The sixteenth amendment, ratified in 1913, created the first direct relationship between individual citizens and the federal government. It was the first great erosion of the federalist nature of the country.

I’m not against income tax. We need reliable ways of funding government at all levels. Yet, this amendment weakened the original idea of a union of states formed to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide common defense, and promote general welfare among them. 

Article I, section 2 of the constitution declares that taxes shall be apportioned among the states according to population. Since there are significant differences in prosperity between states, this means of raising money was problematic. Having a tax based on income seems more just and tolerable. 

Money yields power. In the creation of the direct citizen-federal relationship, the central government gradually, over decades, accreted more power over the states. States now petition Washington DC for funds, the direct opposite of what was created at our founding.

It is possible to restore state power and still retain the ability to tax income by placing the collection mechanisms in the states, abolishing or greatly downsizing the Internal Revenue Service.  States could combine their income tax burden with the federal and have some leeway with deductions, incentives and other market manipulations without affecting the rest of the country. The handful of states without income tax create a bit of hurdle that would need to be cleared. Those that favor federalism and states’ rights would rejoice. The expanding statist populace would oppose this.

Power is a zero sum notion. The more power an individual, county, or state cedes, the less is retained. The founders disagreed on a lot of things but on one idea they agreed, that a unitary government with vast sums of wealth and power was an anathema to individual freedom. The founders and politicians ever since have differed in opinion about how much power to give to the central government. With the sixteenth amendment, enormous power has been achieved.

***

After breaking the barrier against direct citizen-federal relationships and a drift toward incrementally more social benefits, other connections were established over time. A national retirement plan was established during the Great Depression. A national healthcare funding plan for the elderly began thirty years after that. We have disaster insurance, and a growing array of federally funded health plans today. (Note that the preamble said promote the general welfare. The verb chosen was not provide.)

Historically in the US, progressives have managed to increase federal size and power by appealing to the emotions of the voters, citing desperate need for one group after another. Regardless of why or how it is done, by placing more money in one system, its power grows. I, for one, would like to see a balance restored by getting all social programs away from the federal government and let individual states run them, with a set of simple, unifying principles throughout the country.

The polarization that grips our nation in this era seems to be between the citizens who object to power being removed from states and individuals and concentrated in Washington DC and the citizens who want a strong central government, as long as it is run by people who agree with their position. The number and extent of federal social programs makes our country in the category of social democracy now. Progressives want more while conservatives was less. Without reaching a durable compromise about federal, state and individual power, we will fracture and fail.