Err…yeah, duh. Where are you getting those numbers from? All the money that goes to the Federal Government in taxes gets spent (as well as more money that the Feds borrow), one way or the other, and that money, or at least almost all of it, ends up going to American individuals or corporations.
That doesn’t happen to be the federal budget for fantasyland, does it?
I can hardly count the ways in which those calculations have nothing to do with reality. But I’ll try: First, it is a tiny amount of the federal budget that is returned to the political entity known as the states. Eliminate Social Security, Medicare, national defense, debt service, and every other federal function that has nothing to do with the states, and there is no way that the “states” get back 75 cents on every dollar of federal taxation.
Second, what makes you think that state government is 60 percent more efficient than the federal government?
Third, it doesn’t matter how much the states get back, in a macro sense. It is not like federal spending vanishes into a black hole. All of it is counts towards the economy of the United States.
Fourth, what the heck do you think happens to that mysterious 25 cents out of every dollar that you think just disappears once in federal hands? Does it go into some offshore account that all those government bureacrats keep stashed for their fat-cat retirements?
Fifth - ah, forget it. That’s enough for now.
When were your constitutional rights violated? What part of the Constitution does withholding a few million dollars in highway funds violate?
The way I read the Constitution, Congress can damn well do what it pleases with appropriated funds.
I’m not quite following you here, The Ryan, but at any rate I don’t want to hijack this thread into an argument over the Civil War. If you or Isabelle want to start a thread on the causes of the Civil War, feel free.
This is kind of my point.
Let’s face it, highway maintenance and heating oil are necessities in this day and age. To hold back either is to threaten the state. To threaten to hold back either on condition that the state passes a certain piece of legislation is blackmail and extortion.
Why is the federal government allowed to do this, and when did this practice begin?
Well, in the case of federal money to highways, it started after the federal government built the interstate highway system. As to what gives the federal government the right to spend money on interstate highways, it’s the part of the constitution giving the federal government control over interstate commerce. What gives them the right to put conditions on the spending of the money is that the federal government has jurisdiction over how federal money is spent. So, whether you’re a state, somebody receiving Social Security, or a company contracted to build fighter jets, the government has the right to set up how that money is to be distributed, and what the conditions are for its distribution.
Ok, so can I take it you would have no problem with a scheme where the government increases everyone’s taxes by 20% and then refunds the money to anyone who agrees not to criticize the government and agrees to warrantless searches of their property?
Would that be unconstitutional? I don’t know. I rather hope that it would be. But I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll have to reserve judgment on that specific point.
But whatever the answer is, we can all agree that it would be odious because it compromises liberties that are clearly described in the Constitution.
But show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees states federal funding for highways.
My point is not so much that it’s unconstitutional as that it’s wrong. Perhaps the way to put it is that it violates the spirit of the constitution.
My question to use is as follows: You state that you “rather hope that it would be.” From this I gather you agree that the government’s power to tax and spend should have limits. What limits do you think are reasonable? Based on what principal do you hope that the scenario I described earlier would be found unconstitutional?
As soon as you show me the part of the Constitution that guarantees income taxes won’t be raised.
And by the way, the Constitution clearly provides that the federal government is to have limited powers and that what is left over is to go to the states or to the people. It seems to me that the “blackmail” technique violates the spirit of this principle.
Yes, that would be unconstitutional. Part of the holding of Dole (that I should have mentioned in my first post) was that the use of the spending power can’t violate any independent constitutional limitation on Congress.
It’s wrong because it attempts to entice people into signing away one of their guaranteed rights, namely, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
I don’t view the power to tax and to spend as the same power, and explanation of which I’ll forego in a moment, so I’ll answer your question as closely as I can to the way you posed it.
As far as I can tell, our elected representatives have a few general contraints on how they wield these two distinct powers. The first limit is constitutional (ie, the Senate can’t propose to raise taxes), the second is practical (ie, its pointless to raise taxes on poor people), the third is moral (ie, its wrong to take 95% of someone’s income, no matter how much money they make), and the last is political (ie, you might get voted out if people don’t like your voting to raise taxes). (There might be some other reasons; this is just stream of conciousness.)
