There are many issues of importance concerning the woes of local communities. Instead of looking inward for a solution, the choice to petition the federal government is often pursued. Reaching out for a federal government subsidy should only be considered an absolute, last resort. Unfortunately, it seems to be a default setting for those who manage city and state regulations in order to pacify their constituents. Resolutions are rarely reached when community limitations continue to mount. Should travailing communities want lasting relief, it is best that they find strength to be with a neighbor, while maintaining moral principles as well as responsiveness toward another.
The federal government was never intended to intertwine itself with the states’ common functions. States were to govern themselves to the point of nearly absolute independence. Any cooperation with the federal government was largely limited to self-defense.
When the Founding Fathers used the word “welfare,” they did not mean a subsidy funded by national government. Today many citizens and state representatives have severely corrupted the original meaning of the word “welfare” to the point that they have contributed to the unstable conditions found in their communities. Domestic overcrowding combined with high government funding consistently results in the increase of : single-parent families, low labor participation, substandard education, inferior urban infrastructure, increased mortality rates, and exponential growth of crime. Current state representatives have proven that they do not trust their constituents to govern their own communities; so much so that they have chosen to make sure they will not be able to.
Founding Father James Madison advised the division between the sovereignty for states, the federal government, and its citizens. He was well aware that “the cabals of the few” were as much a threat as an over-eager governing body. In the anticipation that citizens would be so enamored with liberty, Madison hoped that “the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit than the most diffusive and established character.” No matter which side of the aisle one currently analyzes, this concept is foreign, except to an honorable few.
It was Thomas Jefferson who stated, “I prefer dangerous freedom over quiet servitude.”