Federalism: one simple reform to solve all our problems
Or at least make many of our biggest problems much less severe.
Make someone’s day: Gift a subscription to your friends and family!
The 2024 elections clearly show that the American people believe our nation is on the wrong path. I agree with that sentiment, but I do not think any Democratic or Republican politicians are proposing policies that really get to the root of the problem. Even the seemingly most radical proposals are too timid.
While I am very optimistic about the fundamentals of American society (geography, economics, military power, innovativeness, etc), I am very pessimistic about our political system. Unfortunately, our dysfunctional political system is gradually poisoning everything else. If we do not pivot soon, everything that is bad about our political system will undermine everything that is good about American society.
I believe that we need a complete overhaul of many of our policies to promote long-term economic growth and overcome our political differences. We also need a fundamental overhaul of our governing institutions.
Let me start by listing out what I believe are some of America’s worst problems:
The Democratic party and the Left in general are pissed off that Republicans keep defeating their attempts to expand social programs and tax the rich.
The Republican party and the Right in general are pissed off that Democrats keep increasing their taxes to spend money on social programs that the Right believes do not work.
A partisan electorate that is increasingly viewing their fellow citizens as “the enemy.” More people vote against a party instead of in favor of a party.
Very low trust in government, particularly in the federal government.
Different regions are moving ideologically in opposite directions. In particular, the major metropolitan cities of the Northeast and Pacific coast are moving in a very different ideology direction from the 25 Red states.
A $36 trillion national debt (and counting) that is 123% of GDP. That is equal to $272,000 per taxpayer.
An annual federal deficit of over $1.6 trillion, and it is projected to keep increasing.
$1.2 trillion in interest payments per year on that debt, making it the third largest federal government program and one that is 50% larger than the military budget.
Our two biggest social programs, Social Security and Medicare, are on a financially unsustainable trajectory.
Both the federal government and state governments have unsustainable pension and health insurance programs for retired government workers.
A federal government that is becoming increasingly bureaucratized and unaccountable to the President and Congress.
A massive hornet’s nest of federal regulations that is crippling federal and private-sector investments that are necessary to solve problems.
(and worst of all) Virtually no federal elected officials want to even propose a solution to the above problems.
What if I told you that we could solve every one of those problems with one simple reform? Or at the very least make it much more feasible to solve all of those problems.
So here is the solution: Transfer virtually all federal domestic programs to the state governments.
That’s it. It is that simple.
Why?
Well, bear with me for a moment, because to answer that question we need to review a bit of history (all the students in the class groan and pound their heads into their desks…).
See my other articles about policy reform proposals:
A simple and cost-effective plan to quickly lower US carbon emissions
Medical treatment should have transparent prices and open competition
If you are interested in this topic, you should read my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
A Constitutional Federal Republic
The Founding Fathers of the American nation created a Constitutional Federal Republic. The founding document of that Republic is the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly enumerates:
Federal powers.
Checks and balances among the three branches of government.
Assigns limitations on the executive bureaucracy (the de facto fourth branch of government) by the President and Congress.
Individual rights that the federal government cannot take away (and in the 1960s those rights were extended to protections against state governments as well).
The right of state governments to delegate their authority to their local governments.
Clearly states in Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights that: “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 US Constitution was not a historical accident. The Founding Fathers were supreme students of human nature. They carefully studied the history of:
Ancient Greece
Ancient Rome
Medieval Europe
Early Modern Europe
The Founding Fathers also carefully studied the writings of:
The Bible
Ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Cato, and Marcus Aurelius
Medieval philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas.
Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke, Montesquieu, Francis Hutcheson, Adam Smith, and David Hume.
Recent British political leaders, such as Rockingham (a leading Whig).
The Founding Fathers were, in other words, experts in what we now call Progress Studies. The Founders studied history to derive general principles that could be translated into practical reforms to make the world a better place. The Founders believed that to make the world a better place, you must first understand it as it really is, not as you want it to be.
While the Founders were idealistic about what the American people could accomplish, they were deeply suspicious of human nature, whether as individuals who strive for Status and Power or “factions” that strive to control the government. They got this view from Classical philosophy and British Enlightenment thinkers who believed that humans were driven primarily by passions. Many of those passions were potentially destructive, but within the proper institutional incentives structure, those passions could be channeled into socially productive endeavors.