The bottom line is, that except for the first, the rest come down to judgment calls. I calls em as I sees em. That’s not great fodder for a debate, but in the case before us, I see a practical case for the .08 law (it would probably produce the desired effect), a moral case (.08 saves lives), and a political (I think the public, in general, supports this). Who is this law really harming? Aside from the sensibilities of some, I don’t think anyone. Is any Constitutional principle jeopardized here? Not that I can see.
Ask a loaded question, get a loaded question… Fine, there is no such guarantee. My point was that comparing the 5th Amendment to a fictional guarantee to the states for highway funding is comparing apples and oranges.
In my reading, the Constitution does not say “the federal government shall have limited powers” and then leave it to peoples’ opinions on what can be inferred by the term ‘limited powers.’
Instead, the Constitution says what limited powers the government may have, and allows for some debate on that, and leaves other powers to the people or the states. I don’t think that the states or the people are being denied any powers here, so I think this line of inquiry is a red herring.
I just can’t find anything in the 10th Amendment or anywhere else that says that the Federal government can’t or shouldn’t withhold funds to states for limited purposes.
And now I’ll go read that Dole case and try to get a bit smarter.
**I just can’t find anything in the 10th Amendment or anywhere else that says that the Federal government can’t or shouldn’t withhold funds to states for limited purposes. **
Damn Ravenman, have you lost your ever-loving swinging mind?
What damn funds should the Federal goverment be allowed to withhold that forenscently belong to the people of the States? Are you, your disenlightened self, estranged from reality? Answer now Kiddo!
I think yes!
Ok, and the states have what is known as “sovereignty” – which includes the power (and right) to legislate for the public good. The federal government is eroding state sovereignty IMHO.
It’s obviously not as serious an abuse as in the hypothetical I proposed, but it’s still troubling.
**
Fine, but YOU’RE the one who was comparing apples and oranges. The question is whether the government should selectively use a power it has, such as levying income taxes or funding highway construction, to get people (or states) to voluntarily do what they cannot be directly compelled to do, such as giving up freedom of speech or sovereignty.
Thus, it is reasonable to ask where the latter two items are found in the Constitution. But it makes no sense at all to ask (as you did) where either of the first two items is prohibited in the Constitution. The whole point of this debate is that they are not.
And by the way, your attempt to draw a distinction between taxing and spending doesn’t make much sense either. But there’s no need to debate it. Just change the hypothetical a little: If you don’t sign away your right to freedom of speech, you cannot collect any government benefits such as social security etc.
I have no idea what your point is here. The Constitution clearly provides that the federal government is to have limited powers. There is of course plenty of room for interpretation, but the same is true for most other parts of the Constitution.
**
**
Of course not. So what?
Cool. I just got called a swinger.
But I can’t figure out heads or tails of the last part of your post.
Where do you get this notion that taxes, once collected, still somehow “belong” to the people?
whua? Soveriegnty? States most certainly do not exercise sovereignty - they are subordinated to the Federal government by the powers that are specifically delegated or implied in the Constitution.
Let’s get some perspective here - the funds at stake, IIRC, were two percent of the highway funding that states could receive. That amount is hardly coercive. Convincing, maybe, but not coercive.
What does freedom of speech have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about .08 BAC.
The hypothetical is not analagous to the drunk driving thing. You’re still talking about the government trying to entice people to sign away liberties that are specifically protected by the Constitution.
If you’re arguing states rights are being infringed, surely there must be something in the Constitution that says that the Federal government is doing wrong.
Forenscently? Disenlightened? Wat choo talkin’ 'bout Milum?
Craptacular vocabulary aside, the Constitution provides for the collection of taxes, as well as the power of Congress to spend those taxes as it sees fit. I see no constitutional reason for the states to claim a right to any federal taxes, without the express approval of Congress. If you think that estranges one from reality, I challenge you to provide a constitutional basis for that conclusion.
