If such mundane local matters as small airport infrastructure and firefighting gear require the blessing of a federal mandarin, couldn’t a reasonable person conclude that our government is too top-heavy?
If such mundane local matters as small airport infrastructure and firefighting gear require the blessing of a federal mandarin, couldn’t a reasonable person conclude that our government is too top-heavy?
They could. But they could also look into the history of how those federal grant programs came into being in the first place to try and determine if they were logical. I was recently at TWA museum in Kansas City and one of the things the docent talked about was that back in the '50's there was just air traffic control in the immediate area surrounding major airports. Once the plane had gotten outside that immediate area they flew whereever. Which resulted in a few crashes. I would suspect that small local airport safety requirements, and funding to pay for those requirements, stems from this. I would assume that a rinky dink airport far from a major airport has less requirements (although maybe not, and it could be argued that they should.) But bae's tiny airport isn't that far from Seattle or Vancouver. Two airports that have lots of traffic through them that could easily get tangled up in bae's airport's traffic. Hence the need for greater safety abilities at it and other similarly situated airports across the country.
Here are some very rigorous rules regarding air space around varying sizes of airports and additional technology requirements where air traffic is the greatest. The least restrictive is the see and be seen Unicom type situation that occurs at very small airports but to the point of government.......I feel it is similar to turning up the gain on my amplifier. Too little is not effective, too much ruins everything, there is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle.
Id like to see Nancy and Chuck tell Donald that they will see to it he gets the funding for the wall if he just releases the last four tax returns he has filed. Could be some interesting stepping and fetching going on then.
Or maybe he Dems can explain why they are not in favor of providing national security seeing as how all the opioids and fentanyl that kills our population of addicts comes from across the Mexican border as well as other concerns about safety.
I don’t doubt the wisdom of a national air traffic control or postal system or nuclear deterrent. But there are any number of areas where the feds use their taxing powers to dictate minor matters to street level government. If a sparrow can’t fall to earth or pothole be filled unless some central government commissar wills it, then we are at the mercy of the whims of a pretty remote set of masters.
From my petty perch as a local government bureaucrat, I see this all the time. There is a vast vortex of cash inhaled from local citizens to Washington that then (less administrative friction) flows back through states to the little governments where most of the work gets done. Terms, conditions, mandates and various expensive forms of bureaucratic dominance rituals are accreted along the way.
The Dems don’t want the wall because the drugs are coming across the border in cars. The wall can’t stop it.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
It doesn't require a "blessing", just a signature on the document releasing the funding, which in the airport case is from fuel/landing fees and predesignated for the purpose. Most of it goes to pavement. Sort of like the federal highway system.
You can argue that the government shouldn't be involved in roads, but....
But is the wall necessary? The number of immigrants has decreased annually for several years. Most of the illegal drugs come in through ports of entry or on planes. The largest number of illegal aliens comes from people who overstay their visas.
I have not heard an argument for the wall that does not ignore these two facts. I would be willing to listen to one.
And I also have problems claiming that anyone who does not want the wall does not want strong borders or national security. You can have both without a wall.
Maybe we could spend the money instead on enforcing the current immigration laws that we already have. That might solve some of the problems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)