The Founders deliberately constructed a government system that allowed no individual or group to impose their views on the entire nation. Instead, each individual or group was forced to compete against the other in the public area (whether that arena was politics, economics or religion/ideology).
While the Founding Fathers never specifically used the terminology, they intuitively understood what I call the Third Key to Progress:
Decentralized political, economic, religious, and ideological power. It is of particular importance that elites are forced into transparent, non-violent competition that undermines their ability to forcibly extract wealth from the masses. This also allows citizens to freely choose among institutions based upon how much they have to offer to each individual and society in general.
Few constitutional restrictions on state governments
An additional item that is not often remarked on is that the US Constitution delineates very few limitations on the powers of state governments. So one might expect that as the size of government has grown over the last century, that expansion should have been overwhelmingly within state governments.
But that is not what happened. Instead, it has been the federal government, which was supposed to be strictly limited by the Constitution, that has expanded radically in size, scope, and powers over the last century. This trend has been going on for so long that we have forgotten that it did not used to be that way.
Our Decentralized Past
Our current over-centralization of government is a radical departure from the first 150 years of American history. Until 1930, virtually all government took place on the local and state level. Outside of the military and the post office, the federal government played very little day-to-day role in people’s lives.
The American political system was based on the concept of Federalism. Most power resided with state and local governments, and it was expected that they would each experiment with different policies based on local conditions. When a policy proved successful, it was quite likely that other neighboring districts and states would learn of the results and copy them. Gradually, what worked would spread from state to state, and policies that were not perceived to work as well would not.
Getting away from the Federalism embedded in the US Constitution is the root of so many of today’s problems. I believe that it is time to rediscover the benefits of Federalism, and we can do so with one quick massive reform.
Why is centralization so bad?
Today, the United States and Europe (in the form of the EU) run the risk of undoing a significant amount of progress that came from their earlier decentralization of political power. This centralization of power undermines the ability of state, local governments, and non-political institutions to experiment with differing policies and copy what works. Lower levels of local experimentation are undermining progress and upward mobility.
In both North America and Europe, there has been a relentless centralization of political power over the last 60 years. While nowhere near as threatening to progress as earlier Agrarian regimes or modern Totalitarian regimes, this centralization drastically reduces the diversity of policy-making options that are necessary to foster innovation.
While it is tempting to force the supposed “best” solution onto a large number of people, it is usually far better to allow a great deal of experimentation at the local level. When local governments implement different policies, this gives everyone the ability to assess the outcomes of those policies.
If the policy works well on the local level, then other localities will probably copy it. If the policy fails or causes significant negative side-effects, then other localities will avoid copying it. All that is needed is:
an open mind,
clear metrics of success,
transparency, and
a willingness to copy successful policies.
Elites within centralized political institutions have strong personal, financial, and ideological interests that bias their decisions. Even when they arrive at the best solution, the situation can change substantially over time, making the solution less than ideal at a later date.
Rapid technological innovation virtually guarantees that most decisions will become obsolete within a generation. However once a policy is enacted, bureaucratic and political forces make it very difficult to modify or eliminate obsolete policies.
So what is your proposal?
So now that I have explained why I think my proposal is so important, let’s get more specific. Because my proposal is such a radical departure from our current practice, it is not clear how best to implement it. Nor is it clear what method of doing so best complies with the US Constitution.
Let me give an example of what I believe would be the ideal means of transferring domestic programs from the federal government to the state governments. I will use the upcoming second Trump administration as an example.
The President should ask Congress to pass legislation in January 2025 to do the following:
Create a new “Department of Science, Technology and Innovation.”
These are some of the few domestic policy domains that I think make sense on the federal level. If you disagree, then you can ignore #1 and #2 and focus on the meat of the proposal.Transfer all non-defense programs and agencies that are related to science, technology, and innovation into this new department. That would be a large number of programs, but each has a comparatively small budget. So, in other words, Agricultural Research and Development would be transferred to the new department, but other Agricultural programs such as food stamps and agricultural subsidies would be transferred to the states.
As of January 1, 2026 (i.e. just over a year later), all domestic programs, agencies, regulations, and executive orders that are not specifically enumerated as a federal power in the Constitution will be fully within the domain of the state governments.
On that date:All federal appropriations for those programs will end.
Each state legislature can eliminate, expand, or modify each of the above as they so choose.
Each of the states must finance their new programs through their own individual appropriations with no assistance from the federal government.
