LittleGreenMan
Well-Known Member
Ipso, facto we don't need no federal agencies to absorb surplus federal income. I propose that the federal govt only concern itself stuff that the states don't do, like national defense. We don't need them handling everything under the sun without input from the local yokels. The states can join together and deal with issues that concern more than one state, like rivers. If two states are involved, then two states can handle it all and the other 48 can go about their own business. Do the feds have better people, or do they get their people from the same pool the states do? We can't fire incompetent miscreant feds, but we can fire a whole string of people in our own states. Do the feds do their thing with us in mind, or do they habitually do things for the greater good of nebulous other entities, like snail darters? When divvying up the good that rivers bring and/or insuring others treat our mutual asset well, we can watch them, and they can watch us and each can keep the other honest. This, verses the feds being an ill wind that blows nobody good. There are thousands of examples ongoing every year. The closer the decision makers are to the people served or regulated by the decision, the better. The Federalists never envisioned the federal govt would have the powers Kings to change everything we do and use, and are allowed to buy, but that's what has evolved and we need to put them back in their place as servants of the citizens and Constitution. Laws changing light bulbs and outlawing gas stoves would never ever pass in legislatures, it needs to have OUR input not that of greenie weenie weirdo's who don't answer to anyone. Disband all the federal agencies in all cases where the states have departments to do the same jobs. If the states decide we need help, we'll let you know. Meanwhile, lower taxes to levels that support only the activities we support, and don't put a dime extra on the tab. And by the way, GAAP applies to all of us; start accounting for every penny.
