Big Gulp, Meet Big Brother

[Gregg]

Gregg -

Picture a state that has its politics and policy dominated by 2-3 very urban counties, out of the 39 counties in the whole state. And picture a state that has many very-well funded and active departments, such as Ecology and Health, that want to see "progress".

My small rural county is buried under under-fundated mandates coming from the state. We do not have the army of professional planners, or the tax base, to support us in trying to comply with state regulations, regulations written with areas of much higher population density and human impact on the landscape in mind, regulations that often outlaw our very lifestyle and land development patterns.

Further, consider the army of well-funded, well-staffed state and national-level lobbying and policy organizations that are happy to help the state craft even thicker regulations, and happy to take my county to court when they don't like what we come up with. They are also happy to provide our county some poison-grants to write the stuff.

Makes perfect sense (how it happens, that is) and I'm afraid similar situations are playing out in many states. Western states are, I think, particularly prone to this given the fact that many have only one or two cities of any real size and very sparse populations beyond that. And of course the prevalence of natural resources combined with the big views and a few spotted owls make it ground zero for friction between groups with different ideas regarding stewardship of the land.

Our situation in Nebraska is somewhat similar to yours. We have 93 counties, but only two urban areas. 1.8 million folks in the whole state and 1.2 million in those two areas (and 900,000 of those are in one metro area, Omaha). We escape a lot of the intense scrutiny of the environmental lobbyists I think because we just blend into all the other fly over states. We're also somewhat lucky, in a left handed kind of way, because our economy is still so heavily biased toward agriculture. There aren't that many of us in the "rest of the state", but many who are wield a lot of influence just because of their contribution to the state GDP. Omaha seems to tout itself as the center of the Nebraska universe and the folks in elbow room country couldn't care less as long as it doesn't cost them money. We actually have surprisingly little friction between urban and rural areas when it comes to policy...for now.

[peggy]

Peggy, histrionics aside, how much outside control do you want over your life? Just enough to provide essential services, or more than enough to keep you at someone else's mercy?
Also, if you choose 'more than enough' do you want to choose which areas you abdicate responsibility for or will you settle for the 'carte blanche' variety?

I prefer limiting the control outside forces have over me. You may feel differently?

Alan, histrionics aside, how do you see the government controlling your life? How invested are you in the big bad evil government meme the right trots out reliably every voting opportunity? Do you really believe that the government offering services we asked for and pay for is somehow controlling? Do you belong to a food co-op? Are they controlling your food?
The government is like a giant co-op. We the people asked them/us to offer certain services and said we will pay into this co-op in order to provide this service to everyone. Yes, the service needs to be constantly tended and monitored and reworked, but that doesn't make the co-op evil. The government/co-op is a tool, and seeing it, or treating it as some separate evil entity to do battle with makes about as much sense as going to war with your wrench because it isn't a hammer. Sure it gives you effective bumper stickers and whips everyone up into a voting frenzy, but doesn't really accomplish anything does it.

Saying the government is a big bad evil controlling enemy is one of those things people say (typically on Fox over and over) but doesn't really mean anything because they can't really give us any concrete examples of this evil controlling. For every regulation there were plenty of people calling for it, or maybe just a few wealthy individuals calling for it, and of course, money is speech. Most regulation/laws don't come out of a vacuum. There was a reason for it.

Your controlling regulation just might be my benefit because I don't have the time to inspect all meat producers, i can't inspect egg and milk producers, and I don't know squat about cars and wouldn't know if the gas tank was dangerously produced and positioned or not. And this goes for most things. I don't know about everything, but I do know that industry will not regulate itself. It simply won't. Look at the big banks on Wall Street and you can see that. And that's just money. What about our food? Our water? Our baby formula? No, these things aren't covered in the constitution, but they are needed and wanted. As is SS, and medicare, and unemployment, and a host of other things, including basic health care for everyone.
These things aren't 'controlling' our lives. We asked for them, every one of them, and they make our lives better.

I have to tell you, although i seldom agree with bae, at least he is in there trying to work with the 'government tools' he has, and I can admire that. He IS government, and I doubt he sees himself as big bad evil.
Our government is not the enemy, politics is. You think the republicans want to reduce government and regulations? They just want to get in there so they can put in their own regulations. This is a big country. Don't' look at the politician/party, look at the purpose and actions and vote for what does the most good for the most people, all Americans.

[Alan]

Peggy you're missing the point. Let's make it simple.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

It's just a matter of time.

[peggy]

Makes perfect sense (how it happens, that is) and I'm afraid similar situations are playing out in many states. Western states are, I think, particularly prone to this given the fact that many have only one or two cities of any real size and very sparse populations beyond that. And of course the prevalence of natural resources combined with the big views and a few spotted owls make it ground zero for friction between groups with different ideas regarding stewardship of the land.

Our situation in Nebraska is somewhat similar to yours. We have 93 counties, but only two urban areas. 1.8 million folks in the whole state and 1.2 million in those two areas (and 900,000 of those are in one metro area, Omaha). We escape a lot of the intense scrutiny of the environmental lobbyists I think because we just blend into all the other fly over states. We're also somewhat lucky, in a left handed kind of way, because our economy is still so heavily biased toward agriculture. There aren't that many of us in the "rest of the state", but many who are wield a lot of influence just because of their contribution to the state GDP. Omaha seems to tout itself as the center of the Nebraska universe and the folks in elbow room country couldn't care less as long as it doesn't cost them money. We actually have surprisingly little friction between urban and rural areas when it comes to policy...for now.