Employment for all federal employees in those departments and agencies will cease. If the state governments want to permanently hire them, they may do so. Federal employees will still be eligible for retirement benefits based on their years served.
The federal government will also transfer FICA taxes that pay for Social Security, Medicare Part A, and Disability Insurance and payroll taxes that pay for Unemployment Insurance to the state governments. They can modify those taxes as desired.
The next calendar year (i.e. the remainder of 2025) will be an official Transition Year to enable a smooth transfer from the federal government to the state governments.
During that calendar year, the federal government will:Pay for the transferring programs out of existing federal appropriations.
Assist in training state governments on how the programs are administered.
Federal employees are encouraged to work as “consultants” for the state governments in their field of expertise and can receive a double income for doing so. This sweetens the pot for federal workers.
Create a “LinkedIn-like” online database so federal employees in domestic departments can find new positions in the state bureaucracy or private industry by the end of the year.
Continue paying federal government employees until the end of the year, and help them find new employment.
So realistically, the federal employees will have a 12-month severance pay with full benefits (very generous compared to most layoffs) and the possibility of being hired by a state government.
State governments are mandated to have a balanced budget as measured by full accrual accounting.
State governments are mandated to raise enough revenue to keep the following programs financially sustainable for 20 years as measured by full accrual accounting:
Social Security
Medicare
Unemployment Insurance
Disability Insurance
State government employee pensions
State government retiree health care and other post-employment benefits.
State governments may not exclude benefits to American citizens over age 65 who reside in their state. In other words, Social Security, Medicare benefits are fully portable (though they will vary by the level of benefits and tax rates). This is to ensure that states do not “cheat” by refusing to honor benefits to retirees who relocate to a different state after they retire.
So what is left in the federal government?
After the transition is complete, the following federal executive departments will remain in the federal government (to shorten this article, I will ignore independent federal agencies, tribunals, and government-owned corporations):
Defense (by far the biggest remaining budget with $852 billion in 2023)
Veterans Affairs ($308.6 billion)
State ($58.1 billion)
Treasury ($16.4 billion)
Justice ($37.5 billion)
Interior ($35 billion)
Homeland Security ($101.6 billion)
The last two or three departments will likely have a number of programs that could also be transferred to the states, but determining which ones would make this a much longer essay.
That leaves a total 2026 federal budget of roughly $1.4 trillion.
So how does this help with the federal debt and deficit?
Because so many programs will have been transferred to the state governments, the federal government will have massively lower spending. Here is a quick “back of the envelope” calculation on the budgetary impact:
Social Security Administration (a federal agency that administers Social Security; this is a separate budget financed by FICA, so its transfer will not affect the federal budget)
Center for Medicare (a federal agency that administers Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP with a total budget of $1.5 trillion in 2023)
Agriculture (with a total budget of $242 billion in 2023)
Commerce ($16.3 billion)
Labor ($97.5 billion)
Health and Human Services ($868.3 billion, excluding Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP)
Housing and Urban Development ($61.7 billion)
Transportation ($145 billion)
Energy ($45.8 billion)
Education ($78.6 billion)
Total federal spending saved: Roughly $3 trillion (based on the 2023 federal budget; plus another $1.3 trillion for Social Security)
Federal budget deficit in 2023: $1.7 trillion
Federal surplus after transfer: An estimated $1.3 trillion (the biggest surplus in American history). Remember that the federal government will lose funding sources and there is likely double-counting going on, so that is why the numbers do not seem to add up. Do not take these exact numbers too seriously. This is merely meant to sketch out the idea.
Oops, we accidentally balanced the federal budget and gave it a huge surplus!
My proposal will enable the federal government to simultaneously:
Cut federal taxes.
Balance the federal budget
Slowly pay off a substantial portion of the national debt.
Ideally, I would want to implement a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution to ensure that we do not get into the same situation in a few decades. Either way, the federal government will be in a far better fiscal situation than today.
My guess is that this reform will increase long-term economic growth so a combination of increasing revenue from that growth and a slowly declining debt will dramatically lower the debt-to-GDP ratio over the subsequent decade.
So what will the states do?
Whatever the state legislatures and governors want.
Given that almost every state is required to have a balanced budget every year, each state government will have to think carefully as to which programs are worth raising taxes to support.
Each state has the option among:
Keep the department and its programs as is
Eliminate the department and its programs entirely
Increase funding compared to the previous federal level
Keep the department, but trim the budget
Modify the policies as desired.
