Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Rep. Garrett sponsors bills allowing states to opt out of federal highway, education

  1. #1
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805

    Rep. Garrett sponsors bills allowing states to opt out of federal highway, education

    [URL="http://www.northjersey.com/news/politics/Rep_Garrett_sponsors_bills_allowing_states_to_opt_out_of_federal_highway_education_programs.html"]http://www.northjersey.com[/URL]

    This is just hard to believe. It is so stoopid it makes my head hurt.

    I understand if you feel the government is too big and needs to be cut. But using the 10th amendment to justify your argument just doesn’t fly.
    I posted the relevant parts of the constitution at the end of the post


    [QUOTE]

    Rep. Scott Garrett joined several colleagues who share his strict reading of the constitution Thursday in calling on Congress to take the federal government back to limited size they say the founding fathers envisioned.

    Bills that Garrett, R-Wantage, is sponsoring would let states opt out of federal highway and education programs. Both bills were included in the 10-point agenda offered by the 10th Amendment Task Force, which takes its name from the provision that says power not specifically given to the national government belongs to the states.

    It was not clear whether the House Republican leadership would be moving any of the task force's bills. Garrett's highway bill has been pending since 2005 and the education bill since 2007, and neither has advanced in that time.

    Garrett said there are fundamental flaws in federal education grant programs, such as the No Child Left Behind initiative by former President George W. Bush that tied federal funding to standards of performance.

    "No Child Left Behind ... gets the federal government into an area that there's no constitutional authority for, and that's not just me saying that, that's Thomas Jefferson saying that," Garrett said at a task force news conference.

    He cited a story of a woman who asked Jefferson when the government would build schools in her town, and Jefferson said he would do so when the federal government was given the power to do it.

    His bill dubbed the LEARN Act, for Local Education Authority Returns Now, would let states opt out of programs such as No Child Left Behind, and give tax credits residents in states that do opt out equal to the amount of federal aid that would be lost.

    A spokesman for the state's largest teachers union said Garrett's bill could lead states to stop providing the kinds of opportunities for disadvantaged students that federal laws have tried to ensure.

    "The federal government's historic role has been to provide equity in funding, and the reason it stepped in was because states were failing in their obligations to do so," said Steve Baker, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association.

    Garrett also contends that while the constitution does give Washington the power to build "post offices and post roads," that applies primarily to interstate highways and programs funding the construction of local roads go too far.

    His bill called the STATE Act, for Surface Transportation and Taxation Equity, would allow states that raise their local gas taxes by the current federal rate to keep that money for their own projects.

    "What we should be doing is turning transportation responsibilities where they are best addressed, to the state level," Garrett said.

    A 2008 analysis by the Government Accountability Office, however, said New Jersey got back about $131 million more in transportation funding than it paid to Washington.

    The Task Force chairman, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, praised Garrett's work on the issue as one of the founders of the Constitution Caucus in Congress.

    "He's always been a leader in this particular area," Bishop said.

    E-mail: [email]jackson@northjersey.com[/email] Blog: northjersey.com/herbjackson


    [/QUOTE]

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

    [QUOTE]
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [B]and general Welfare of the United States[/B]; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    [/QUOTE]

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 3

    [QUOTE]
    The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
    [/QUOTE]

    Amendment 10

    [QUOTE]
    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.
    [/QUOTE]

    [URL="http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10"]http://www.usconstitution.net/[/URL]
    Last edited by Buster; 09-17-2011 at 03:37 PM. Reason: simply stoopid

  2. #2
    [QUOTE]would let states opt out of programs such as No Child Left Behind, and give tax credits residents in states that do opt out equal to the amount of federal aid that would be lost.
    [/QUOTE]



    Hard for me to buy into the concept that States would get equal aid and opt out. We fought for representation, sending Federal money to States that have opted out of Federal programs smells like taxation without representation.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4147081]Hard for me to buy into the concept that States would get equal aid and opt out. We fought for representation, sending Federal money to States that have opted out of Federal programs smells like taxation without representation.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure I understand what this means.... are they saying that states could opt out of a federally subsidized program, yet still expect to get federal tax credits of the same amount? If so, they must be completely bonkers. No state is required to participate in many federally subsidized programs. They choose to because it lowers their expenses. I can hardly wait for a state to reject federal road funds. Some states are bad enough in road repair and construction even with the funds. Should be great for their intrastate tourism business when people will have to drive through potholes to get to a tourist site. Should be interesting to see how the deficit reduction packages that tea partiers have begged for will affect the ability of states to function.... aren't around 30% of state budgets coming from federal aid/subsidies?

