Bookstores and Booked Bills

"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." --the tenth amendment

When I was young, I used to love going to the book store. I would wade through the aisles of Barnes and Noble making piles of books--novels and comics and picture books--that I wanted to have for a persona library that existed somewhere in my dreams. Each and every time the pile would exceed anything that I could ever read on my busy schedule, and yet each and every time, I would bring the growing pile to my dad and ask him to buy it. There was always a limit. I could bring home one history book, and one book of classical literature. It was always less than what I wanted to take home.

I do not know what reasons my father had for not buying hundreds of dollars of books each time we went to the store, (now that I am older, my wallet offers one explanation) but I think that the idea of constraint and adherence to rules--even in opposition to seemingly good ideas--is a good thing to remember as we work where we will.

I've been watching the health care debate on CNN and the New York Times (i have to use both because my internet is cutting out sporadically) and i keep thinking: "what are we arguing about this for?" We can make arguments about deficit spending and budgets and whether or not a given health care proposal goes too far, or not far enough. But this should not be the source of our debate. Vice President Joseph Biden made a surprisingly compelling argument today when he said: "We don't have a philosophic disagreement. If you agree that you can't be dropped, there has to be dependent coverage, if there's no annual lifetime cap, then in fact you've acknowledged that it is the government's role. The question is how far to go." This idea is not right. Asking how much we should spend is the wrong question. . We have to discuss the actual differences here--and deficits are not the issue.

running up deficits are bad, but the core reason that they exist is that the federal government is doing much more than they should do. Said senator Kyl: "We do not agree about the fundamental question about the fundamental question. Who should be mostly in charge and you identified this question a central [...]do you trust the states or do you trust washington" that is the real issue here today. If republicans want to tout small government health care reform, they do not need to argue about bringing down the cost of such a measure because it is fundamentally a state decision; if they have broken with that philosophy, then I for one believe that they have lost their path.

The federal government today seems like my childhood self child in a book store--there are so many books to choose from that it is finding it hard to stay within it's prescribed bounds. Health care reform is a good policy, but it is not the job of the federal government to be involved in it. We need a government that is willing to admit that and leave these things to state governments by facilitating, not mandating, and by delegating to the states what is rightfully theirs to decide. The federal government cannot do every good thing for its citizens; it must allow for freedom of actions, it must allow for a separation of powers, it must allow for prudence of spending. I fear, though, that we have gotten so many "good" things from the federal government the federal government has gone beyond what it was designed to do. And if the government has stepped beyond it's bounds, it will certainly be to the detriment of those people who reside under it. However, i am not a doomsayer. I believe that we can back out of this. I have been impressed by the growing number of leaders in state and national government positions who have spoken out for a more limited federal government. I think this is the right strategy. I think that we as citizens ought to support leaders who remember the proper scope of our government.