Federalism & the Great Reset

Federalism and the Great Reset

By: Dan Sutter

Governments, international organizations, and multinational businesses increasingly advance elements of the Great Reset, including, DEI, ESG, and ending use of fossil fuels. The Biden administration’s actions since January 2021 demonstrate significant support among U.S. elites for the Great Reset.

What can be done about it? Glenn Beck and Justin Haskins offer suggestions in Summary of the Great Reset. These include regulatory changes, a balanced budget amendment for Washington, educational choice, and defunding global institutions. They also recommend “Community First,” with economic, social, and political elements, like getting to know neighbors and supporting locally owned businesses. On politics, they recommend, “If you’re politically active, don’t spend all your time and money on congressional and presidential elections.” Building on this, I contend that a reinvigorated federalism offers protection against Great Reset policies.

(Source: World Economic Forum)

We can hope for and welcome political pushback. The Trump administration took helpful measures, like enacting the Fair Access to Financial Services rule to prevent discrimination in lending. Many more Americans are now aware of the Great Reset thanks to the efforts of folks like Haskins, Donald Kendal, and the Heartland Institute. A successor can undo President Biden’s executive orders.

Yet, improving policy through politics has limits. Given the balance between the parties nationally and the influence of globalist elites within the Democratic party, the result is likely to be enormous policy variation. Consider a future where Democratic presidents close gas stations and mandate lending exclusively based on ESG scores only for Republicans to reverse these. Now imagine operating an energy company or bank under such policy swings. We cannot plan and lead our lives or build functioning communities or economies under enormous policy swings.

Public choice and constitutional economics have long recognized the limits of electing better people as a solution for institutional problems. We need institutional changes to reduce progressive elites’ influence. Renewed federalism and a willingness of states to build their own policy and regulatory infrastructure offers a path for predictable, limited government.

Consider one industry in detail: higher education. The Trump administration took positive steps on higher education. These measures included rolling back the Obama’s rules on sexual harassment and allowing colleges to pursue accreditation from any of the regional accrediting bodies, yet these changes have not endured. President Biden’s initiatives include reimposing the Obama administration’s due process changes and student loan forgiveness.

States operate most of America’s public universities with many independently governed institutions; higher ed’s governance structure is already federal. Funding creates problems: the U.S. Department of Education exercises influence over colleges only because of Title IV of the Higher Education Act’s funding. Eligibility for federal financial aid is crucial to universities, who must adhere to the regulations and “Dear Colleague” letters issued under the Higher Education Act.

In addition to empowering progressive elites, federal financial aid contributes to rising tuition rates. The availability of federal dollars encourages state governments to cut appropriations and hike tuition. Subsidized student loans (and potential forgiveness) reduce students’ responsiveness to tuition hikes. The financial dependence of red states’ universities on Washington ensures vulnerability.

Yet states need not rely on Uncle Sam, as a new Martin Center report details. Hillsdale College created its own lending program when it stopped accepting federal support; being cut off from Title IV funding did not doom Hillsdale. State governments, in cooperation with banks and investors, could create their own student lending programs. Income Share Agreements could be strengthened. And states could even increase appropriations to lower tuition and reduce students’ borrowing.

State independence will reduce the influence of globalist elites on many different margins. Consider ESG. If the Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury, FDIC, and SEC continue to push ESG mandates, states — which already charter banks — may need to assume more regulatory authority. State authority may be the only way to insulate banks from Washington.

Attaining financial independence will require state and local officials to act against their narrow electoral interest. Public choice economics models politicians as maximizing their reelection chances. They seek support and look to avoid opposition. Spending money generates support while raising taxes produces anger and opposition. Politicians choose spending when the support gained exceeds the opposition from taxes.

Letting Washington collect taxes for the states is a state legislator’s dream come true: they get the support from spending without the opposition from taxes. But money from Washington has always come with strings attached, from leveraging federal highway funds to make states raise the drinking age to 21 to the Affordable Care Act’s attempted forced expansion of Medicaid. The Great Reset makes such dependence unacceptable.

Ultimately, Washington only recirculates money. Individuals and businesses across the country pay taxes. Laundering tax dollars through Washington is at best a zero-sum game. On the other hand, keeping taxes and spending local can limit the influence of national elites.

An invigorated federalism devolves taxation and programs to states, allowing significant federal tax cuts. If political forces in Washington later reversed the tax cuts, Americans could face crushingly high tax rates. Keeping state and local taxes as low as possible might normally be wise for fiscal conservatives with more influence in the state capital than in Washington. But true federalism must involve significant taxation by states, making some risk here unavoidable.

The forces backing the Great Reset nationally are unlikely to dissipate soon. We can hope that educating Americans about the Great Reset will improve policy, public choice economics recognizes limits to addressing structural problems by electing the right people. Having states assume more fiscal and regulatory authority will enable Americans to build stout defenses against the policies and policy uncertainty of the Great Reset.


This article (Federalism and the Great Reset) is republished here under “Fair Use” (see  disclaimer below article) with attribution to the articles author Dan Sutter and the website americanthinker.com.

TLB Project recommends that you visit the American Thinker website for more great articles and information.

Read more articles and blog-posts by Dan Sutter.

About the Author: Daniel Sutter ([email protected]is Affiliated Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center and Professor of Economics at the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University.

Image Credit: Photo in-article, from original article


Related Article:

The Dark Origins of the Davos Great Reset


Checkout TLBTalk.com:

Click Here to Visit the TLBTalk.com Site


Welcome to the TLB Project Neighborhood

TLBTalkRepublic Broadcasting NetworkThe Liberty BeaconThe Butcher Shop



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.