Reigning in the National Government... the right way

I read an opinion piece Gary Andres the Washington Times commenting on the fact that people in this country want more state control of the services the "Government" provides to the people. "Power to the people"

He offered polling data that shows there is a significant fraction of the country that want the National government's power dilluted if not returned to the states. It didn't mention how that would happen however. That's where this blog takes off...

There's only one real lasting solution: change the government structure so politicians can say "No" to creating government agencies without committing political suicide. Otherwise, whenever a pet project gets cancelled the Representative or Senator has to run for cover or face the wrath of the special interest group who's ox he gored. This ability to say "no" must also be balanced by keeping the government responsive to the collective will of the people. We don't want a government that runs roughshod over our rights, although a strong case can be made that, that is what's happening now...

So, how to do this balancing act? It's easy to say, but it'll be very hard to do. Repleal the 16th AND 17th Amendments. That's all. "How will that work?" you ask. This is how...

The 16th Amendment allows the national government to tax the incomes of the electorate directly. Repealing this amendment will force the government to do it the way it did for 120 some odd years, by getting the money from the states and forcing the states to raise the money. This puts the level of "fund raising" at the state level. Which is one level closer to the people. But this alone isn't enough.

If this is all that happened, the national government would be free of the onerous task of raising the money it spends. Spending would spiral out of control much faster than it is now. That's where the second step comes into play: repealing the 17th Amendment.

This amendment changed to constituency of Senators from state governments to the people at large of the state, a role that was prescribed in the Constitution to be done by the House of Representatives. It in effect turned them into Congressmen with six-year terms of office. But with the Senators beholden to the states they are insulated from the wrath of the electorate and can make the tough decision without fear of direct electoral reprisals.

Since just the states will have the task of raising money for the national government, they will feel the wrath of the electorate for the taxes they must enact to raise their portion of the federal budget. Fear of this wrath will be the wellspring of an enormous incentive to the Senator to say "No" to spending bills: He keeps his job only if he says no to spending so the states don't have to raise so much money and therefore can themselves stay in office longer than a couple of terms. It also gives sufficient political cover to the Senator to survive saying "no." Members of the House of Representatives can point a finger at those "stingy" Senators for the failure of a spending bill to pass and the Senators can take comfort in knowing that their constituency, the state government is happy with them for doing so.

Consequently, an environment where fiscal sanity can exist at the national level and equally importantly, States will have a much bigger voice in the operation of the national government.