Government Coup

[early morning]

re:

federal whims

The federal government is not - was not- designed to operate on 'whims", but on sober consideration of the representatives sent by the member-states. There are always going to be disagreements on what is fair, right, and best for the "common good", and we've pretty much dealt with that as it happens. I think universities should be pretty much hands-off educationally, but should toe the line legally (due process for all students, and protection of their free speech rights, even if that speech is abhorrent).

Are you really saying that states should not be subject to federal oversight? that state law should not have to stay within the confines of constitutionality? I am not clear about your comment that federal funding is used to subvert state sovereignty. Yes, federal funds are used as a carrot, and as a cudgel. What would be your idea to make sure states comply with our constitution? Do we really want/can we survive 50 different sets of environmental standards? What about civil rights - should states be allowed to discriminate at will, and still receive federal funding for whatever? What other means is there, other than calling out the military, to enforce court orders or laws that have been deemed constitutional but are ignored by a (or several) state(s)?

[iris lilies]

I had no clue that states get that much money from the feds.

Most states have requirements to operate on a balanced budget. They mske up what they need/want with federal money.

It is not a good formula for anything other than getting Congressmen elected.

[Tybee]

Most states have requirements to operate on a balanced budget. They mske up what they need/want with federal money.

It is not a good formula for anything other than getting Congressmen elected.

According to this article, 30% of the annual budget is funded by federal money:

Maine State Library issues layoffs due to federal funding issues | newscentermaine.com

[LDAHL]

re:The federal government is not - was not- designed to operate on 'whims", but on sober consideration of the representatives sent by the member-states. There are always going to be disagreements on what is fair, right, and best for the "common good", and we've pretty much dealt with that as it happens. I think universities should be pretty much hands-off educationally, but should toe the line legally (due process for all students, and protection of their free speech rights, even if that speech is abhorrent).

Are you really saying that states should not be subject to federal oversight? that state law should not have to stay within the confines of constitutionality? I am not clear about your comment that federal funding is used to subvert state sovereignty. Yes, federal funds are used as a carrot, and as a cudgel. What would be your idea to make sure states comply with our constitution? Do we really want/can we survive 50 different sets of environmental standards? What about civil rights - should states be allowed to discriminate at will, and still receive federal funding for whatever? What other means is there, other than calling out the military, to enforce court orders or laws that have been deemed constitutional but are ignored by a (or several) state(s)?

Looking at our recent history of government actions unsanctioned by law, such as DACA, student loan “forgiveness”, eviction moratoriums, and Trump’s crude brand of bureaucratic housecleaning, it’s hard to see the central government as the guardian of constitutional norms. That’s largely our fault for electing representatives too willing to defer to the executive branch and administrative agencies.

By taxing citizens of the various states and then parceling the money back to the states, the federal government imposes its will on far too many aspects of life. They make decisions for us that would be made much more intelligently on a local basis.

[LDAHL]

Most states have requirements to operate on a balanced budget. They mske up what they need/want with federal money.

It is not a good formula for anything other than getting Congressmen elected.

And despite that, there’s something like $3.5 trillion in outstanding state and local debt. There’s another $1.5 trillion or so in unfunded state and local pension obligations, and God knows how much in deferred infrastructure maintenance. The day is fast approaching when we will see massive bailout demands.

Along with the inexorable march towards Social Security insolvency, you would think the feds would have more important things to think about than pushing the culture in the desired direction.

[frugal-one]

The doll thing sort of put me in mind of Bernie’s complaint that we had too many choices of underarm deodorant and sneakers. In terms of the economy, we might as well have elected one of the more reality-challenged Democrat.

Anyone better than djt

[frugal-one]

Looking at our recent history of government actions unsanctioned by law, such as DACA, student loan “forgiveness”, eviction moratoriums, and Trump’s crude brand of bureaucratic housecleaning, it’s hard to see the central government as the guardian of constitutional norms. That’s largely our fault for electing representatives too willing to defer to the executive branch and administrative agencies.

By taxing citizens of the various states and then parceling the money back to the states, the federal government imposes its will on far too many aspects of life. They make decisions for us that would be made much more intelligently on a local basis.

Not necessarily true. Laws regarding safety of workers are a prime example!

[Rogar]

I have to admit I didn't know there were so many DEI programs in governments, places getting government funding, and private corporations following suit. The news makes it sound like there were or are DEI programs requiring significant funding embedded nearly everywhere. I could suppose that some involve LBGQ issues, which seems to be a public opini9on hot button, but the majority focus on other minority or low income groups. One of my mega corp employers had some version of a quota system for hiring and promotions. I had some mixed feelings about it, but it wasn't a big issue and there was a pretty diverse workforce, which was sort of nice.

[bae]

I have to admit I didn't know there were so many DEI programs in governments, places getting government funding, and private corporations following suit.

The fire department that I now run has a reasonably-comprehensive DEI program. It has increased our ability to recruit and retain volunteers, and improved our interactions with the community.

What does a "DEI program" look like in the workplace, to you?

[Rogar]

What does a "DEI program" look like in the workplace, to you?

In my former workplace it involved training, hiring and promotional opportunities to minorities in order to have work force diversity proportionate to a general population. Generally speaking. Which in turn I imagine promoted a positive public image of the business. There was a time as the story goes, and before my time, that mid and upper management had very few minorities, which was eventually corrected through the program. Maybe there are other more broad definitions or examples?

In my day the term DEI wasn't used, it was affirmative action or some other euphemism.