The same goes for regulations and executive orders.
My guess is that each state will choose wildly different strategies based on their partisan preferences:
California, Vermont, and many Blue states will likely increase social spending, taxes, and regulations.
Wyoming, Idaho, and many Red states will likely eliminate significant amounts of previous federal spending and have significantly lower taxes and regulations.
Most other states will be somewhere in between.
And realistically, each state legislature can mix and match as desired. In other words, the majority of the voters will get roughly what they want, and those who do not still have the option of relocating to a state that matches their political philosophy.
How will this reform heal toxic politics?
An additional result of this relentless centralization over the last century has been ever-increasing partisan conflict in federal politics. I believe that the transfer of power from the federal government to the many state governments would substantially lower the toxicity of partisan competition. The federal government would focus largely on external affairs, where there tends to be more bipartisan agreement.
Relentless, never-ending trench warfare between progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans dominates the federal level. Each party tries to use the federal government to impose the values of a political minority on the entire country. Neither party is successful enough to feel like they have won, but both have been successful enough to enrage the other side. Whereas various sub-national groups within America were once largely allowed to go their own way, now strong federal power makes that impossible.
Both parties know that they are engaged in a permanent zero-sum struggle to impose their will on the entire nation. It has become so commonplace that most people assume that this is the way it has always been. But this is actually a relatively new phenomenon. The overall distribution of governmental power in America was very different in the past.
While partisan conflict would hardly disappear, the stakes of federal elections would be radically lower. Federal politics would be of less importance, and would presumably receive less media coverage, except during times of war or foreign crisis. The main focus of domestic power would shift to the state level.
Fortunately, opinion polling has consistently shown that voters trust state and local governments significantly more than the federal government. And while levels of trust in the federal government is highly partisan and swings wildly with each administration, trust in local and state government is stable and bipartisan.
Hopefully, this means that my proposed transfer will substantially increase voters trust in overall government.
I also think that ending the bitter trench warfare in Washington DC over domestic policy will have positive effects on the tone of our political campaigns. In particular, the minority party in each state will feel like they have a chance to win elections and might move to the center of the spectrum within their state. Worries about what the party national leadership thinks will greatly be diminished.
State-level parties would no longer be defined by their national brand. Wyoming Democrats might start to support very different policies from California Democrats. California Republicans might shift towards the center in order to become competitive again.
Most importantly, domestic policies would better reflect their state’s unique political culture. Progressive Democrats would be able to do their own thing within their own states. Republicans within the more progressive-leaning states would likely shift to the center to become more competitive. If they failed to do so, this would leave room for a centrist third party or Independents.
Conservative Republicans would be able to do their own thing within their own states. Democrats within those more conservative-leaning states would probably shift to the center to become more competitive. Because the locus of power would now be on the state level, the trend toward the nationalization of politics would be reversed.
It might even be possible for Republican states to learn from experimentation that took place in more Progressive states, and for Democratic states to do the equivalent.
Progressives Should Embrace Federalism
I know that Left-of-Center Americans will be very skeptical of my proposal. Currently, progressive Democrats perceive the decentralization of power from the federal government to the states to be a conservative Republican proposal and are strongly against it.
I think that this is a big mistake.
The results of the 2024 Presidential and Congressional election should be a huge wake-up call to Left-of-Center Americans. Democrats need to seriously rethink their opposition to Federalism, and start thinking of Federalism as a “Trump Containment Zone.”
The Republican party is likely to dominate the federal government for at least the next decade. The US Senate seems completely out of reach, and the Electoral College makes it very hard for Democrats to win the Presidency. Short-term victories in the US House seem quite possible in mid-term elections, but redistricting after the 2030 census may eliminate this possibility as well. Democratic chances are near zero in 25 Red States.
The only thing that can reduce Trump and Republican influence in the 12-15 Blue States is Federalism. The current federal government has the ability to hinder Democrats in this states, while under Federalism, Republicans will not be able to do so to anywhere near the degree. Democrats can either suffer as a minority party with little influence in DC, or they can shift their focus to implementing their progressive agenda in the 12-15 Blue States. After all, the focus of Democrats on the federal government is somewhat of an historical accident.
Virtually every social reform that the American Left wants to accomplish is:
Obviously contrary to the original intent of the 10th Amendment.
Fully in line with the powers the US Constitution enables state governments to do.
