this challenge. I always have to wonder if it's because they know their schemes only benefit themselves and their allies, but are bad for the majority. Documenting the benefits of socialist schemes would help me understand, and just might sway me into the socialist camp to become a rabid demon supporter. But until someone can show me, using real-world real-life examples of the benefits of socialism, I will continue to rail against it and point out it's failures. And try to continue to point out how the pols promoting their schemes are 'not telling the truth' or 'misspeaking', which is only lib-speak for telling lies! Educate me, please. Talking points are useless, especially if one chooses to use talking points from Billary or Harry or the current occupier.
August 29, 2015 at 1:02 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Need to correct one of my sentences in prior reply.
It says 'We have enough socialist states around the country' while it should have said 'We have enough socialist states around the world'. So, please use nations from around the world that have proven the success of socialist policies. Starting with Cuba and their socialist medical system as Mike Moreorless did could be a good starting point. But that's just a suggestion. Feel free to use ANY socialist state as an example of success.
August 30, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Bradley Berthold says:
Mr. Kelly,
Your scrambled, too cute, smug, all inclusive definition of "socialism," peppered with so many trite,childish characterizations (e.g., "the ever senile Harry Reid," "Billary," etc.) mark your wretched ramblings as immature, pathetic tripe. Glad you're so happy with yourself. Whoopee!
August 31, 2015 at 7:22 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Sometimes truth hurts. The ever-senile Harry refers to Constitutionalists and conservatives as anarchists. Does this bother you or do you just accept it cuz it comes from a good lib? The biggest difference between Bill and Hillary is their ability to lie. Bill does it quite smoothly and (for some reason) most people tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Whenever his lips were moving, he was telling a lie. Hillary is also one who fails to recognize or speak truth. The difference is that it's so obvious when her lips move that she is telling lies. I'll continue to use cute names, especially if it irritates libs. But when it's true, there's even more reason to properly refer to libs and socialists.
But enough with using correct, appropriate names. Get to the point. Which is where libs have so much trouble.
Defend socialism. Give specific examples of where socialism works and why we should accept the direction of Hillary, Bernie, the current occupier, the ever-senile Harry, and most democRAT pols around the country. Seems the further left they are, the closer they are to being true socialists, the more the demoncrat party accepts and promotes them. Debbie whatshername Shultz is another perfect example of one who is a proponent of socialism but can't defend it or give examples of where it works well or why we should be moving in that direction. Provide examples of where socialized medicine works for the greater good and at the same time saves anyone money, as claimed by Washington Demons as well as the current occupier. Remember the lie about cutting the average premium by $2500 per year? Since it hasn't happened and they knew it was (another) lie at the time they said it, how can citizens accept and support this? Or don't you? This is, they have told us, the first step toward 'single payer'; which is, after all, lib speak for socialized medicine. The demons have been pushing for 'single payer' since the 1920's and they've finally gotten the first step in place. But they also told us that the VA Health care system was a perfect example of how well obamascare would work for the rest of us. Since the VA Health care system has completely blown up, how many socialists are telling us that we can all expect the same level of service from obamacancer?
So, defend it. Make it make sense. Demonstrate where it's worked. Get past the cute names. Of course, this also means you'll have to ignore so much that comes out of the Demoncrat party, what spews forth from demon spokes-people that hit the talk-show circuit, and most of what spews forth from the occupier. (i suppose you don't like me referring to him as 'the occupier' also?)
I've been wanting someone who appears to be a lib to defend their philosophy and explain it to me so I can convert. I feel like I'm on the outside all the time; like I'm out in the cold. Cuz I just can't make socialism make sense and it's the direction that the Democrat party is pushing us. In every state controlled by democrats, they implement MORE regulation, MORE taxes (usually on 'the wealthy'), more give-aways to 'the poor' or 'disadvantaged', and they do it at the central planner level also. Yet there aren't any stats showing that this is better for 'the masses' than free-enterprise. There's no information I've been able to find that shows taking away freedoms from me makes ANYONE else better off. Nothing that shows more government improves anyone's life. I'd love for someone who believes in the Democrat way to explain it to me in a way that makes sense. Since not even the demons who support and propose even more socialism attempt to defend it, I don't expect to find anyone here who is willing or able to do it. But I'm still willing to 'listen' to anyone brave enough to attempt the impossible.
