Classact
10-27-2007, 08:34 PM
I know I have a similar post but I tried to re-route the debate here in a more constitutional line of thinking.
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,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
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
Origin
The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.
16th Amendment
In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html
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?
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,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
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
Origin
The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.
16th Amendment
In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html
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?