Cutting Federal Government Recreates Bureaucracy At State Level?

[Energy]

I saw this comment and am stuck at responding:

"Ron Paul talks about eliminating much of the federal government in favor of letting the market or states handle things. What he ignores is that in reality, if the federal government were cut down in the drastic way he's talking about, the state governments would simply recreate the bureaucracy at the state level, simply moving problems around rather than solving them.

He talks about how "the market" comprising of companies will provide for the people better than government does, so how can companies be held accountable?"

 

[synapz]

Bureaucracies at the state level will be the result of policy competition between the states, and so will have a measure of the free market built in. I would rather have 50 states running 50 independent experiments on policy & bureaucracy than one experiment that is noncompetitive.

Companies are held accountable by their consumers. That's the way capitalism works. If this concept is truly not grasped, then you should perhaps move along to someone else.

 

[specsaregood]

Once again this ALL comes back to monetary policy.

The states can NOT just print money to fix budget deficits, while the Federal Govt can and DOES. So states have to live within their budget. If taxes get too high in a state, they have to become more efficient and/or cut their services. Otherwise people will move or vote out the crooks. The federal government has ZERO incentive to live within their means.

Also, states already have the bureaucracy in place. We just have an extra level of federal fat in place that STEALS the money from the states.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Bureaucracies at the state level will be the result of policy competition between the states, and so will have a measure of the free market built in. I would rather have 50 states running 50 independent experiments on policy & bureaucracy than one experiment that is noncompetitive.

Companies are held accountable by their consumers. That's the way capitalism works. If this concept is truly not grasped, then you should perhaps move along to someone else.

Exactly.

Compare "Things are getting bad in Florida. I'm moving to Georgia, where things seem to be going rather well. If enough people do that, Florida will consider new policies." to "Things are getting bad in the United States... I'd leave the country if it wasn't so difficult and so culturally drastic. Guess I'll have to suck it up and hope for the best."

 

[beerista]

I saw this comment and am stuck at responding:
"Ron Paul talks about eliminating much of the federal government in favor of letting the market or states handle things. What he ignores is that in reality, if the federal government were cut down in the drastic way he's talking about, the state governments would simply recreate the bureaucracy at the state level, simply moving problems around rather than solving them.

He's not exactly wrong; he just fails to see that what he describes as recreating bureaucracy at the state level is a good thing. If the states were mandated to have mirror image programs of the federal programs, then his point would be valid, somewhat. But the point is to return decision-making power to the states so that states can have quite different programs or none at all, programs that are both tailored to and more responsive to the needs and desires of the citizens of that particular state by virtue of being made more locally. Federalism is a beautiful thing: a socialist paradise can exist next to a bare bones libertarian structure. So long as freedom of movement is maintained, people can vote with their feet, creating a sort of market feedback that will give the governments information about what they're doing right and wrong. Ask the poster on that other board if he opposes monopolies in the market and why. Then ask him why he thinks that monopoly in government, which has coercive force that markets don't have, is any better?

He talks about how "the market" comprising of companies will provide for the people better than government does, so how can companies be held accountable?"

The better question is "how can governments be held accountable?" Provided a provider in the marketplace is not a monopoly, he is in competition with others. His customers, being under no obligation to continue with him as they would be with a government, may choose to do business with another. Poor performers will either go out of business or their business will be restricted to those who are "satisfied enough." It is much harder to hold government accountable. They are generally a monopoly within a geographical region for the services that they provide. The vote is the only non-revolutionary mechanism to keep them honest and all they have to do is keep a bare plurality of people "satisfied enough" because most people can't be bothered to be informed or to show up at the polls. Throw out some bread and circuses to distract the multitudes and you're golden.

 

[fsk]

With a smaller Federal government, competition among states will lead to fair policies.

For example, if California has a huge state bureaucracy and Nebraska has no bureaucracy, then businesses will start moving to Nebraska.

Before 1913, states would frequently advertise things like "No state income tax!" or "Low property taxes!" to attract businesses.

 

[klamath]

Pretty stupid argument. As it stands now every state government is a clone of the federal government as far as departments and and agencies. The state bureaucracies are all in place now. Getting rid of the federal ones just gets rid of the duplication.

 

[pdavis]

If we ever get back to constitutional government, then yes the states would be allowed to create these same bureaucracies as seen at the federal level, but unlike the federal government, the states would be prohibited from emitting bills of credit and to coin money (paper money, inflating the currency) and only gold and silver coins can be used as legal tender in payment of public debts (taxes). Now imagine if citizens of your state had to pay just 10%, maybe even just 5% of there income in gold or silver and the state governments couldn't inflate the money supply in order to pay for these useless, inefficient bureaucracies and programs. I believe most people would probably revolt.

Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution:

"No State shall.... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ....."

 

[sickmint79]

anything closer to you will be able to better serve your needs and less bureaucratic. it's just like a small business and a large business.

you could give 10k to a school,
enough to the state dept of ed that it would give 10k to your school,
or enough to the fed dept of ed that it would be able to give 10k to your school

there's bureaucracy at every level - but which one is going to have the greatest % of each dollar going to what the school needs? which one is going to make the best decision on how to spend it at that particular school?

 

[Chickensoup]

State government spending has more accountability than federal spending simply because states do not have the right to coin money to make up the difference between tax income and spending. In order to get all of those programs people enjoy at a state level, the state must increase taxes which affects the taxpayer. Furthermore it gives American citizens a choice of where to live while still being an American citizen and finding a place that lives up to their own ideals.

 

[SovereignMN]

Government becomes better as it becomes more local. In MN a few years ago the Governor cut back a lot of funding that the State was providing to local communities, as a result a lot of local taxes went up. Of course while I don't like tax increases, I still saw this as a good thing. Why should I pay taxes so another town can have a fire department? Let their residents pay for it themselves. This is the same principal.

It's also easier to "throw the bums out" when it's a local candidate voting to raise your taxes.