The Federal Government cannot institute income tax or any other form of tax to benefit the States. That function is that of the State governments.
The Federal government can institute taxes to pay for federal programs, offering incentives to States to institute programs offered through federal collection of taxes.
It would be every Governor's dream come true for the federal government to set precedent to tax on their behalf. That is out of the question. It is simply unconstitutional and only reflects even further how the Regressives understand nothing about governance so much as politics of their constituency.
it is interesting Ryan states the politics of the nation overshadows the resolve to its problems, as he is just as much a part of the problem as his proposals are ideological and not practical. He even admits that.
The Federal government cannot impose its responsiblities on the States. It is a slippery slope that quite frankly the States cannot afford. Ryan presents his plan if they one could wave a magic wand it is all done and a perfect world. The REALITY of Ryan's proposal is that the 'infrastructure' of the States would have to be expanded and reorganized.
The Federal government has administered SSI, Medicare and Medicaid since its inception with existing infrastructure. The 'idea' the complete restructuring of the federal government to dissolve these functions and simply assign them to the States WITHOUT an increase of the size of the NATIONAL DEBT is hideous. Ryan's proposal is nothing more than an exercise in political haymaking. There is nothing practical or possible about it.
Here is an idea for Mr. Ryan, let's give all the funding for the military to each State? Every State could have their own Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard (if applicable) and Marines. Great idea, huh? I mean the federal debt could increase beyond expectations before it finished building all the military bases in each state.
There is no savings or reduction in any of Ryan's ideologies. It loses validity with the simply and overlooked cost of 'first' implementing it.
Put it in a bill, Ryan, I am sure the House Regressives will pass it so the Senate can defeat it. Then at least they'll have their answer.
It is all political grandstanding, "Contract with America," "Path to Prosperity," fancy words that work as 'campaigns' and not legislation.
It might not pass as the Tea Bagger Regressives have their own idea of political grandstanding.
Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) (click title to entry - thank you) will be unveiling the establishment GOP's ten-year plan to make $6 trillion in spending cuts. Critics are already calling the proposal "radical," but Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said last month that the Republicans' ten-year budget plan will actually do very little to meaningfully address the out-of-control spending in Washington....
The Democrats really don't have to say much in opposition of any of the Regressive plans for spending fedreal monies, the TWO separate branches of the Regressives actually oppose each other as well as any Democratic legislation or Presidential initative.
The Federal government can institute taxes to pay for federal programs, offering incentives to States to institute programs offered through federal collection of taxes.
It would be every Governor's dream come true for the federal government to set precedent to tax on their behalf. That is out of the question. It is simply unconstitutional and only reflects even further how the Regressives understand nothing about governance so much as politics of their constituency.
..."The problem (click here) in Washington is, they take any honest and sincere attempt to fix this problem and use it as a political weapon against you in the next election," he said. "We can't let that deter us."
it is interesting Ryan states the politics of the nation overshadows the resolve to its problems, as he is just as much a part of the problem as his proposals are ideological and not practical. He even admits that.
The Federal government cannot impose its responsiblities on the States. It is a slippery slope that quite frankly the States cannot afford. Ryan presents his plan if they one could wave a magic wand it is all done and a perfect world. The REALITY of Ryan's proposal is that the 'infrastructure' of the States would have to be expanded and reorganized.
The Federal government has administered SSI, Medicare and Medicaid since its inception with existing infrastructure. The 'idea' the complete restructuring of the federal government to dissolve these functions and simply assign them to the States WITHOUT an increase of the size of the NATIONAL DEBT is hideous. Ryan's proposal is nothing more than an exercise in political haymaking. There is nothing practical or possible about it.
Here is an idea for Mr. Ryan, let's give all the funding for the military to each State? Every State could have their own Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard (if applicable) and Marines. Great idea, huh? I mean the federal debt could increase beyond expectations before it finished building all the military bases in each state.
There is no savings or reduction in any of Ryan's ideologies. It loses validity with the simply and overlooked cost of 'first' implementing it.
Put it in a bill, Ryan, I am sure the House Regressives will pass it so the Senate can defeat it. Then at least they'll have their answer.
It is all political grandstanding, "Contract with America," "Path to Prosperity," fancy words that work as 'campaigns' and not legislation.
It might not pass as the Tea Bagger Regressives have their own idea of political grandstanding.
Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) (click title to entry - thank you) will be unveiling the establishment GOP's ten-year plan to make $6 trillion in spending cuts. Critics are already calling the proposal "radical," but Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said last month that the Republicans' ten-year budget plan will actually do very little to meaningfully address the out-of-control spending in Washington....
The Democrats really don't have to say much in opposition of any of the Regressive plans for spending fedreal monies, the TWO separate branches of the Regressives actually oppose each other as well as any Democratic legislation or Presidential initative.
