More federal government threats concerning state teen driving rules

It continues. Here is another example of the federal government politicians and bureaucrats sticking their collective noses into the rights of the people and the state. Again, they’re threatening to hold back federal transportation dollars if states don’t capitulate to the demands of Washington, D.C.

This must stop. The graft dollars states and local governments receive from the federal government comes with strings attached. Actually, they are not strings, rather aircraft-grade cable since it’s almost impossible to cut the strings at this point. We’re hooked, and totally dependent.

We’re losing the foundation of our country. If the states want different teen driving laws, they will make new laws and they have done so. This is all about central control, socialism, and central planning. The Washington politicians and bureaucrats want all the power, and since states are now officially hooked on federal funding for everything from state road maintenance, to new firetrucks to fancy street signs, they have the power to threaten you by withholding those dollars you so desperately need.

This is the plan of the statists – including both Democrats and Republicans – in Washington.

Three decades ago, Washington prodded the states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 by threatening to withhold federal transportation dollars if they didn’t.

The threat worked.

Now, Congress is looking at using similar threats to compel states to pass new driving laws covering everything from teen texting to minimum driving ages.

Provisions passed Wednesday in the Senate would urge states to implement, among other new rules, a three-stage licensing process — first a learner’s permit, then an intermediate one and finally a driver’s license.

I asked in a previous post today. At this point, what limits are on the federal government? Are there any at all?

18 replies
  1. socialenemy
    socialenemy says:

    We are no longer?a United States of America, we are simply America with fairly large but totally dependent countys that may or may not be able to enforce their own rules… MAYBE. At this point the country is so overriden with disease I don’t know if there even is a cure. It seems to me that this country has been edging closer and closer to they abyss for decades, perhaps my liberal friends were correct when they told me that now is the time for the American Empire to die… I’d rather we find a way to fight on. FYI, it’s no one partys fault. It’s everybodies.

  2. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I agree: it’s everybody’s fault. It would be to everybody’s benefit if this blog spent more time on working for solutions instead of pointing out issues and looking for someone to blame.

    • Steve M
      Steve M says:

      When you say “this blog” are you referring to me? I’ll argue I’ve laid out what I think are the symptoms, disease and solution for years. We must move to remove power from the federal government and return such power to the states.

      • Open4FreeDebate
        Open4FreeDebate says:

        How would you remove power from the federal government?How would you get around the?tenth amendment? History denotes the abuses of power by the states after the US Constitution was signed which created the need for the the Bill of Rights. The fifties and sixties state abuses in civil rights?preceeded new corrective?federal legislation?and amendments. I think some states have proven their neglect and abusive use of power.?

      • Steve M
        Steve M says:

        @Open4FreeDebate – Do a search for “symptoms of the disease” on this site. I’m not sure what history book you’re referencing, but the 10th Amendment states “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.” I’m not trying to “get around” the 10th, I want to FOLLOW the 10th. In other words, if not listed in Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution, the powers rest with the states. My first suggestion in good faith is to disband the Federal Department of Education.

      • Open4FreeDebate
        Open4FreeDebate says:

        The history I am referencing is found in any early US?History book, the?constitutional convention of 1787 in which the Bill of Rights were born and ratified in 1791. There are many items not listed in Article 1 Section 8 that are the rule of?federal law today because of state abuses. Why would you be against dept of Ed.? There is waste and duplication in all depts. but elimination would be wrong in my opinion.

  3. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Steve, I respect your dedication to your positions. I believe that your last sentence above has near zero chance of coming to fruition. I said it before: if we want changes to become reality via Washington, we have to reverse the polarization we have encouraged in our so-called two party system.

    • Plainvillian
      Plainvillian says:

      An argument can be made that the most dynamic times of progress and growth in the US have been the times when there was extreme polarization of political thought and action.? The 1830s and 40s were such times followed by the era of compromise of the 1850s.? We know what followed.
      The homogenized politicians of both parties who spin every position so they can take a firm stand to straddle every issue has brought us the sclerosal regulatory and legal environment of today.? Polarization might just bring progress, like an equatable tax code, and a return to constitutional government including following the 10th amendment.? Considering the interests that have been advanced by “compromise”, the transition may not be without some civil unrest.? We live in interesting times.

    • Steve M
      Steve M says:

      @Sammy22 – That’s the disease from which all symptoms are derived. If we can not strip the federal government of powers it does not?constitutionally?have and leave the power with the states and the people, there will be no fixing this, of that I am certain.

      I’ve also said this could take decades to complete since it took decades for states and local communities to get hooked on the federal government cash handouts.

  4. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    The Anti-Federalists were the voices of reason back then. It is worth looking at that history. The 10th Amendment has been under sustained fire by the office of the President off and on since FDR, as it states: “… 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.”? I can’t imagine anything a Narcissist in Chief could dislike more. Also note the increased prevalence of state sovereignty legislation lately (in a majority of states) for another indication of how this is panning out nation-wide.? ? ?

  5. Truthseeker
    Truthseeker says:

    I believe Steve has a valid point.
    Firstly, every time you buy a gallon of gas in “your” state, you pay $0.185 per gallon in Federal excise tax. ?This money goes to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is then “portioned” back to the states. ?Each year, state DOTs apply for this money based on planned needs for highway maintenance and new construction. ?The Feds then decide what states get what, no matter how much they have paid in. ?So there are “donor” states and “recipient” states. ?The Feds are allowed to do this since they have control over the interstate roads. ?Is is fair? ?I say Hell No! ?Is the portion a state receives and threats to withhold the funds politically motivated. ?Yes, many times it is used by the administration?to pay back favors or punish enemies.
    And now the Feds are sticking their noses in State’s licensing laws,?threatening?to withhold tax money paid by the people of a state if they don’t “toe the line?” ?Whats next, a Federal tax on drivers’ licenses to fund the Feds oversight? ?Just wait and see folks.

    • Steve M
      Steve M says:

      As I’ve been saying for some time now, the federal government politicians and bureaucrats’ job is to pick “winners” and “losers” and that is how the wield their power.

  6. winnie
    winnie says:

    ” first a learner?s permit, then an intermediate one and finally a driver?s license.”
    is this just for teens?? or is it for new immigrants, too?? at what point does the federal government do *their* job and make sure someone is here legally before not only giving them a license AND a valid ID to be used for voting?

    And really?? Three stages?? Sounds like 3 new? “fees” (read: taxes) to me on top of the “fees” that will be collected by the states.? And we thought double taxation was bad!!!? HA!

    • winnie
      winnie says:

      Oh!? I almost forgot:? all these people at the state level who get excited about “federal dollars” seem to forget (as you’ve pointed out all along, Steve) that they’re TAXPAYER dollars–Nothing is free.? Ever.? Either you pay for it from the get go, or you pay on the other end.

  7. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    If you live in CT it doesn’t matter whether you follow federal rules or state. CT is often more stringent on rules and regulations then Federal requirements.

Comments are closed.