Welfare, Healthcare, and Federalism
My political ideas are well outside the mainstream of typical American Democrat and Republican platforms. However, in the interest of compromise, I would like to present an idea which will be unsatisfactory to all despite sound legal and philosophical foundations.
This is an anarchist proposing a compromise with the state via a semi-coherent midnight essay. Do you dare to meet me half-way?
The Constitution
The united States of America was formed as a federation of independent former colonies acting as separate nations in their own right. The original Articles of Confederation were perceived as too restrictive on the ambitions of the new political class, and a new Constitution was proposed instead of revisions to the Articles in a process which was arguably more a coup than a parliamentary procedure. The Bill of Rights was intended to allay fears of this new form of government seizing power.
The usual justification for federal authority to establish social welfare benefits programs is Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which reads, in part:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States... (Emphasis added)
However, stating such a broad general intent does not authorize any specific authority. This is evident from the debates and pamphlets of the time as well as the Tenth Amendment added to clarify the restricted, enumerated powers of the new federal government beyond question.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In hindsight, words on parchment were not enough to restrain men who wanted power.
But Europe...
Social media and political speeches are full of claims that, "Every other country in the world (or at least in Europe) managed to make universal healthcare and social welfare work!" Even if we take that at face value, individual US states are comparable to entire European Union countries. The United States is big, with a total area of 3,796,742 square miles (9,833,520 square kilometers) and a population of over 340,000,000.
Image source
Here's a list of states by population, and a list of European Union nations, courtesy of Wikipedia. Only Germany, France, Italy, and Spain have a larger population than California; and Malta has a smaller population than Wyoming. The argument for socialist success in Europe should at most be an argument for state-level services as the best viable scale.
Scandinavian countries are held up as icons of social welfare programs, but they all have between 5 and 6 million people, except for Sweden at over 10 million, at least according to a cursory web search. That puts Sweden in the neighborhood of Michigan and smaller than Illinois, while the remainder are more like Wisconsin or Minnesota. These countries also rank above the United States in economic freedom in spite of their welfare systems, by the way.
Switzerland, while not an EU member nation, is a special case. Despite having four official languages for a population on par with the state of New Jersey, they also manage to have a successful society. Take that, xenophobic Americans afraid of people speaking Spanish! Switzerland is further subdivided into 26 cantons, or federated states akin to the 50 states of the Union here. The Swiss Council of States is similar to our Senate, while their National Council is similar to the US House of Representatives. This decentralized, neutral nation is among the most peaceful, most prosperous, and least corrupt in the world. In otehr words, what epople expect to be handled at a national level is often demonstrable even more effective at what we would consider the county level.
This means there can be at least fifty different versions of social welfare programs ranging from next to nothing to total cradle-to-grave welfare and people can freely choose, and that assumes just state-level control. Instead of national election tug-of-war, this more local control and variety means we can have real data instead of loud opinions with no progress. Even better, this eliminates various accusations that some states are feeding off the tax revenue taken from other states if everything remains internal.
Reality
Allegations of waste and corruption abound in government-subsidized child care.
Welfare fraud and how people should be allowed use food stamps (subsidized groceries) are hot issues in the election cycle today.
Many of these programs are indirect subsidies to industry or just work programs for bureaucrats once you scratch below the surface of feel-good rhetoric. The status quo is a mess, and I contend it is beyond repair due to the pressures of public choice theory. Everyone can see the perverse incentives in corporate America, but turn a blind eye to the same (or worse) in politics. Government is the root of all true monopoly power. Monopolies always result in waste and abuse even if only the most saintly gain office. And we know those aren't usually the ones who run for election.
Radical Decentralization
The Founding Fathers were well-versed in history and philosophy. They knew about Switzerland, Greek city-states, and the corruption of central power in empires. History is full of examples where such central power led to corruption, abuse, or just catastrophic incompetence bringing disaster. Instead of demanding new strong leaders who will impose your ideals upon your neighbor against his will, advocate for choice by dismantling the political machine at every turn. The likely alternatives are escalating tyranny, or collapse into revolution or civil war, and neither of those bode well for our future.
I want to decentralize society to the household level, but I know that won't fly for most people yet. Nonetheless, instead of seeing other countries as proof we need more power concentrated in Washington, D.C., this should be evidence that smaller systems work better, and at most the states should handle issues like welfare, healthcare, education, and other hot-button issues politicians will be harping on over the next few months of a contentious midterm election year in the USA.
We can use examples of foreign governments as arguments against central planning under a unitary state, and in favor of federalism instead. This is bad for lobbyists, of course, because they would need to multiply their efforts 50-fold just for state-level administrative structures. Conversely, this is good for voters, because if there is any merit whatsoever to democracy, this will appreciably increase the power and meaning of the individual vote.
Whether you believe in the virtue of democracy, or reject its claims as I do, surely you can see the benefit of bringing control as close to home as possible. Even if you aren't ready for it to be defined by your garden fence yet.