So why did Democrats push so hard for an expansion of the federal government rather than state governments?
It was simply easier to push through major policy reforms through 1 federal government rather than 50 state governments.
It seems more efficient, fair, and equitable to have 1 federal program rather than 50 state programs that vary with each other.
But there is absolutely no reason why Progressive reforms cannot be implemented on the state level instead of the federal level. In fact, given our current political situation, it would be far easier.
Progressives should embrace decentralization as a great opportunity. Decentralization would allow California, New York, Washington, Hawaii, and Vermont to construct social programs and regulations that are far more progressive than anything currently in existence in the federal government.
Decentralization of power would prevent conservative Republican presidents and Congress from cutting social programs, environmental regulations, abortion rights, and many other policies that are near and dear to the hearts of progressives. After the Obama and Biden administrations, it should be painfully obvious to progressives that they will never be able to implement their maximalist agenda on the federal level.
Progressives should shift their focus from trying to win a short-term 51% majority on the federal level to empowering their supermajorities in the most progressive states. As of 2022, Democrats control at least 60% of the seats in state legislatures in 12 states:
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Rhode Island, and
Vermont.
All of these states are wealthier than the rest of the United States, so they clearly have the funding capacity to implement sweeping progressive changes.
Why not empower state legislatures and executives in those states to implement a truly progressive agenda?
Why ignore your strongholds in progressive states to focus on fighting an unwinnable and never-ending battle on the federal level?
Any progressive achievement on the federal level can easily be undone by Republicans at the next election, whereas that seems very unlikely in the 12 states listed above.
And, if progressives are correct and their policies work well, then this will build support for progressive reforms within more centrist states, such as Virginia, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, and New Hampshire. Support might even grow in more conservative states. If progressive policies work well, then decentralization of power from the federal government to the state governments would work to the advantage of progressives.
Civil War will be pointless
I personally think that the chances of a second American Civil War as violent as the last are very low, but I must admit that the chances are not zero. The impact on our lives and our material prosperity would be devastating, so anything that we can do to tone down the partisan conflict would be welcome.
My proposal lets:
California be California without having to secede from the Union. And New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.
Texas be Texas without having to secede from the Union. And Florida, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, etc.
I do not think that there is another proposal that lets a greater number of American citizens have the type of governance, taxation, and regulation that they want. Particularly when you take into account the fact that citizens can relocate to a state that best matches their preferences.
Federalism is about as close as we can get to a win-win in domestic policy as any alternative.
Possible counter-arguments
Let me address some possible counter-arguments:
It is unlikely to happen.
Yes, that is true. So what? All policy reforms start out that way. The more people who talk about my proposal, the more likely it is to happen. Particularly given that my proposal solves so many seemingly intractable problems and is in alignment with the Constitution, I think it would be very popular if proposed by an influential politician. It just needs to get to that stage.
And the Overton window has widened dramatically in the social media era. So much that seemed impossible 10 years ago has already happened. Most likely, the next 10 years will be the same. So let’s get ahead of the curve and get behind the best solution.It is too radical.
Yes, my proposal is radical, but getting to the heart of a problem (which is what radical actually means) is exactly what good policy entails. If there is a less radical policy that will have similar positive effects as my proposal, I am all in favor of it, but no one has yet identified it.
My guess is that after a few years of living under the new state governments, the American people will wonder why we didn’t do this from the start (which we actually did).Not all states have the tax revenue to fund the kind of programs they desire.
Yes, this is true in theory, but not in practice.
All Blue states have an average income that is higher than the national average, so if the federal government can pay for their desired plan, it is even easier for Blue states to do so.
All Red states have average or below-average average income, but they likely do not want the expansive social programs. So to a large extent by coincidence, this theoretical problem is not a problem in the real world.We should just abolish federal government programs and forget about transferring them to the states.
This is sort of the opposite of Progressives’ desired outcome (forcing every citizen to have a comprehensive welfare state with high taxes). This is a radical Conservative proposal forcing every citizen to have low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
In the long run, this proposal may get to the same place as my proposal. There is nothing that prevents state governments from creating their own Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc today.
The politics of this alternative proposal, however, are terrible. Any federal politician who proposes abolishing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and environmental regulations will be committing political suicide.
Why not just let the states choose instead of forcing the same decision on the entire American people?It is wasteful to have 50 separate bureaucracies.
