|
|
|
First, I am not against government ...as some might imagine. I just think that what our founders set up ...individual states managing things in a proper way to benefit thier citizens ..is a better, balanced approach.
I note the progress in my own state since we booted the liberals to the curb a few years back. Not perfect, but way better than it was under the old regime.
Here might be an excellent case for smaller, state run inititive. Just think what might have been without the feds hampering evey move.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/14/indianas-mike-pence
And I am sure that all is not perfect in Indiana, but it sure looks a sight better in states like this one and other conservative led states than what we see in liberal bastions around the country.
Opinions?
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
And I am sure that all is not perfect in Indiana, but it sure looks a sight better in states like this one and other conservative led states than what we see in liberal bastions around the country.
Really? Then how come Indiana ties at 5.8% unemployment with Massachusetts, the quintessential, Liberal, bloated government state? Ref: http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm.
As for Alabama: not bad, especially if you compare it with Georgia.
BTW, you'd think Georgians would be moving en mass to North Dakota, but I Googled to see if that's so - not a reference to such a migration to be found anywhere on the web. There's got to something else going on there.
--
|
|
-
|
|
|
I guess you are referring to unemployment rates in both examples ....but as of August this year AL was a good bit better than GA.
As for MA ...that is good ...but I would venture that unemployment is only one part of the equation.
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
|
That depends on the definition of smaller. Perhaps you should be thinking more efficient?
There is no way in heck that government institutions will self impose restrictions on growth or even reduce their own size. Give up power? Rewrite laws to keep things simple and straight forward?
In MN there are 67 senators and 134 house members, for 5 million people? Much too large for such a small population, but do you think that any one of these elected officials will eliminate their position?
--
My back feels better when I sit in a Volvo seat
|
|
-
|
|
|
"...In MN there are 67 senators and 134 house members, for 5 million people? Much too large for such a small population,..."
Given how much the size of representation has grown right along with the population, most states AND the U.S. House could easily do a 2-for-1 split and eliminate half the salaries, half the pensions (that they SO deserve after two/four/six long years of unselfish service), and half the corruption. Oooops, can't do that. Could you imagine the redistricting wrangling that would take place in order to accomplish something like that?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Although you may be right in that we have too many state legislators, I don't believe reducing their numbers would significantly reduce the operational cost of state governments.
I haven't the time to do a thorough search, but from what I've been able to determine with a cursory look is that the monthly state employee payroll nationwide amounts to about $21 billion. The monthly state legislature plus governor and lieutenant governor payroll is approximately $2.1billion, i.e., 1/10 as much. Governors and Lt. Governors get about 35% of that. So, even if you cut the number of state legislators by 50%, the impact on the reduction in the cost of operating state governments would not be spectacular.
If, as Teaparty adherents advocate, we shrink the federal government and let the states provide the services it now provides, especially the social ones, my guess is that state employee payrolls would increase substantially, and that functional duplication would take much of the bang out of the buck.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Ah yes, breitbart.com and peoplesworld.org, two extraordinarily creditable purveyors of unbiased political and economic commentary. ;-)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Sorry. I forgot. The only true news comes from such as the Huff Post or MSNBC.
Apologies!
How about this one.
http://imaweb.com/indiana-leads-u-s-manufacturing-production-employment/
___________________________________________________________
PS. I went back and looked closer. All Brietbart did was relay a report by by RYAN STREETER ...
Dr. Ryan Streeter is Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Strategy for Indiana Governor Mike Pence.
So this is a state official of Indiana reporting his state's advantages, that line up with facts, data and other reporting.
But because it is on Brietbart ...it is dismissed out of hand!
OK. Now we can move forward.
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Sorry. I forgot. The only true news comes from such as the Huff Post or MSNBC
Thanks for making my point: one can always find support somewhere for either side of a bogus political argument.
The real issue is not small vs big government but rather good (effective) vs bad (ineffective) government, and there is very little solid evidence that correlation between size of government and the quality of governance exists on the national or the international scene. But, if only to be facetious, let me suggest you juxtapose Singapore and Somalia in the small government category. Oh, and take note of the difference in the per capita number of government employees in Wyoming and Arizona, two "super red" Western states.
www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html
That, of course, leads to the question, what are indicators of effective government? I would suggest median income, the population's health, educational achievement, employment rate, income disparity, incarceration rate, popular satisfaction with government performance.
