The stimulus is but the latest chapter in federalism's
prisoners' dilemma. For those unfamiliar with the concept
of the prisoner's dilemma, it is a logical tool of
individual choice. There are two prisoners who are
individually isolated and arrested for committing the same
crime. There is no other solid evidence against either of
them other than their own prospective individual and
collective statements. If neither talks, both walk. If one
talks, he walks, and the other prisoner suffers full
punishment. If they both talk, they are both punished, but
less than if they did not talk at all.
So what is the rational position? Unless you have full and
complete trust in your fellow prisoner (and who would?), it
is to talk because you figure he will do the same.
So it goes with federalism. You do not have to to lower
your speed limit or raise your drinking age - you just have
to forego matching federal highway funds. You do not have
to operate your Medicaid and Medicare systems per federal
regulations, you simply have to forego billions in federal
dollars, etc., etc., etc. If you do not comply with the
federal mandate, you are at a comparative disadvantage to
other states, and your citizens are still getting taxed by
the federal government at the same absurd rate. What is a
rational state to do?
Like prior Constitution-extorting funding programs, which
have sadly been legitimized by the Supreme Court over a
series of progressively bad decisions, the "stimulus" bucks
also put principled governors in a bind. Sure, Governor
Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of
Louisiana would prefer not to take the money, but its money
their (unborn) citizens are footing the bill for anyway.
Don't take it, stand athwart federalism's bulwarks, take
your oath seriously and defend a basic founding principle
of the United States Constitution (a principle without
which the United States would never have come into
existence, by the way), and you increase the net societal
tax burden on your citizenry. It is central government
compulsion at its finest and a text book example of the
classic modern-day Washington modus operandi - one must
trade principle, no matter how central to our nation's
founding, for money.
Indeed, perverse is the only way to put it. The Department
of the Treasury could do no worse if its bureaucrats drove
a fleet of windowless white vans across the country asking
the people if they would like some candy. What we need is
a second nullification crisis that moves to constrain the
supremacy clause to its true constitutional limits,
challenging the tenet that the federal government can force
state action by withholding federal funds.
An appropriate constitutional amendment would require that
every funds transfer to individual states by the federal
government that required or restricted state action or
policy to receive said funds be approved by a majority of
state delegations to Congress. The reason to do so by
delegation being that that if the states are to be
constitutionally extorted by the federal government, they
ought only be able to do so if the majority of the states
themselves making up the Union agree to it. It is not rape
if there is consent.
So, should Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana and others
take the stimulus money? Under present circumstances, the
answer is yes, though there is nothing wrong with making
some noise while doing it. The prisoners' dilemma suffered
by the states mandates it. That being said, we must move to
close the ever-expanding circle of rot that allows the
central government to compel state action by witholding or
mandating the acceptance of constitutionally filthy money.
That is, we ought to if we are determined to preserve both
the Union and the Republic. Disappointingly, today many in
power are too intent on forging the former in steel. The
latter...well, I really don't think many of them know what
the latter is.
----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Moore is a rare breed - a conservative thinker,
author and criminal defense attorney. He lives in
Nashville, Tennessee, and co-authors the political blog
http://www.MooreThoughts.com with his wife, and maintains
his own criminal defense blog, the Moore Law Blog
(http://www.moorelawblog.com).
EasyPublish this article: http://submityourarticle.com/articles/easypublish.php?art_id=52537
0 comments
Post a Comment