State Leagues for Social Services

I’m going to restart an idea I began in a couple of other threads, so as not to hijack them.

To preface this, I am an Independent voter, sick of watching the constant wrangling between the two political parties.

To relieve the present political strain on the Union, to reduce political wrangling at the Federal level, and to make taxation more equitable, I propose this: the social security administration and departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development be moved from the federal government to a new layer of administration called a league.

Leagues are groups of states that join each other to provide the services once provided by the federal government. Note that these services are the least essential of government services. The SSA is very important but not as important as national defense. HUD is important but not as important as the transportation system.

Federal taxes would decrease in proportion to the services no longer provided at the federal level. The states would tax themselves to fund the new league departments providing the services.

The citizens of each state would vote on which other states to form their league with. The bigger the league the more the costs for services are spread out.

There would be no stipulation that leagues be formed along political lines. But we all know this is exactly what will happen. In our world Blue states will join with Blue, and Red states will join with Red.

And that’s the beauty of the plan. The constant white-hot wrangling in Congress over the least-essential of government services would come to and end, because now each league can run their own social program departments however they like.

The leagues would be run by the same congressmen and senators who run the federal government. There would be no single executive, Instead, a quorum of state governors would give the yea or nay on proposed legislation.

Remember, we’re talking about boring, slow-moving issues here. The SSA virtually runs itself. HUD is not a ticking time bomb. The league is concerned only with social programs which are in reality boring as hell but which in federal politics divide the nation, So, let’s just take them off the federal table.

The league’s judicial branch would just use state judges working overtime. The league’s laws would be mostly administrative law. The only criminal law would concerning raiding the league’s coffers, illegal entry thereto, etc.

The nation would stay completely united (or at least as united) as it is now. Treasury, transportation, Interior, State, commerce, defense, etc.—all the most essential stuff—are still jointly funded and governed by all 50 states.

There could be anywhere from two to 25 leagues. But finances would dictate that the bigger the league the better. I would guess in the end there would be two leagues, a Blue League and a Red league.

The way governance would work is completely boring. Monday to Thursday our regularly elected congressmen and senators would meet at the Capitol to maul each over federal issues, as usual. On Fridays these some legislators would meet in two different anonymous office buildings to review their league’s own HUD outlays, and vote whether the department of Health should or should not advise teenage boys to wear condoms.

That’s about it.

But the taxation issue is consequential. Federal taxes would go down. State taxes would go up. But how much they go up depends on what services each league provides its citizens.

My belief is that a Blue League which has Washington, California, NewYork, New Jersey, and Illinois as its core would simply hire the people running the old federal departments to run the new league departments without change. And since those powerhouse states now pay out more in federal dollars than they receive back they can also easily fund programs in the less wealthy states in their league.

But more of each league-states’ money stays closer to home, and the citizens’ precious money for social programs no longer goes to states openly hostile to them.

And the country is still united, and all the essential departments and services are still jointly funded by the 50 states.

This is a win-win for everyone. The Blue states are in favor of social programs. The Red states less so. Reapportioning taxation for social programs on a league level simply allows each side to adjust those social programs the way they like, without conflicting with each other.

If the Red league thought a department of Education was useless they wouldn’t have one. Ditto department of Health. Some in the GOP have been wanting to torpedo these departments for years Now they get to.

If Blue league states want to spend a little more money to ensure SSA full retirements began at 67 rather than 70 they have only to discuss it with their league’s states . Ditto if they want to fund a league health care system.

Meanwhile the bulk of the federal government is still the same as it ever was. The nation is still united. The only thing that has changed is the reapportionment of a fraction of present taxes, and the degree of social services in each state, and both of these changes are now more closely aligned with the desires of the citizens in each state.

That’s the plan.

2 Likes

Well, it would certainly be interesting to watch its implementation and evolution. If the two leagues developed red and blue as you have noted, we might need border controls to keep the folks in red states who lose all social support from moving to blue states.

Or perhaps this is “A Modest Proposal” a la Jonathan Swift…

1 Like

One detail of the plan would be a vesting period.

This is the way it works with employment security benefits. If a citizen of WA moves to TN, works for a month, then applies for unemployment benefits (AKA ESB), the state of TN may authorize the benefits but will turn to WA to reimburse the cost.

With ESB there is a vesting plan, so that the longer you stay in your new state the more it pays your ESB itself, until after a period it pays 100% of it. The citizen’s old state picks up any balance.

As I understand it, all states have this same vesting process with ESB. Employment Security is an example of a nationally-mandated social program that is wholly funded and administered by states, and the states have a mechanism for transferring money between them to make things equitable.

With leagues the same exact thing would happen. If a person moves from a Blue League state to a Red League state and draws money for social programs, the Red League state may pay the benefit out but turn to the Blue league for reimbursement, and vice versa.

However, if a league has no such reimbursement agreement, then no benefits would be paid out until full vesting occurred. Maybe a period of years.

With league SSA programs you would accrue SSA benefits in the league you happen to work in, with a few adjustments for the inevitable workplace versus home-location conundrums. A person could conceivably draw two different SSA pensions because they worked 25 years in one league and 25 in another.

But a person moving from WA to TN at age 67, with no years worked in Red League states, would receive no Red League SSA benefits. All their SSA benefits would be Blue League benefits, and vice versa.

An interesting possible effect would be this: if the leagues had SSA programs with substantially different levels of benefits, would far-sighted workers migrate from one league to the other because of higher benefits and shorter vesting time? And then, after retirement, live in the league with the lower cost of living?

Very informative and interesting. Thank you.

2 Likes