You willing?
Or did I misread your original post? Did I misinterpret your support for demons? Did I miss something?
August 29, 2015 at 10:27 am
Richard L Bunce says:
Hey you forgot Art Pope... the Government Education Industrial Complex addicted to that Federal "education" money... got some big social engineering plans to implement... sure the students are not learning what their parents and future employers require... what do they know anyway.... the spice must flow!
August 28, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Norm Kelly says:
Every lib pol in the state just passed out! And many lib voters are now more livid than they were before (cuz happy is not a word used to describe libs). Truth often hurts. Truth hurts politicians even more. Truth destroys libs & liberalism.
Isn't there some law that states do NOT have to participate in unfunded mandates? Isn't there a way for states to reject any spending forced on us by the central planners that doesn't come with money attached? If so, why haven't our pols rejected more of these unfunded mandates?
Then there's the too often played political allegiance games. You know, the kind where the demon central planners offer the demon state legislature money to 'build' a high-speed rail line within the state. And the demon state pols go along with the scheme not because it makes sense or because it will actually work or that it's not another unfunded mandate or that the state can't afford the cost now or in the future but because, and ONLY BECAUSE, the demon pols in the state want to support the demon central planners. Yes, there are other examples. But this one is a major issue and should have been rejected by our state as it was by the state that passed on it allowing the central planners to offer it to us!
The more independent states get, the less intrusive the central planners are allowed to be, the better off we all are and will be. Doubt this? Then show an example of where central planner-ism and socialism anywhere else in the world is more successful than capitalism. He!! for that matter, just show an example where socialism WORKS at all! Don't bother trying to show where socialism works BETTER just show where socialism WORKS! Since you can't do this, this is an impossible task, I won't hold my breath. But it sure would be nice for any 'news' paper editorial writer, any lib pol such as Billary or Bernie, any demon pol in the state or any lib voter could demonstrate any example of where/when/why socialism succeeds in ANY of their stated goals. Yes, misery is spread more evenly in socialism than capitalism. Yes, those who are proponents of socialism are better off than in a capitalist society because they build protections for themselves in their schemes, such as when Congress protects themselves from the negative impact of Obamacancer. But otherwise, where are your examples of socialist success?
Once again, editorials from John Locke are spot on. And hard to refute. And causes great angst among libs/socialists/'news' media types and all other allies of the socialist party/central planners. Central planner schemes don't have to work to be considered success. They just have to concentrate power amongst an elitist few. And if a socialist scheme appears to not be 'working', it's OK cuz those same socialist central planners will implement ANOTHER central planner scheme to fix the supposed problem. Not repeal said scheme. Not fix said scheme. Nope, simply add another gigantic centrally controlled scheme that removes even more freedom from all of us! And never admit the original socialist plan was actually a failure. If they throw more money at it, the problem suddenly goes away. Witness the central planner/socialist solution to the VA Health Care system. It's not really a problem. We'll just throw more money at it and consider the problem solved. There is no need for investigation so long as we spend more on it. And, of course, demonize those who believe an investigation is necessary, demonize those who know that simply spending more won't fix the problem, demonize those who say the VA Health care system actually is a perfect example of how socialized medicine/Obamascare will negatively impact the entire populace! Cuz when you can't say anything positive about your own scheme, the lib/socialist response is to demonize the opposition. And for some reason, lib voters accept this response. Witness what happened to the Board of Ed in Wake County.
August 28, 2015 at 10:04 pm
Bradley Berthold says:
Demon central-plannerism, demon pols, demon socialism schemes and libs!
OMG, what a world!
It's your world, and welcome to it.
Certainly not the world sane people inhabit.
Have a nice day!
