Haley2024 the Movement agrees with three levels of government (federal, state, and local), however, thinks it wise that they should pick their responsibilities. There should be distinct differences with no overlap and no money flowing from one to another.  Haley2024 the Movement calls for most of the current functions of the government to transition to the individual and free enterprise.  
When money flows down, lower level governments have large incentives to grow overall government.  The city of Chesapeake, Virginia makes up roughly 3% of the state, therefore the citizens of Chesapeake pays roughly 3% of Virginia's overall state taxes.  For every dollar that the city can manage to acquire from the state, they know their citizens and voters only pay 3% of that in taxes, thus motivating them to collect as much as possible. 
 Local politicians are never blamed for state tax increases, but in reality, collectively with other local politicians, they are often the cause.  If every dollar the local politicians spent had to be collected from their voters, they would be far more frugal.
There has been many speeches, talks and seminars regarding cities deciding if they wanted to apply for state or federal funds. The same applies for states seeking federal dollars.   
There is simply to much to know to put so much power and control in the hands of a few.
Under the Haley2024 plan, the three largest parts of the budget returns to free enterprise. There would be a certain requirement that people contribute to charity in a structured system.
They look at how much it would cost to acquire the extra funds and the controls they would have to give up.  Often the money needed to apply for the extra funds are a high percentage of the funds sought. Oftentimes, the funds come with major requirements that are hostile to the values of the local government.  In this case, it would need to be decided whether or not the hostile policies are worth the money, thus the federal government purchase of those hostile policies.
Throughout the country, state governments are debating whether or not to take Medicaid expansion dollars. The liberals have a very strong argument that if the state government does not take it, they are leaving money on the table. They argue that in essence, the state can tax the entire country for money spent only in their state. They see other states taxing the entire country for their own state's benefit.  The requirement to acquire federal funds is to become much more socialist and accept much larger controls of the health care industry. 
Another example of this is the Common Core.  This funds education with regulations that many find hostile.  Many road projects are decided not on the state‚Äôs most urgent needs, but rather on which the federal government will provide funds.  There is much discussion on whether or not to take road funds with certain requirements that a state does not want to accept, such as speed limits, HOV lanes, mass transit, environmental, agenda 21, etc.
In conclusion, people will always spend other peoples' money before they spend their own. Likewise, governments will always spend more of a higher level government's money rather than money they are responsible to tax.  We should always have the value of only spending the funds your level of government taxes.   Each level of government has very distinct roles in which they hold authority and responsibility.   
click to go to my Knowledge and Corruption page
Politicians will talk about how political concerns play a large role on the flow of money. The political party you are in, or even inter-party conflicts play a major role in deciding, when there is discretion.  Often times legislation is crafted to apply only or mostly to allies.  Having a mayor of the same political party as the governor can be beneficial to your city.  There are certain governors that are very open about the power of their discretion in how those on their good side will benefit.

James Buckley on Reviving Federalism
addresses the ills of money flowing from the federal to the states 
He argues that repealing aid-to-state programs would free the federal government to focus on truly national matters, put the government on sounder financial footing, and improve the ability of states to manage their programs for education, welfare, transportation, and other activities. 

Same man, shorter talk on the issue: Former U.S. Senator James L. Buckley makes the case for ending subsidies to state and local governments.
It is very popular to take federal money when less than one percent of federal taxes come from Hampton Roads. While most of this is legitimate federal money spent by the federal government for the military, this makes the point that every locality fights to achieve federal money.
Haley2024 military plan  



Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply

    Haley2024 The Movement Blog

    Bill Haley

    Bill Haley started this Haley2024 in the spring of 2013 in an effort to do his part of restoring freedom to America.


    July 2016
    April 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    June 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    September 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    September 2013