Comments on: Democrats: It’s the states, stupid (Part 2) Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: tmc Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:34:10 +0000 @COIndependent, I agree 100% that the federal government need to shrink considerably. Many more than 3 agencies that the Texan governor couldn’t remember. We need a smaller, but stronger federal government. After the shrinkage though, the remaining would not be strong with significant state powers. Economics is a big one. We currently are seeing states compete for businesses and the only winners are the corporations. States offer no taxation and huge subsides to lure a company from one state to another. Paying for our own jobs. This must be stopped. We are just destroying ourselves that way. Also in other fields, such as energy. The nation needs cheap energy to compete globally. I could easily agree with you though on health care. If it were a nationally mandated but state run system, competition would be eliminated, consistency and portability maintained, but streamlining and efficiencies found. It is when states have opposing and/or competing ideas that we weaken the country as a whole.

By: COindependent Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:04:49 +0000 @tmc I do not think the potential conflict between strong states and the federal government is that big of an issue. I propose the federal government minimize many of the functions, and the massive bureaucracies, they manage today. E.g. When you have as many as 52 federal agencies managing “clean water” regulations, many often in conflict with one another, streamlining is necessary. The Dept of Agriculture is a massive bureaucracy defined when 50% of the population was involved in agriculture, versus 3% today, streamlining and downsizing is called for. The Dept of Education merely redistributes tax dollars back to the states while promoting mandates, many having little to do with education. And the Justice Department is home to thousands of attorneys who have to justify their existence, while the leadership stretches the limits (I am being gracious) of the law to drive a political agenda (e.g. Fast and Furious, AP wiretapping, and dozens of unpaid interns.)

This monstrosity of 2.0 million employees, many securing salaries and benefits grossly disproportionate to the private sector, could easily be streamlined with the tax revenues reverting back to the states where better decisions can be made.

The federal government under the Constitution can still take the lead, as allowed under the Constitution, to manage global trade and treaties, national defense, etc. But any change of this magnitude will require a sea-change in attitude on the part of Congress–perhaps moving back to part-time politicians. The country would be significantly better off.

By: tmc Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:55:28 +0000 Should it be “the states, stupid”? The constitution and our forefathers quite obviously intended on the states holding individual power and the federal government being weak in governing and strong in defense. But in the last one hundred years or so this has been changing. Considering how the world is moving into globalization, should we still strive for states to have more power? Spur competition between states? I don’t think so myself. I think the USCA needs to have a solid cohesion between the states and act strongly as a sovereign nation, not a weak coalition of states. But I doubt it is possible as diversity has “strengthened” our country so much that we can’t make any decisions and everything we do is just a watered down compromise. Perhaps separating and strengthening the individual states would make a state less divided and hence stronger? I don’t think they could be strong enough to compete well in the global economy.

By: stevekamp Fri, 01 Nov 2013 04:45:00 +0000 Excellent article, but neither Oklahoma chamber flipped in 2012. The Oklahoma House flipped R in 2004, the Senate in 2008 (Michael Dubin Party Divisions in State Legislatures) or 2010 (Ballotpedia).

By: COindependent Thu, 31 Oct 2013 20:30:50 +0000 @Out …and Hamilton and Madison were very enlightened. Here we are 200 years later dealing with the issues they anticipated — the curse of professional politicians, the abdication of rights reserved to the states, and the federal government interfering in issues that are outside their Constitutional purview.

The Beltway aristocrats figured out very early on they could purchase acquiescence by throwing money at their buddies in the state legislature. The idea that the federal government distributes “free money” is absurd in both concept and application. it’s so badly broken, I am not sure even term limits would help. (And John McCain says he has a following that supports his reelection? McCain and everyone else like him (e.g. Harry Reid) need to just go away.)

By: OUTPOST2012.NET Thu, 31 Oct 2013 17:47:10 +0000 I might be disagreed with some part of your post.
Yeah, as I studied the U.S. history, I always thought the early Alexander Hamilton’s death was a tragedy.

By: COindependent Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:57:20 +0000 @tmc Point taken. There are a number of health insurance options (see Switzerland, for one) that do not require the government manage the entire process. Also, the ongoing discussions confuse health “insurance” (who pays for it) with health “care” (how it is delivered). Two very different, yet highly correlated, issues. What many fail to acknowledge is that the socialized medicine model (e.g. Canada, Sweden, etc.) is going to be much more difficult to manage in a country with a magnitude greater population with greater geographic dispersion. Perhaps it might be better managed at the state level–but that would preclude Coloradoans funding health insurance for those living in DC, LAX or Chicago–a conversation the Beltway politicians do not want to have.

@OutPost Your opening statement is that you “completely disagree”, yet you reinforce my position that the political aristocracy, regardless of political party, expand their power, influence and control to the detriment of the country.

Yes, exactly the same factors that resulted in the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and the establishment of this country. The exact same factors that the Constitution was designed to prevent; and confirmation of the very real fears our Founders expressed of an all-too powerful central government. (see the Federalist Papers).

By: tmc Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:56:25 +0000 His description is accurate though. Yes, the generational change is moving in a more socialized way, but our system was not designed that way or with it in mind.
The voting habits of the two parties do not reflect their constituents as he pointed out.
Neither party has the working taxpayer in mind.
They could have changed health care in a much more simple and less expensive manner.
ACA is a form of social re-engineering.
Many people believe our system is fundamentally flawed.
With $17 trillion in debt this gravy train will end, Yep that’s true too.
So it’s hard to disagree with the majority of what he said. He just doesn’t like the ACA and very he’s very conservative. I don’t like the ACA either, but see it a step in the right direction for healthcare. But I to am generally very conservative, and am an Independent. Just not from CO.

By: OUTPOST2012.NET Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:20:35 +0000 I completely disagree. COindependent is going against the tide; against the generational change.
Both ruling parties are under strict control of the elites. The difference: the elites vary.
Exactly as in the 18th (and in the 19th, and in the 20th) century there was the struggle of the elites, the same we are seeing today.

By: tmc Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:50:28 +0000 @COindependant, though I believe in socializing medicine, I must admit I agree with virtually all of what you just wrote. Very well said sir!