  4. #4
    The "general welfare" line in article was is, IMO, the most over-used and poorest defined defense for "Big Govt." there is. While I agree in some cases, the argument that "roads" in general fall under that clause is, again IMO, quite illogical. Local and state roads are not an issue the Federal Govt. should be involved in. The interstates....thats a better discussion to have.

    Beyond that point, I'll make a few comments:

    1. States often find they send more money to the Federal Govt. that their citizens get back. You may not like it or agree with it, but thats not going to make a big State happy, when they have needs that go unfilled while smaller states, the "takers" in the Federal system, reap the rewards and get their issues paid for. Even States, as a whole, are not always fans of fiscal communism.

    2. States don't opt out for one reason and one reason only. Opting out (i.e. turning down funds) will not stop that State being taxed. It's a false argument to claim that if a State "really beleived" in States rights, they'd turn down the Federal money. Thats laughable, because that money is still being taken from the state, regardless. Until the system is changed, states (and people) are going to take what they can out of it.

    3. My own major problem is the system is inherantly inefficient and wasteful. States have (generally) pretty huge Govt.s themselves, and are perfectly capable of maintaining a road, building a bridge or operating a school. But instead of states keeping their money at home, and simply spending it on X, the majority of tax maney goes out of the State to the Feds, where it sits, gets wasted, drains away in red tape and the federal burocracy (I never could spell that word), and then, eventually, trickes back down to the States as federal lawmakers see fit, and it sums smaller than they started with. If it were up to me, no local/state services or infrastructure would be Federally funded, and the Feds would be forced to reduce taxes to compensate. I trust my State to know whats in our general welfare, in roads, schools and the like, more than the Feds. And I trust my State to get the job done, since they're doing it one way or the other anyway. Best of all, if my State is going in a direction I don;t like, I (the voter) have ALOT more power over state-level politics than I do Federal. Roads, School, Police, Fire, etc, should all be 100% State Managed, and State funded. The Feds have plenty to do without being involved in those areas.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Buster;4146936]

    This is just hard to believe. [B]It is so [U]stooped[/U] it makes my head hurt[/B].
    [/QUOTE]

    :rolleyes:

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4147125]The "general welfare" line in article was is, IMO, the most over-used and poorest defined defense for "Big Govt." there is. While I agree in some cases, the argument that "roads" in general fall under that clause is, again IMO, quite illogical. Local and state roads are not an issue the Federal Govt. should be involved in. The interstates....thats a better discussion to have.

    Beyond that point, I'll make a few comments:

    1. States often find they send more money to the Federal Govt. that their citizens get back. You may not like it or agree with it, but thats not going to make a big State happy, when they have needs that go unfilled while smaller states, the "takers" in the Federal system, reap the rewards and get their issues paid for. Even States, as a whole, are not always fans of fiscal communism.

    2. States don't opt out for one reason and one reason only. Opting out (i.e. turning down funds) will not stop that State being taxed. It's a false argument to claim that if a State "really beleived" in States rights, they'd turn down the Federal money. Thats laughable, because that money is still being taken from the state, regardless. Until the system is changed, states (and people) are going to take what they can out of it.

    3. My own major problem is the system is inherantly inefficient and wasteful. States have (generally) pretty huge Govt.s themselves, and are perfectly capable of maintaining a road, building a bridge or operating a school. But instead of states keeping their money at home, and simply spending it on X, the majority of tax maney goes out of the State to the Feds, where it sits, gets wasted, drains away in red tape and the federal burocracy (I never could spell that word), and then, eventually, trickes back down to the States as federal lawmakers see fit, and it sums smaller than they started with. If it were up to me, no local/state services or infrastructure would be Federally funded, and the Feds would be forced to reduce taxes to compensate. I trust my State to know whats in our general welfare, in roads, schools and the like, more than the Feds. And I trust my State to get the job done, since they're doing it one way or the other anyway. Best of all, if my State is going in a direction I don;t like, I (the voter) have ALOT more power over state-level politics than I do Federal. Roads, School, Police, Fire, etc, should all be 100% State Managed, and State funded. The Feds have plenty to do without being involved in those areas.[/QUOTE]

    What he said.

