One of the key items being argued right now is the relative importance of items like health care, social security, and general Federal level expenditures. I posted a tongue-in-cheek thread a few months ago mocking the issue, essentially advocating cutting absolutely everything and letting people fend for themselves. While that was originally intended as a joke, the current political situation in Washington and the absolute logjam showing there has led me to reconsider it somewhat. Essentially, say that the US Federal government devolved the majority of its current obligations to the state level. The US Federal government would still be responsible for the Defence Department and certain other responsibilities (diplomatic presence around the world, the Federal Justice Department, probably the CDC, etc). At current requirements, the Defence Department can likely be currently budgeted at around $700 billion per year, with the remaining Federal requirements coming to less than $100 billion. There would be two options as to what to do with the Federal debt. One option is that it would remain on the Federal level, and would continue to be paid down by revenues collected on the Federal level. The second option is to distribute the debt to the states on a per capita basis. The first option is probably more fair and viable. As to the rest (social security, Medicare, and every other pie that the Federal government has a finger in) it would be devolved to the state level. States would be responsible for and able to make their own policies, and to tax people or not tax people accordingly. If Mississippi feels that entitlements are a bad thing, the state would be free to strip them to the bone or abolish them altogether. If Maine wants socialized health care on a European or Canadian model, they?d be free to proceed with it. The upside for Republicans is that in Red states, they?d no longer be paying so much for their services. If Massachusetts wants to be a tax and spend state, they can, with no effect on Kentucky. If Nebraska wants to run a bare bones government, they?d be free to, and no Blue state could object to their policy. The upside for the Democrats is essentially the same, that they could implement progressive policies without Republicans trying to railroad them. An additional upside is that it would remove some inefficiencies and duplications of services. Most states have their own departments of education, but so does the Federal government. It also allows for a locally appropriate solution to problems, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution: what works in heavily urbanized New York might now work in very rural Iowa. There is a strong potential downside as well. Obviously, current Federal revenue per capita is not equal on a state by state level. While states would be free to set their own revenue policies, states like West Virginia and South Carolina wouldn?t be able to match the revenues of states like Connecticut and Illinois. The ?have? states could provide greater services at lower levels of taxation, based on the higher income of earners in those states. The results could be migrations of people from the have-not states to the have states. In the worst case scenario, the ?have not? states essentially stop being first world places. So, thoughts on this ?100% More Constitutional!? plan for the US? Viable as an idea, but politically impossible? Politically possible, but an absolutely horrible idea? Exactly what the Democrats/Republicans deserve?