"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."

By Daryl Hunter

Ponder the possibility of one of the states, say for instance Idaho having a state referendum opting out of federally funded programs, removing American Socialism from their regional autonomous society thereby eliminating the necessity for Idahoans to contribute to such social programs on the federal level, thereby reducing their tax burden by whatever percent is mandated for such federal programs, freeing Idahoans to pay only for programs mandated by the Constitution.

With such a declaration of social autonomy a state would assume the responsibility of infrastructure management requiring increased state taxes therefore, trumping part of the savings gained by the reduced federal tax bite. Such increased state taxation would however be more easily monitored and channeled by a vigilant voting public. By budgeting, spending and taxing on a more localized level there would be more participation by the voting public, the direct beneficiaries of this localization of taxation, expenditure and bureaucracy. Such localization would streamline any required bureaucracy, as local bureaucracy is more accountable than a central government bureaucracy, hence, cheaper.

This conservative utopian agenda can also be reversed for the liberals. If such a single state social autonomy could be achieved, a similar referendum could be made in liberal states shoring up their socialist agenda. The apathetic could go with the flow, The socialisticlly inclined could relocate to socialist states (good riddance), and conservatives could relocate to socialism free states. This way the socialisticlly inclined liberals would be participating in wealth distribution at their choosing, and conservatives could participate in socialism free states enabling them to perform on a higher level, unencumbered by socialistic wealth distribution.

Some in our hypothetical Idaho would have to suck it up, losing their corporate and agriculture subsidies, Socialism Security and Medicare. However with an inevitable influx of freedom loving entrepuners and other self-determining Americans hoping for a Socialism free Utopia, free of federal intrusion, Idaho or any such state would be a richer, more profitable place to live, and socialist states on the left coast, and the northeastern states would be free to practice their socialism and learn of it's failures as did the USSR and China, without dragging down the Americans that believe that they can plan their infrastructure, future retirement, and school their children, better than a central government can.

Do I believe that such a plan is possible? NO! There are to many hurdles. First, we would have to receive federal rebates for all previous federal program participation, i.e., Socialism Security, and Medicare, as we would need such rebates to reinvest in the retirement vehicle and medical plan, of our choosing. I believe that it would prove impossible to get that money back from Washington (our central government). People having paid into these programs most of their lives would be reluctant to give them up without a rebate. The multi-generational beneficiaries of corporate and social welfare, and the socialisticlly inclined residents of conservative states would put up a hell of a fight to preserve the status quo, aided with cash from liberal states and the central government who opposes the divorce of the conservative from the liberal.

Do I believe such a course should be pursued anyway? YES! The benefits of the introduction of such an exposing dialog of American Socialism into the arena of ideas would serve to educate the apathetic who currently aren't paying attention to the slippery slope of socialism they are oblivious of, however participating in. Such an awakening would serve the conservative cause as well as expose the Liberal Utopian Agenda for what it is, morally bankrupt, fiscally irresponsible, financially impossible, politically and socially disruptive, and catastrophically divisive. It has been said before, "A nation divided can not stand". Ultimately, exposure on such a grand scale of such exponential growth of catastrophic, ideological divisiveness of the American People will negate the Liberal Socialist Agenda.