smaller federal/larger state governments

[flowerseverywhere]

I went to a discussion group today and the topic was what could be eliminated by the federal government and taken over by the states.

The answers were very interesting. Some pointed to how poorly states manage education and turning over more to the states would make the country worse off. And someone mentioned unfunded mandates, such as no child left behind that took resources away from other programs. Others mentioned how the states are more corrupt than the federal government. Others thought closing down certain departments such as energy and commerce would be good. Lots of thought provoking ideas.

So if tomorrow you were king and could take power away from the Federal government and give it to the states what would that be?

[Alan]

In my preferred scenario, defense, foreign treaties and resolution of disputes between the states would be the purview of the Federal government, with all else belonging to the states.

We've even got a blueprint for that somewhere.

[bae]

In my preferred scenario, defense, foreign treaties and resolution of disputes between the states would be the purview of the Federal government, with all else belonging to the states.

We've even got a blueprint for that somewhere.

What a revolutionary idea.

[Rogar]

In my preferred scenario, defense, foreign treaties and resolution of disputes between the states would be the purview of the Federal government, with all else belonging to the states.


I would probably add operations that affect the air and water quality that is shared by multiple states, such as are currently administered by the EPA. And regulation and standardization of the health and safety nature of products intended for interstate commerce.

I think much of the rest could be negotiable. The scale of economies could be beneficial in reducing overall costs of certain things if done efficiently at the national level. United we stand?

[bae]

... And regulation and standardization of the health and safety nature of products intended for interstate commerce.

You need to be careful with that one...

I've always found this decision simply...amazing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[Rogar]

You need to be careful with that one...

I've always found this decision simply...amazing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

That's indeed pretty wild. More related to the economy than health and safety, but still. Conversely, it begs to ask what might have happened to dust bowl era farmland without some sort of intervention at the national level.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I would probably add operations that affect the air and water quality that is shared by multiple states, such as are currently administered by the EPA.

+1 yea that would be my main thing. It's actually global, but it's certainly not state level. 200 plus year old blueprints for a new virgin continent may not be the best guide to this, modern ecological and environmental science is.


I think much of the rest could be negotiable. The scale of economies could be beneficial in reducing overall costs of certain things if done efficiently at the national level. United we stand?

+1 I could go with that but it's incredibly hard to do much with now.

[Alan]

200 plus year old blueprints for a new virgin continent may not be the best guide to this, modern ecological and environmental science is.


Well, the blueprint in question was for a government, not a continent.

I've never been convinced that a one-size-fits-all regulatory structure fits local or regional needs as well as a localized one would.

[Rogar]

Since we are talking mostly what if's, what I would like to see is that the bare bones of national security, health and safety, and environmental regulation stays at the national level. The rest gets white boarded and goes back to the states. In my opinion, the issue isn't so much whether it is the state or federal government that is managing things. The problem is that things at the national level have had decades or even centuries to accumulate reams of over regulation, supreme court decisions, unnecessary levels of management, and other various pork barreling that have made it a behemoth.

Eventually the matters would either remain at the state level or naturally migrate back to the national level as needed. There would be much gnashing of teeth. But maybe the end product would be a more efficient government. Since we're talking what if's.

[Lainey]

I've heard this conservative pipe dream for years now. Way too simplistic for a nation of 310,000,000 people.

Where does the national park system fit into this new model? NASA? The SEC? The Center for Disease Control? The National Weather Service? the FAA? Do you really want that all broken down into 50 different state agencies?

I can tell you that if the Grand Canyon was under the state of Arizona's control, our governor would gladly sell it off the next day to the highest bidder under the excuse of balancing the state budget. Lots of red state governors would do the same, and then we watch the libertarian dream world begin .... but, by god, we'll have our freedom.

[Alan]

I can tell you that if the Grand Canyon was under the state of Arizona's control, our governor would gladly sell it off the next day to the highest bidder under the excuse of balancing the state budget. Lots of red state governors would do the same, and then we watch the libertarian dream world begin .... but, by god, we'll have our freedom.
I believe Arizona has been an excellent steward of Slide Rock State Park and could do the same for the Grand Canyon if it hadn't been co-opted by out-of-staters.

[flowerseverywhere]

You need to be careful with that one...

I've always found this decision simply...amazing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

that is hard to believe for sure.

Alan, are you referring to the mining in the Grand Canyon area?

As I listened today to the arguments and read there is lot of food for thought. The problems residents of Southern Arizona, Texas and California face are very different than someone in New Hampshire or Idaho faces in issues of illegal immigration for instance. The economy is very different in various geographic areas as well.

Anyway I go to this discussion group every week and without fail someone mentions the unfunded middle east wars causing the deficit problems and someone else mentions has to mention the 47% who don't pay taxes and refers to them as the freeloaders. Almost like a day reading the political section of any magazine or website that accepts public opinion. Interesting to say the least

[Alan]

Alan, are you referring to the mining in the Grand Canyon area?


No, just pointing out that Arizona does a pretty good job of maintaining a few of the top state parks in the country without Federal intervention.

And not just Arizona. Some of my most memorable park visits have been to state parks such as Custer State Park in South Dakota, Dead Horse Point State Park in Utah, Denali State Park in Alaska, Natural Bridge State Park in Kentucky, Valley of Fire State Park in Nevada, Hocking Hills State Park here in Ohio, as well as many, many others.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I've heard this conservative pipe dream for years now. Way too simplistic for a nation of 310,000,000 people.

Where does the national park system fit into this new model? NASA? The SEC? The Center for Disease Control? The National Weather Service? the FAA? Do you really want that all broken down into 50 different state agencies?

I can tell you that if the Grand Canyon was under the state of Arizona's control, our governor would gladly sell it off the next day to the highest bidder under the excuse of balancing the state budget. Lots of red state governors would do the same, and then we watch the libertarian dream world begin .... but, by god, we'll have our freedom.As a fellow Arizonan I'd like to say lol yes I could see Brewer doing this in a heartbeat. At least she ceded the health care exchanges to the federal government, a decision that although I approve of, I am amazed that she arrived at. Rob

[Lainey]

No, just pointing out that Arizona does a pretty good job of maintaining a few of the top state parks in the country without Federal intervention.


Actually, they don't. The Republican governor and state legislature routinely raids the park monies to offset the tax giveaways they provide to businesses. Our parks are in various states of limping along to outright closure. And Slide Rock routinely gets reports of fecal matter in the water, but sshhh, don't tell the tourists.

Here's the sad numbers: http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/20120919audit-state-parks-need-more-funds-visitors.html

[freein05]

Yosemite was a state park before it was a National Park. The state of California could not handle or run a park as popular as Yosemite. In 1865 Grant and congress set aside money to purchase Yosemite form the state of California. The locals running the park were just as corrupt then as the Feds can be now. The states taking over many of the programs the Feds run now would not produce better results. People would still be running the programs and that is the problem. People are the problem not the policies or procedures or EPA, FAA, ETC.