“Every form of addiction is bad …”
Carl Gustav Jung
During our Constitution’s ratification process, the Federalist Papers urged its adoption, arguing the need for a strong central government. Leading the opposition, Jefferson fought for a literal interpretation of the Constitution, arguing maximum power should rest in the hands of the states and the citizens of the new republic … not the central government.
From this dispute emerged the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been adopted. The first eight Amendments guarantee specific rights to the people, while the last two prohibit Congress, or the federal government, from adopting laws infringing on those fundamental freedoms.
Since then, the federal government has slowly eroded our liberties and the ability of individuals to control their own destinies, frequently in the name of solving a panoply of social evils.
Madison astutely noted, “There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual consent and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent usurpations.”
Yet, a more intoxicating narcotic has permitted our federal government to exercise increasing control over state and local governmental institutions … as well as the lives of its citizens. This drug is “federal money”.
While money has always flowed from Washington, fairness and a respect for the sovereign people dictated the government pay for Congressional mandates. Moreover, few strings were attached to the receipt of funds.
With the Great Society’s expanded social agenda, federal money available to states mushroomed exponentially. Concurrently, the federal government leveraged its handouts by obliging recipients in violation of federal laws to mend their ways. This legal blackmail was most effective in coercing offending states to desegregate schools. As the nation’s ultimate guarantor of Constitutional liberties, this was a justifiable exercise of federal power.
Since then, the Congress has gone on a spending spree, providing the public with fiscal fixes. Americans quickly became hooked on “free” federal money … billed by Washington as the ultimate “high” and promised to solve all social ills. When states needed funds for a new project or to expand an old one, the answer was simply, “let the
government pay for it”.
The concept that “we” were the “government” and that seemingly “free” money ultimately came from our pockets was lost on large segments of the public!
During the Reagan years, runaway federal spending finally surfaced as a national concern. Not to be stymied by the public, the beltway statists, those elected pols and government bureaucrats who know what’s best for everyone, soon discovered a new method of manipulating society, the use of unfunded federal mandates.
Congress continued to enact laws regulating how states and individuals were to order their lives and then told the states they, not Washington must to pay for those increasingly expansive and expensive programs. Soon thereafter, state governments began adopting similar strategies to sluff-off portions of their funding requirements onto local communities.
In the ultimate trickle-down economics scam, unfunded federal mandates now consume upwards to 30% of some state’s revenues; with unfunded state regulations having a similar effect on local communities.
Additionally, the federal government, in its ongoing effort to establish a risk-free society, is now threatening to cut off some funds now provided by Washington unless states adopt new and intrusive regulations. The DOT’s seat belt and motorcycle helmet mandates are the latest such example and could cost New Hampshire some $1,700,000 by 1995.
In so doing, the federal government is ignoring the restrictions imposed by the Tenth Amendment; simply not giving a damn that the people of some states, including New Hampshire and Massachusetts, previously rejected such legislation.
Senator Gregg’s proposed legislation to force the federal government to pay for its mandates is a fine first step. However, it must also restrict the Washington from holding states hostage, forcing them to enact laws regulating their citizens in areas into which the federal government has no business intruding.
We can only lament the Senator didn’t insist the state of New Hampshire act in a similar manner, as required by its constitution, when he sat in the corner office at the state house.
