US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1645

On February 16 2015 00:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:


I've never really gotten this "States' Rights" argument, mostly because it's always been "States over the Federal government, ALWAYS!".

Yea, as a general rule, you don't want an institution that has no direct involvement in your life running everything in your state. I wouldn't be a fan of a bunch of clueless people in another state dictating things in Minnesota.

However, it's not like a state government is any better than a federal government. In fact, a state government is probably even more susceptible to corruption and small-party influences. Furthermore, plenty of state governments (particularly in the South) have shown us that they just really can't get anything right, so why should we automatically trust them to get things right when they consistently show us that they can't?

On February 16 2015 06:27 IgnE wrote:
States' rights is all about devolving power down to local legislators who are more easily captured by corporate power. It's one step closer to the Corporate State of privatisation.

On February 16 2015 06:27 IgnE wrote:
States' rights is all about devolving power down to local legislators who are more easily captured by corporate power. It's one step closer to the Corporate State of privatisation.

On February 16 2015 06:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:


Yes, I do "get it" as in understand why people argue for it. They don't want people from out-of-state imposing their view on a completely different group of people. The argument is essentially, "Only X knows what's best for X and how to accomplish it".

The problem is that people still stick to it even when it's failing horribly. A lot (most) of these Southern states have some of the worst rates of incarceration in the country, some of the worst education and healthcare in the country, some of the worst economies in the country, some of the highest crime rates/incidences of discrimination in the country, etc. And yet, even in the face of all of this, it seems like they stick to the same mantra purely out of stubborn pride and refusal to admit that they're doing something wrong.

On February 16 2015 11:42 farvacola wrote:

State and local legislators/politicians are cheaper, more easily manipulated, less beholden to competing interests, and are elected in lower key and less regulated elections. This isn't a new idea either; Publius himself spoke of these very things.

One can even look at straight efficiency; a bill in a state legislature is orders of magnitude more likely to pass than anything coming across a federal politician's desk, particularly these days.

On February 16 2015 06:27 IgnE wrote:
States' rights is all about devolving power down to local legislators who are more easily captured by corporate power. It's one step closer to the Corporate State of privatisation.

On February 16 2015 00:04 farvacola wrote:
Just let Danglars pretend that the majority of Americans are as bigoted as his party is. It isn't as though he'd actually recognize the dissonance present in state electoral initiatives, as doing so would necessarily conflict with the "state's rights" mantra.

On February 16 2015 12:26 farvacola wrote:

There's more demand for state legislators, not less. If one adds the federal dollars that pass through states with state domestic spending, it quickly becomes clear why. This idea that local or state politicians, particularly on a state level, "see the people they represent" is as hokey as it is meaningless. People only see what their tv, computer, and drive to and from work show them. Furthermore, the largely absentee nature of state and local elections practically guarantees distortion in political accountability; a failure to vote is oftentimes a tacit declaration that the individual abstaining has given up on voting as an effective means of becoming civically engaged. Local pressure my ass, satisfaction with Michigan's roadways is abysmally low and yet the state continues to rank 50/50th in transportation spending while the legislature pisses funding away on terrible commercial initiatives.

Fantasy is fantasy. The point is not that all state legislatures are bought, the point is that, because of a lack of interest, accountability, and oversight, state legislatures are too often incompetent and prone to the wasteful whimsy of collective disinterest.

After six weeks in session and 139 roll call votes in a House and Senate that feature some of the largest Republican majorities in generations, one of the most telling statistics from the new Congress is this: President Obama's veto threats outnumber the bills Congress has been able to send him.

When Republicans swept into power last November, they promised a new era of productivity and discipline that would break four years of gridlock. "America's New Congress," they called it.

But far from striking a bold contrast with the last two terms of stalemate, congressional Republicans have quickly run into familiar obstacles, including partisan paralysis and party infighting.

Friday, as members of Congress rushed to leave town on a bitterly cold morning, Republicans celebrated their most visible accomplishment to date: sending the Keystone XL pipeline bill to Obama's desk for his expected veto.

"To the president I would say this: Do the right thing, sign this bill and help us create more jobs," House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said in brief remarks before affixing his signature to the legislation.

But as members of Congress go home for their first extended break since Republicans took control Jan. 6, they have few other achievements.

Only two bills have become law — one a leftover from last year that funds a terrorism insurance program important to real estate developers, the other a noncontroversial measure to address mental health problems among veterans.

That compares with six new laws at this point in 2007, when Democrats came to power in both chambers for the final two years of President George W. Bush's tenure.

The new Republican majority, said one lawmaker granted anonymity to speak openly about their work, is like the dog that caught the car — still figuring out what to do next. Rather than begin the year with an agreed-upon strategy or comprehensive agenda for the party in power, the 114th Congress opened last month with a loosely defined set of legislative priorities.

Even the Keystone bill was passed only after an exhaustive process in the Senate. During the course of the debate, more amendments were discussed and dispensed with than in the entire previous year when Democrats were in charge.

In the meantime, however, gas prices plummeted, leaving some analysts to question whether the pipeline project would still pencil out.

"Is it the most important piece of legislation facing the nation? No. But it is an opportunity for us to prove that we're able to work with each other and govern, and it is a good test of whether or not the president is interested in doing that as well," said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.). "We have to learn how to crawl before we can walk, and walk before we can run."

They'll have to walk quickly. When lawmakers return to Washington in a little more than a week, they'll once again face something Republicans had hoped to leave behind them — the possibility of a partial government shutdown.

The shutdown threat stems from a legislative trap Republicans set for themselves last December after Obama moved to shield up to 5 million people in the country illegally from the possibility of deportation. At the behest of conservatives eager to undo the new policy, lawmakers agreed not to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which handles immigration among other duties, past Feb. 27.

Republican leaders struggled for most of the last six weeks to find a way forward before the Homeland Security money runs out. They initially hoped a few Senate Democrats who have qualms about Obama's immigration plans might join them on a bill that would fund the department and overturn the president's executive action.

Only two bills have become law — one a leftover from last year that funds a terrorism insurance program important to real estate developers, the other a noncontroversial measure to address mental health problems among veterans.

On February 16 2015 13:03 farvacola wrote:
First, I like that you left out state politicians for most of that. Second, there are literally hundreds of counties and localities in which the wild socio-geographic differentiation present, combined with pathetic voter turnout, clearly indicate an unhealthy level of representative accountability. Again, this isn't just about money, it's about who's getting elected and why. Take one look at how the state legislatures in states like Ohio, Michigan, Washington or New York legislate things like guns, higher ed, or transportation and it becomes clear that competency ain't so high on the list.

On February 16 2015 14:41 oneofthem wrote:
nyc actually has too few districts.

it really boggles the midn that people prefer state governments to state administrations. state governments with autonomy is just a recipe for kickbacks and entrenched political class.