When I was much younger, I believed in a stronger central government. I still believe the central government should be strong, but very limited in size and scope. For example, it should have interstate police powers (such as the FBI) because sovereign states cannot handle interstate issues, but the FBI should not be involved in non-interstate crimes (e.g. local drug pushers should not be investigated by the federal system, only interstate traffickers should be). To balance this, the local police should be encouraged (and indeed required) to provide information to the FBI when they uncover information of federal concern.
I strongly believe in the
10th Amendment and the concept of federalism.
At this point in my life, I believe that there must be a good balance. The sovereign states must remain strong for them to do an effective job and because the states are more capable of governing their citizens because they know and deal with the same concerns as their citizenry (there is no way a person in Washington DC can properly deal with the health concerns of people living in an area that is subject to high rates of cancer due to some local geologic anomaly). The federal government still does need to be strong in its areas of responsibility. Only a strong central government can manage a national military or coordinate intelligence operations. Only a strong central government can deal effectively with foreign nations. Unfortunately with that strong central government comes a huge bureaucracy which is inefficient and costly. As such, areas that the states can deal with should be left to the states (e.g. education, medical care, retirement programs, etc.). This will allow the central government to be effective without burdening it with things that the states can do for themselves if they so desire.
-- Jeff
States vs federal govt.