In regard to the last item, Growing Gap in Favorable Views of Federal, State Governments, found at www.people-press.org, tells me that the closer to home, the better you like your government, and when the party you support is in charge you like it even better. Now that's what I call revelatory.;-)
Internationally, citizens of countries with Liberal governments appear, on the average, to be more satisfied with their governments, and Conservatives, although they may disagree with the folks in charge, are the happiest people there. Well, that figures, doesn't it?
www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/09/satisfied-citizens.aspx.
Even if it's outdated and has issues, I still like this one: en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index, mostly because it proves that the French are just so damned hard to please.
Some other pages relevant to effective government indicators can be found at: en.wikipedia.org/List_of_states_by_educational_attainment
www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-02.pdf Household Income for States:2010 and 2011
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incarceration_rate
and
www.americashealthrankings.org
None of these show that more conservative governments outperform more liberal ones, nor that those with smaller governments do better than those that have big ones.
But to get back to Indiana: I'm happy the state is doing so well, but if the song of praise you cited is being warbled by one of the governor’s appointees, given space in a notoriously right-wing-nut site, and echoed by the Indiana Manufacturers Association's chief lobbyist and political fund raiser, pardon me if I am a bit skeptical - at least as skeptical as when Dennis McDonough proclaims that Obama is the greatest or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz places a crown of olive leaves on the president's brow.
At any rate, the government of any rust belt state that shows signs of recovery deserves credit. I’m just wondering how much of that credit should go to a governor who came into office last January.
One last thought: why do the Republicans, especially the ones in the deep vermillion South, i.e., the states that receive the most Federal Government benefits and get more federal tax money back than they pay in, insist on demonizing the federal government’s fiscal policies? Is it because they figure they deserve more loot from the tax payers in other states? And if, as you suggest, we cut the federal government to the bone and let the states run their own affairs, how would that work out for them?
BTW, my state is also a net beneficiary, and that's all right with me, even if I regret the circumstances that create the necessity. But then, I don't fret much about sharing the wealth on a national basis.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
--
|
|
-
|
|
|
Good info. Thanks.
Still ...it seems to be tit for tat on the approach that needs to be taken.
That to me points to some underlying principle that makes certain conservative states do well, as well as a state like Massachutsetts - which I have to admit is doing quite well - and surprised me, being such a liberal state.
When we look at the inept response of the feds of late toward larger issues that threaten the safety of the population ...I still vote for reduced government. It is way too bloated and being run by beauracrats.
We may never return to more power being in the States hands, but I still see it as the way out of the mess we find ourselves in.
Our Constitution was not perfect at the start. That is why it allowed for change. I see nothing in history that has afforded such freedom and prosperity for it's citizens. States Rights was an integral part of that God inspired foundation. Too bad we let it slip away.
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
|
It is way too bloated and being run by beauracrats.
Well, someone has to run it. Politicians certainly don't have the time - they're too busy dialing for dollars and strategizing how to get re-elected.
We may never return to more power being in the States hands
I certainly hope not. Corporate and other financially powerful interests may have bought up most of the federal government and often get away with playing off one nation against another at the expense of the general population, but at least there is some simulacrum of balance of power and checks and balances that occasionally come to the rescue of public interests, not to mention the sporadic rebellion and subversive activity of a bureaucrat or other type of whistle-blower.
There is no evidence that state governments are more competent, honest, or efficient than the one in Washington. I'm inclined to think the opposite is true, but won't make an issue of it right now.
What there is plenty of evidence of is that corporate and financial interests whiplash states in bidding wars for better tax deals, weaker labor laws, lower pay structures, give-aways of public property, and greater tolerance of environmental degradation. All of which have all too often turned out to be a prelude to a move overseas. If that's what you want, by all means, push for more power to the states.
--
|
|
-
|
|
|
Quiz time.
Point us to the provisions in the original Constitution that support your contention that States' Rights were an integral part of that God inspired foundation.
And while you're at it, point to the part of the Constitution that supports your assertion that God had anything to do with the inspiration for a Constitution.
|
|
-
|
|
|
It is not in the Constitution as originally written. It is part of the Bill of Rights ...the 10th Amendment.
Of course ...Box, you knew that ...I am sure.
As for my declaration about the document being inspired from on high ...of course that is not in there. I tend to think of the Constitution as a legal document.
That is an opinion based on other writings ..one of the primary ones being The Declaration of Independence (among others)!
Such as ..
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Of course, I am sure you know that as well.
As for the belief that America was chosen and blessed by God, and godly men of integrity (notice I did not say Christian) were instrumental in it's formation, it is my opinion and many others.
Does that make America perfect? No. Humankind is flawed. And that understanding makes it even more amazing to me that a wonderful concept like America and it's Declaration; it's Constitution; it's Bill of Rights could have even come into being ...and even moreso that America would become a beacon of hope and inspiration for freedom loving peoples throughout many generations.