As goes your state, so goes the nation. This is why people are more than a little worried about the disappearance of the middle class which used to be a strong political and economic force. When all the wealth is concentrated into just a few hands, like the political 'wealth' of your state is in population areas, all regulations/laws/power is written for these few people. Money is power (and speech, apparently) and the vast majority of Americans are losing the ability to speak.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Rob, I'm sorry to hear of your mother's misery, but wonder if it is indicative of the feelings of all immigrants?

I wonder because over the last couple hundred years, the United States has been the most immigrated to country in the world. There was a reason for that. Mostly, because the United States offered opportunity that may have been lacking in some other countries. An opportunity to advance beyond the class structures imposed in other parts of the world, an opportunity to be free of civil oppression or religious dogma, an opportunity to realize their full potential, unfettered by governmental intrusion.

Those people have historically been the foundation of a thriving country, building economies, creating new opportunities and generating wealth for everyone. But, maybe we don't need them anymore. Government is taking over the role of innovators, builders and creators. It decides how our economy works, where growth is allowed and where it is not and then takes care of people rather than forcing them to take care of themselves. Maybe ours doesn't do it as well as Austria's does, but perhaps your mother just needs to give it a little more time. I'm sure we'll catch up eventually.

Alan, I'll give you this - there are peope who do immigrate here and adjust and adapt and some scattered few become quite successful. This much is true. There are also those for whom America does not work that go back to their home country - there are those for whom the soulless ubercompetitiveness of it is just not worth it, for whom the lack of security and the lack of community don't justify the consumer culture and it's conveniences.....If you will google, you will find many stories of immigrants who have went home as America just did not work for them. I say if it works for you - GREAT - I mean this sincerely too, I really do. All I am saying is that there are those for whom the American way just does not work. What I have seen cited most often is as I have said, the lack of security, the turbo charged competitiveness, the lack of meaning for many and the lack of human connections.....However, I have met some for whom this works, I will give you that. So my point is, if it works for you fine, but it doesn't work for everyone, this is not one size fits all (this is something about the US I have problems with - what I see as a one size fits all mentality. Also my perception that how something really is often does not matter, what matters is how something looks or appears to be. These particular issues I have not run across with others.) Rob

[creaker]

Peggy you're missing the point. Let's make it simple.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

It's just a matter of time.

We've been there for a long time already. It's just the "you" receiving are the ones driving government and the "you" getting taken are the rest of us.

[peggy]

Peggy you're missing the point. Let's make it simple.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

It's just a matter of time.

No it's not Alan. It's not a matter of time, unless you vote for people who want to funnel all the nations wealth upwards. Then your masters are a few ultra wealthy. The republican party is already there. For someone who fears this slippery slope, you sure support some 'controlling' ideas. i.e. Citizens United

Perhaps you should take some time and do some traveling around the world. First visit a few third world countries where the government doesn't control (help/assist/aid) their people and it's every man for himself, then go to Denmark, or Sweden, or most European countries where I'll tell you the people don't feel 'controlled' and are quite happy. Happier than us overall.

[Gregg]

To be fair peggy I need to clarify. The concentration of wealth, political and otherwise, IS in the hands of the middle class here. The vast majority of land in my state is in the hands of farmers and ranchers. Oh sure, a few are rich just like in any other type of business you care to name, but their political clout comes from the group of them, not just from a few high powered individuals. The cattleman's association here, for example, is very influential and has thousands of members. Almost all of those members are solidly middle class, hard working people who tend to elect their representatives based on how much common sense they have. Maybe we're just the land that time forgot, but that's how it works around here and most of us would like to keep it that way.

[Gregg]

...then go to Denmark, or Sweden, or most European countries where I'll tell you the people don't feel 'controlled' and are quite happy. Happier than us overall.

Is it possible to find such a country that did not achieve their high level of satisfaction due, at least in part, to subsidies from the US? Northern Europe can breathe easy knowing the US firepower stands solidly behind NATO and the US dollars support it up front. I wonder if they would feel so content if that situation were to change? It is, afterall, quite a luxury to not have to worry about threats from their neighbors thanks to a security system that is virtually free.

[ApatheticNoMore]

We've been there for a long time already. It's just the "you" receiving are the ones driving government and the "you" getting taken are the rest of us.

The decline of the middle class itself could be seen as government taking it all away. The horrible has already happened . They knew what their trade policies would do. I mean really look at the trade policies and who is NOT powerful in them: labor in any sense and not just organized labor. And who is: intellectual property is protected heavily in trade agreements (it didn't have to be, they could just let that go laissez faire as well), and although this IP protection may benefit a few select individuals, this mostly does a lot to support corporate power. And again I'm not anti international trade as a blanket thing, although what we have is managed trade not free trade, but anyway I think trade may have benefits also. I'm just saying, they knew what they were doing. And I'm not absolutely anti-IP either, although many people are. But I can sure as heck see how power and wealth is very definitely enforced through laws like trade laws.

My relatives came to this country partly to avoid an absolutely stratified class system, and they escaped it! And THEN .... they watched this country becoming one of the most stratified class system in the world in the course of their lifetime, they fought it like heck (the old socialists, oh and they'd use that term as a self-description ). And they were about as sucessful as a middle class person who works for a living can be (ie that sucess that is due just to extensive college education (near free back in those days), solid middle class labor for decades and decades, hard core saving, and conservative and wise investing with the savings accumulated purely by labor). Left inheritence to half a dozen grandkids. Oh gosh the stern stern work ethic of such people - refused to retire years after they could have - they believed in the morality of labor for it's own sake - no wonder they were socialists, labor and social responsibility, all that they believed, never pleasure.