What would give you that idea? You are defending this on the basis that this was arrived at through representative government. I assert that not everything so derived is justified. And you ask whether that means I think nothing so derived is justified? This isn’t an either-or situation. I can oppose this instance without making a blanket condemnation of all laws bearing the slightest resemblance.
Ravenman
Well, first of all, it’s the 4th Amendment that deals with searches, and secondly highway funding is not being compare to any Amendments, 4th or 5th. Perhaps a diagram would help:
highway funding      loss of sovereignty
refund of taxes       loss of 4th Amendment rights
The first row is being compared to the second. You are looking at diagonal, and saying that comparison doesn’t make sense. Of course it doesn’t make sense. That’s why no one is making that comparison.
SImply because they do not have full sovereignty, that does not mean they have none. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government; that implies that each state has a separate government. Section X specifically restricts the states from certain exercises of sovereignty. Why would that be necessary, if it was not understood that they would otherwise have that authority? AFAIK, the government has not felt it necessary to explicitly state that individual citizens are not authorized to sign treaties with other countries; it’s already understood.
While the Constituion does grant the national government certain powers, the selective use of them to coerce from states other powers is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, and makes a mockery of the federal system. The Constitution grants the national government powers in order for it to take care of that area, not to horn in on others. For instance, the power to regulate interstate commerce is given to allow the national government so that they can regulate interstate commerce. The mere fact that this power is granted to the national government does not mean that it is the national government’s to do with as it wishes; the national government is only supposed to use the commerce clause to regulate commerce. The national government is a steward, not an owner, of its powers. It’s a dangerous precedent, and should not be taken lightly. I don’t see a huge threat that justifies such a drastic step.
What the problem seems to be is the untimeliness of the Constitution. The Constitution was written long before the invention of the automobile, so it doesn’t take into account the invention of the Highway. I believe that this could probably be traced back to President Eisenhower. If my trivia memory serves, he was the one who commissioned the National Highway System, sometime after WWII. Without anywhere else to put the responsibility, Eisenhower probably put put it under “National Defense, Civil Engineer Division” and forgot about it. Since then it has become a bargaining chip.
It is not that the funds from taxes still belong to the citizens, it is that once the funds are handed over to the federal government, the federal government is beholden to the states to provide for the general welfare of that state. Strings and conditions are never mentioned.
I do believe, deep in my gut, that beaurocracy is more efficient (boy, there’s an oxymoron) at the state level than at the federal level. Expanding from that, I also believe that if the taxes of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were redirected from the federal government to the state government, then we could pay for our own damn highways, without being bullied by the federal government.
No doubt you could build (or at least maintain) highways in PA on PA’s budget, but it is equally likely that in other, less densely populated states there is no such ability. Do you think Montana or the Dakotas could build and maintain interstates on their internal tax revenue? Do you think that PA derives benefit from having a robust interstate highway system? Do you think there is a chance in hell that PA’s state government would vote to subsidize road maintenace hundreds of miles outside the borders?
What is so special about the states anyway (assuming that this is indeed a moral, political, or efficiency question rather than a historical/constitutional one)? Why should my tax dollars in Rural county subsidize roads and infrastructure that allow people in Suburban county ride into Urban city more easily?
Ah ha ha ha!
This is my bread and butter folks. I get paid the big bucks (yeah right) to tackle issues realting to trumpet flourishes the gas tax.
You don’t like the gubbment making your state lower the DUI requirements? Tough shit.
Where do you think the money to build and maintain the roads comes from? The federal gubbment, by way of the user fee on gasoline.
If the gubbment decides it has an interest in not letting people drive around three sheets to the wind on the roads they’ve paid for, then yeah, they can do something about it.
Oh what? You live on a country road that the government doesn’t upkeep? Well then, have you ever driven a highway? Do you know how much those things cost? $1 million a MILE. That’s right. The feds have a huge interest in protecting their huge investment by having some conditions for getting money.