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Was it the godly men of integrity who wrote the acceptance of slavery into the original Constitution?
Was it godly men of integrity who undertook the eradication of an entire race of indigenous peoples?
But we digress. Please identify one area where you believe that the federal government has usurped an alleged state right without the consent if the governed.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Sorry to get you worked up, Box. :(
I know men owned slaves back then. It was an accepted practice.
In my estimation that changes nothing about their integrity, or even the fact that I count them as Godly. There are other factors about this I am sure we can disagree on ...no need to go there.
If we want to check integrity, let's look at the liberals and the slavery they have saddled on a large percentage of the black population of this country.
I can agree with your second statement regarding the indians, but I really was only applying the anaology to the founding fathers and their wisdom in putting together the Declaration and the Constitution.
And ...I am sure I could point out where the feds have usurped States Rights, but again ...it would just be a disagreement.
The big one, I think ...was the feds forcing Southern States to remain in the union, and over money and power, no less. Salvery was not the issue.
For the most part the states have given up thier rights. Sad, but true.
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Seems to me like you think that 'discussion' means ' we are all in agreement.'
If someone disagrees with you and challenges your position, suddenly it's not a discussion anymore. It's something else and you don't think it's worth talking about.
The US Constitution was written by a number of Masonic Diests - the kind of household I was raised in- and that was, and continues to be, a bit different than just talking about Christianity. You might understand that if you really knew anything about the Masons, but I doubt you do.
While the US Constitution was very clear about what rights were specific to the Federal Government, it did not talk about 'States Rights' as you like to refer to them.
This phrase in the 10th amendment is where States Rights believers love to draw their power from. "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."
That does NOT mean that the State necessarily has rights, or that the nation specifically is meant to be governed at the State level. It means that Federal Power is defined, and yes, it is quite expansive.
So, coincidently, is the power of the people named in that phrase, and it is quite expansive as well. In fact, the ONLy powers that go to the States are those that the Federal Government and the People, allow for them.
As a person who does believe in a degree of power residing with more lcoal governments, and states, I still do not question the need for, or the right, of the Federal Government to get invovled.
And yes, that especially includes things that circle around my rights as a Citizen of this country, which is paramount. State Right's don't get to deny me the right to have control over my body, a private conversation with my doctor, or my access to health care as I see fit.
And that's really what the whole argument is about for most State's Right's advocates. They don't like the idea that their need to control women, or minorities, or gays can be thwarted from a Federal level, because the people have willed it so.
I say this as a firm Virginian, and a fairly old school Conservative philosophy, and a Southerner.
if nothing else confirmed that we are the United States, and not These States United, it was the result of the American Civil War.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I hope for agreement, but I hold no illusions.
I understand they were Diests. They were still Godly men, as there are Godly Islamics; Godly Buddists ...etc.
I also know a good bit about the Masonics, some of which is admirable ...much of which I view as not so.
The 10th Amemndent may not have been specific as to rights, but to quote Annenberg ...
"Any power not listed, says the Tenth Amendment, is left to the states or the people. Although the Tenth Amendment does not specify what these “powers” may be, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that laws affecting family relations (such as marriage, divorce, and adoption), commerce that occurs within a state’s own borders, and local law enforcement activities, are among those specifically reserved to the states or the people."
I tend to agree with the "any", and think the Feds have way overstepped their responsibilties. Still ...as I said, it was the people who allowed this to happen. So we only have ourselves to blame.
You said .."State Right's don't get to deny me the right to have control over my body, a private conversation with my doctor, or my access to health care as I see fit."
Dosen't that somewhat fall along the lines of of the feds denyng a persons religious rights? Of course I know that liberals everywhere threw a fit when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Still there are incidents that are popping up all the time ...from a baker having to close shop becasue his religeous rights were denied by a liberal judge to a radical mayor demanding pastors turn over sermons.
So we do not want the states denying rights as you listed, but we will place certain rights higher than those guaranteed by the First Amendment, and deny those guaranteed rights?
I had always thought that freedom of speech and religion were somewhat paramont, being in the 1st Amendent, but the rights of a LGBT NOT getting his or her feelings hurt has come to trump those rights.
You mentioned a private conversation with the doctor. That seems to be changing, dosen't it ...and this at the hands of the feds, not the states.
And the beat goes on. So does disagreement. One thing is certain ..God willing. We can hopefully look back one day and see whether our path has taken us down a path to freedom for many, or freedom for some ...and the remainder acquiescing to the demands of the loudest voice.
