Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
This comes from a mind set that all of these services are required, and that these services should be funded through the federal government. Take meals on wheels for example, I don't see any reason that a specific meals on wheels program would be funded by the federal government.
|
I presume that it has something to do with the Department of Agriculture, via the allocation of "excess" food to needy people (in this case, seniors), and the Department of Health and Human Services, via ensuring that seniors are not dying due to starvation.
In any event, why should states take on the bulk of this project and receive federal funds in order to do so? That method of funding doesn't really reduce federal involvement in any meaningful way--sure, the administration of the program might be on a state level, but the funding comes from the federal government and there will be plenty of federal involvement in ensuring that the funds are spent by the states in the manner intended.
In any event, if you are truly a "states rights" person, you would object to any transfer of federal funds to the state level and instead insist that each state should only fund those projects that it can maintain through funding sources obtained from each state's own citizens. Perhaps you support that sort of program, but, in doing so, surely you realize that your mobility options within the USA would be severely limited as a result of all states enacting such a program, as there "have not" states will far exceed the "have" states.