    Nice to see some logic in this forum once in a while.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,805
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4147168]:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    my bad i'll fix

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4147125]The "general welfare" line in article was is, IMO, the most over-used and poorest defined defense for "Big Govt." there is. While I agree in some cases, the argument that "roads" in general fall under that clause is, again IMO, quite illogical. Local and state roads are not an issue the Federal Govt. should be involved in. The interstates....thats a better discussion to have.

    Beyond that point, I'll make a few comments:

    1. States often find they send more money to the Federal Govt. that their citizens get back. You may not like it or agree with it, but thats not going to make a big State happy, when they have needs that go unfilled while smaller states, the "takers" in the Federal system, reap the rewards and get their issues paid for. Even States, as a whole, are not always fans of fiscal communism.

    2. States don't opt out for one reason and one reason only. Opting out (i.e. turning down funds) will not stop that State being taxed. It's a false argument to claim that if a State "really beleived" in States rights, they'd turn down the Federal money. Thats laughable, because that money is still being taken from the state, regardless. Until the system is changed, states (and people) are going to take what they can out of it.

    3. My own major problem is the system is inherantly inefficient and wasteful. States have (generally) pretty huge Govt.s themselves, and are perfectly capable of maintaining a road, building a bridge or operating a school. But instead of states keeping their money at home, and simply spending it on X, the majority of tax maney goes out of the State to the Feds, where it sits, gets wasted, drains away in red tape and the federal burocracy (I never could spell that word), and then, eventually, trickes back down to the States as federal lawmakers see fit, and it sums smaller than they started with. If it were up to me, no local/state services or infrastructure would be Federally funded, and the Feds would be forced to reduce taxes to compensate. I trust my State to know whats in our general welfare, in roads, schools and the like, more than the Feds. And I trust my State to get the job done, since they're doing it one way or the other anyway. Best of all, if my State is going in a direction I don;t like, I (the voter) have ALOT more power over state-level politics than I do Federal. Roads, School, Police, Fire, etc, should all be 100% State Managed, and State funded. The Feds have plenty to do without being involved in those areas.[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't clear on Garrett's proposal re the tax credit issue. I think the problem is that both the Constitution and specifically the 16th Amendment do not allow for unequal apportionment of federal income taxes from one state to another. In other words, I'm not sure that one state can get a lower federal income tax for its residents because it does not use a specific federal subsidy. In general, I would agree with you that if you remove the interstate highway/bridge system from the equation, states should be fully responsible for roads and bridges within their boundaries. The overarching question is: should the federal government be involved in setting standards or regulations for highway construction/safety/uniformity, etc. Same for many other issues. Once the federal government is involved in regulating, it usually follows with a subsidy to assist in meeting the regulation (for better or worse). Now such regulations are usually a product of Congress, so the whole issue circles back to how that institution reflects the will of the states/individual. In general, I agree with you that what can legitimately be handled at the state level should be. But we would probably disagree on a case by case basis as to which programs/regulations that would apply to.

    On a side note, it's hard to imagine the founders having Jules Verne's visionary prowess and seeing the need for a vast and complex road and bridge system, which was largely the product of the advent of the automobile. That changed everything.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE]A 2008 analysis by the Government Accountability Office, however, said New Jersey got back about $131 million more in transportation funding than it paid to Washington.[/QUOTE]

    Is Garrett presenting a bill to give the federal govt its money back?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4147527]I wasn't clear on Garrett's proposal re the tax credit issue. I think the problem is that both the Constitution and specifically the 16th Amendment do not allow for unequal apportionment of federal income taxes from one state to another. In other words, I'm not sure that one state can get a lower federal income tax for its residents because it does not use a specific federal subsidy.[/quote]

    In an era where ~50% and one of our two political parties of our people truly and deeply believe that the Federal Govt. has the power to force one individual to buy a product from another individual, I have to be honest here.....I have no idea anymore exactly WHAT is "Constitutional" in the eyes of the Law today. Half the things I see in the news I wonder to myself, in short, "wtf???"