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
|
"And ...I am sure I could point out where the feds have usurped States Rights, but again ...it would just be a disagreement."
Isn't that why you started this thread?
I agree - salvery (sic) was not an issue. Slavery, on the other hand, was the only issue as far as the Southern states were concerned.
Spend a little time here - read the Ordinances of Secession and the accompanying declarations by the states.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
|
|
-
|
|
|
I suggest a reading of some of DiLorenzos works on the realities of slavery. He makes some powerful arguments about the reasons the South wished to succeed, and why the industrial north pushed for war.
One point.
Slavery had been dealt with in other parts of the world with no war. Lincoln has the distinction of being president of one of the bloodiest wars in US history. It was not necessary. If he had not succumbed to the rich northern industriasts and their greed, more than likely the war would have never started. Of course slavery would surely have continued for years, as the north had plenty of slaves they wished to keep.
http://mises.org/daily/author/425
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
|
It was not necessary.
Much the same could be said for our Revolutionary War. Just think how all that stuff that had folks so riled up at the time would have been resolved if we had just left well-enough alone.
The East India Company was dissolved in 1874. That would have put an end to that silly tea kerfuffle.
Slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833, so that would have settled that issue before Prime Minister (Governor?) A. Lincoln would have felt compelled to come to grips with it.
Independence from Britain would have come about in due time, just as it did for Australia, Canada, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, and a bunch of other places around the world that used to keep the sun from setting on the British Empire.
Best of all, we would have had universal, single-payer health care and would be as loath to get rid of it as the Limeys, Canucks, Diggers, and Kiwis are, thus totally avoiding all this rancorous fuss about Obamacare.
And, just imagine, we'd have a parliamentary system of government with real debates about issues of substance, MPs who would occupy their time formulating legislation and exchanging elegantly phrased insults, instead of dialing for dollars, and election campaigns that lasted only a couple of weeks, at most, and only cost a fraction of what is wasted on them now.
As for slavery, I agree with Prof. DiLorenzo, the institution was nothing more sinister than acceptable, standard practice for its day and most unfairly maligned by those socially constipated Yankees, the abolitionists.
I'll point out in slavery's defense that unemployment was never lower among African-Americans then it was then. Upward mobility was, of course, somewhat limited, but there's a lot to be said for job security with fee health care, housing, food, and entertainment provided free of charge with Gone With the Wind performed live at The Big House.
In fact, it was not only in the owners self-interest to take as good care of their slaves as they did of their other property, but there is also plenty of evidence that they truly loved them. That's why Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has yet to discover a black American who doesn’t not have some admixture of white in her/his genes.
Yessir, when you come right down to it, all of history is simply a continuum of premature, mostly bloody, over-reactions to issues that would have resolved themselves in due time if people would have just have cultivated a little patience.
--
If God is watching us, the least we can do is be entertaining. (St. Hilarius)
|
|
-
|
|
|
The vast loss of life in the Civil War was not necessary and could have been avaoided. That was my point; not that slavery in any way should be tolerated.
Other than to clarify that point, and to recognise that sometimes loss of life is necessary; and also war ....I find I appreciate your post.
But then ...you care not whether I do or not ...rightly so!
:)
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
-
|
|
|
Unless the revisionists have been more successful that I imagined, the Civil War was fought because the Southern states chose to fight it. See Fort Sumter. If you are looking to place responsibility for the Civil War dead, the rightful place is south of the Mason Dixon line.
|
|
-
|
|
Everytime you show with Facts, you upset people. Dang!
--
69 142S Overdrive + 69 164S Manual
|
|
-
|
|
|
That should have been free health care.
|
|
-
|
|
|
than it was then
|
|
-
|
|
|
You forget. Only the big Government see all, be all and not to forget, only viable if administered by the all wise and all powerful Gimmedats. As Ol' Pogo said years ago, we has met the enemy, and he's us. How wise that tiny bit of satire was. The only group that can kill these United States of America is its residents. Note, I didn't say citizens.
--
The U.S. Constitution: Frustrating Liberals and Left Wing Extremists since 1788.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Actually, my attempt to solicit a conversation on the merits of small government was genuine. It would seem it was ill timed.
Ill timed possibly as I think it is hard for most to change direction.
Since we have gone way down this path of demise as a Constitutional Republic ...it may be that now ...even though it might be easy to see that the founding fathers concepts were correct ...it would be difficult to admit.
--
"Do you think that's air you're breathing now'? (The Matrix 1999) '94 940T (400K+), 92 245 (250K+K)
|
|
|
|
|