While there is likely some truth in this, my guess is that state governments will be able to reduce administrative costs much more easily than the federal government, if for no other reason than that they will be starting from a blank slate. It is probably true that my proposal will increase administrative costs somewhat, but those costs will be a very small part of the total budget. And with balanced budget requirements, state governments will have an incentive to cut administrative costs. So while this problem is likely real, I doubt that it will have such a big effect that it undermines the utility of my entire proposal.Corporations and other organizations will not like having to deal with 50 separate state regulations.
Yes, I think this is the best counter-argument against my proposal. We have a national economy and 50 different sets of regulations will somewhat undo this. This is a serious enough problem that I may write a separate essay on the topic.
A solution to this problem is for states to agree to voluntary standards (like private industries impose on themselves) with multiple options. This would effectively chunk regulations into categories with varying levels of government intervention. So instead of 50 different regulations in a specific domain, you might have 3 or 4 standards, varying from no regulation to very strict regulations. Rather than writing individual regulations, state legislatures would choose from a menu of regulations that evolve over time.
Either way, I do not think that this is such a bad problem that it undermines my entire proposal.It is unfair for some American citizens to receive differing levels of benefits and pay differing amounts of taxes because of where they happen to live.
This is essentially a moral argument that you either agree with or not. I probably cannot persuade those who hold this view to change their moral principles, but we have to deal with that problem regardless. I already explained above why a lack of variation makes improvement difficult, so this is really a trade-off between Equality and Efficiency.
As I argue in another article, we do not just want standards; we want constantly improving standards. Without variations, improvement is very difficult. So to a certain extent, we must choose between equal treatment and constant improve. I choose the latter.
Realistically, the United States already has a fair amount of variation in among the states in the level of benefits for Medicaid, Education, Unemployment Insurance, Welfare, and a whole host of other policy domains. We also already have even bigger variations among nations. My plan just enables more variation.States will compete against each other to lower taxes, regulations, and social spending in a “race to the bottom.”
The “race to the bottom” rhetoric is enticing until you realize that it is more accurate to say that federalism is actually a “race to the top.” The “race to the bottom” rhetoric effectively admits that the Progressive ideal of higher taxes, regulation, and social spending undermines long-term economic growth.
Few corporations or individuals is going to want to relocate to a low-tax and low-regulation state with a stagnant economy. Enabling individuals and institutions to relocate to states that get the best results is a feature of my proposal, not a bug.Your proposal is unconstitutional.
Federalism is not unconstitutional. It is the entire basis of the US Constitution. That does not mean, however, that my proposed means to revert back to federalism will be ruled constitutional.
While I will be very interested in what the US Supreme Court will rule, I have a hard time believing that the entire package will be ruled unconstitutional as long as none of the transferred programs are explicitly enumerated as a federal power in the US Constitution and Congress authorizes the transfer. Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights clearly states that: “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.”
I must admit, since this is such a radical proposal, I am not clear on the exact method of doing so that would be considered constitutional. I do wonder whether the President can unilaterally do this transfer via executive order without Congressional legislation.
The President is, after all, the boss of all federal employees. We already know that the President can make sweeping changes to the federal bureaucracy. Congress must authorize all funding going to that federal bureaucracy, but that does not mean the President cannot end their employment unilaterally. This would lead to a strange situation where Congress authorizes payments for federal programs that do not exist. Not sure where that would leave us.
While it is quite possible that the US Supreme Court will rule that the President cannot implement my proposal unilaterally, I am fairly confident, however, that Congressional legislation that is signed by the President is constitutional. But I guess that we will not know for sure what the US Supreme Court will rule until it actually happens.
Will your proposal create Utopia?
No, nothing will create Utopia, but I am confident that my proposal will make our nation much better than it is now.
See my other articles about policy reform proposals:
A simple and cost-effective plan to quickly lower US carbon emissions
Medical treatment should have transparent prices and open competition
If you are interested in this topic, you should read my “From Poverty to Progress” book series:
Fantastic proposal. As you admit, it may not be reasonably likely to ever happen, but we should continue to explore the possibilities. You should send this to Elon Musk and JD.
I think that for this to work states would need to be allowed to restrict the access of new residents to social programs, capital and skilled labor are likely to move over time to low tax states (unless they get enough benefit from the public goods paid with those taxes) but the process is likely to take enough time to allow states to adjust, the movement of welfare beneficiaries could be extremely fast if some states abolish social spending while others keep it