Hush Money

Ok, I think I get it now. It's taken a bit of time to think it through, and I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I finally think I've worked it out.

When my kiddies (all grown now) were little, we, like most parents, bribed them to show good behavior. On a trip to Wal-Mart or a 'boring' visit with Daddies or Mommies friends, to try to elicit good behavior, we would do things like saying, "Now, if you'll just be good, we'll go get some ice cream when we're done", or maybe, "If you are really a good boy today, we'll get you a toy at the store. Just please be nice." Then, when the little-one started getting jumpy, or crabby while we were trying to have an adult conversation with OUR friends, we'd look at them and say, "Now remember - we won't get you a toy if you don't be good". This usually had the effect of at least reducing the bad behavior to a tolerable level. Sometimes we would go even further and buy the toy BEFORE the activity in the hopes that it would buy us some peace in advance.

Well, you'd think that as adults that we'd be past needing this, or at the very least see through it for what it is. When the federal government offered money to the states, to the car companies, to the banks, it was hush money. There is an implicit bargain being drawn here: If you don't do things our way, we can punish you because you agreed you'd be 'good' when we gave you this money.

Obviously, this isn't new. Remember the federally mandated 55 mph speed limit? The federal government said to the states, "you can have any speed limit you want, but if it's higher than 55 mph, you will get no matching federal funds for your highway system". And if you remember, virtually every state in the union went along with it, even though it was OUR money, the money paid by citizens in every state that built the danged thing.

The key to virtually all of the power-grab by Washington is Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. This is the Interstate Commerce Clause. Basically, this clause says something like, "The Congress shall have power... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Prior to around 1887, the understanding of 'commerce' was that it was basically nothing more than trade. However, due to several court cases, the meaning of commerce has been greatly expanded, until today, just about anything can affect more than one state and is considered commerce. Courts have found that not only is it trade between states, but also, communication between states (for example, the phone companies and the internet), and even laws like abortion and gay marriage, because they can have an impact on people in more than one state.

For example, in the gay marriage debate, the argument that this should be a federal law is that if a couple is married in a state that recognizes gay marriage, but then wants to go to another state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, then things like health insurance, tax deductions and the like may no longer apply to the couple. This is one of the reasons why Roe -v- Wade was bad law. It was assumed that people who can't get an abortion in their own state, would go to another state, and therefore, fall into the category of interstate commerce. Therefore, the federal government could take the right away from the state and make it a federal requirement that all states perform abortions, and that if they don't agree, they will lose huge amounts of federal dollars for healthcare.

In nearly all cases like this, that is the stick attached to the carrot. If you don't accept our power over you, we will beat you with the stick (take away federal money). So the problem is two-fold:

1. The states all want/need the money the federal government gives them
2. The states are willing to cede power to the federal government to get that money

So... in the words of the prince in 'Robin-hood, Men In TIghts', "What to do, what to do...". The only way this will change and that power will ultimately flow back to the states is for one of a couple of things to happen:

1. The states decide they won't take the money anymore. This isn't really practical. I'll explain why in a minute.
2. The states (in particular, the representatives of those states) decide that the power must reside with the state and repeal virtually every law that does not directly impact interstate COMMERCE.

Both of these things will lead to some pain. The main reason is that somewhere along the way, the money meter got turned over the wrong way. Today, the federal government takes the lion's share of our money in taxes by a huge margin. Since power was originally to remain with the states, you'd kind of expect that you'd give most of your money to the state, and a small amount to the federal government. Your state would pick up the tab for things that impacted its residents and the fed would pick up the tab for those few things that truly were interstate commerce related. This would shift the use of the collected tax money to the benefit of the people of the state, rather than taking it to Washington so it can be 'porked' back out to the states.

So, how does this happen? Well, for one thing, we have to convince those who are running for national political office that they are REPRESENTATIVES of the people in their states. Just like the upside down tax system, people who go to represent us in Washington must keep their 'feet' in the state they come from. It seems to me that as soon as a congressman or senator arrives in Washington, they believe they are part of something other than their state - the federal government becomes its own entity, almost a state of its own, and not an extension of the desires and needs of the people who should be served by the fed. Every bill must be viewed as a possible intrusion on the rights of the states, and not on the benefit of being a federal law! This is crucial and is ultimately at the core of nearly all of the problems that we see in this truly wonderful country of ours.

What makes this even more difficult to deal with and hard to change is that we have, through television, magazines, books, government schools... you name it... indoctrinated our citizenry that the source of all power emanates from Washington. When was the last time you read a textbook that espoused the idea that the state should have all of the power and that the federal government ruled at the behest of the state? In most books, the idea of the state is just a quaint way to be able to name a flower or a bird as the symbol of that state. It's funny, but other than having to name the state flower of Mississippi, or to list the counties in the state or maybe the names of some character from its past, I can't really recall much else about WHY there was a state at all.

So where does this leave us? Here is my list of things that need to be done to free ourselves from the oppression of the federal government:

1. We MUST remember that we (the states, the people) are the most important unit of this country. The fed isn't the parent! We are!
2. We (the people) need to demand that our states re-assert their authority over the federal government
3. We need to back away from the bribes and hush money that the fed uses to enslave us
4. We must elect people who will return the power to the states

Only then are we actually being responsible!