    So I don't know if it is or isn't.

    [QUOTE]In general, I would agree with you that if you remove the interstate highway/bridge system from the equation, states should be fully responsible for roads and bridges within their boundaries.[/QUOTE]

    Good to see we can agree.

    [QUOTE]The overarching question is: should the federal government be involved in setting standards or regulations for highway construction/safety/uniformity, etc. Same for many other issues.[/QUOTE]

    Involved? Yes, definitely. They should have Federal "Recommended Standards & Best Practices" and even perhaps "Minimum Quality Standards" it suggests to the States and the like.

    But actual control over local non-Interstate infrastructure vis the current funding mechanic.....? No.

    [QUOTE]Once the federal government is involved in regulating, it usually follows with a subsidy to assist in meeting the regulation (for better or worse).[/QUOTE]

    A core problem IMO.

    Meeting Federal Minimum Standards should be the only requirement of States, and the States should still be 100% in charge, and funindng, those projects. Local infrastructure is best handled locally.

    [QUOTE] Now such regulations are usually a product of Congress, so the whole issue circles back to how that institution reflects the will of the states/individual.[/QUOTE]

    There is no question. It's does not reflect the States.

    [QUOTE] In general, I agree with you that what can legitimately be handled at the state level should be. But we would probably disagree on a case by case basis as to which programs/regulations that would apply to.[/QUOTE]

    Probably.

    [quote]On a side note, it's hard to imagine the founders having Jules Verne's visionary prowess and seeing the need for a vast and complex road and bridge system, which was largely the product of the advent of the automobile. That changed everything.[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. And again, the Interstate Road and Rail Networtk most appropriate resides with Federal involvement/funding. Intrastate infrastructure does not. Be it a horse road, an Interstate, and Airport (interstate by definition) or a future solar-panel Hover-road. The basic mechanics remain the same. The State can manage it's own needs locally better than the Feds can, and more efficiently, as long as there are universal Federasl minimum standards (that make sense). The Feds can best serve us by management and funding on interstate and nationwide projects.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,190
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4147527]t if you remove the interstate highway/bridge system from the equation, states should be fully responsible for roads and bridges within their boundaries. QUOTE]

    That'll never happen.

    Inbred, yee-haw, hillbilly syumpf*cking states would have dirt roads.

    Pretty much every place south of Maryland would look like the 1830's...

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Buster;4146936][URL="http://www.northjersey.com/news/politics/Rep_Garrett_sponsors_bills_allowing_states_to_opt_out_of_federal_highway_education_programs.html"]http://www.northjersey.com[/URL]

    This is just hard to believe. [B]It is so stoopid it makes my head hurt.[/B]
    [/URL][/QUOTE]

    :rofl:

    Strike 2. Oh the irony.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4148575][QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4147527]t if you remove the interstate highway/bridge system from the equation, states should be fully responsible for roads and bridges within their boundaries. QUOTE]

    That'll never happen.

    Inbred, yee-haw, hillbilly syumpf*cking states would have dirt roads.

    Pretty much every place south of Maryland would look like the 1830's...[/QUOTE]

    That seems to be true today anyway. And it applies to the interstate system as well. I'm no expert on how the funding works for this, but it would appear that states get a certain amount of money to maintain the federal highway system. They vary WIDELY in how well they carry that out, based on my personal experience driving all over hell in this country. West Virginia has a pristine federal highway system while Pennsylvania and Illinois just suck. And the tolls charged vary enormously from state to state as well, for interstates! I don't get that either. If anyone knows how this whole deal works, I'd be interested to know...

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4148575][QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4147527]t if you remove the interstate highway/bridge system from the equation, states should be fully responsible for roads and bridges within their boundaries. QUOTE]

    That'll never happen.

    Inbred, yee-haw, hillbilly syumpf*cking states would have dirt roads.

    Pretty much every place south of Maryland would look like the 1830's...[/QUOTE]

    This coming from a lib? your city's look like Dresdan 1945. Fix your own glass house.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us