Posted on 07/22/2011 8:25:52 PM PDT by fightinJAG
Legislatures in red and blue states are enacting very different kinds of laws. Is that for the good?
By Ronald Brownstein and Scott Bland
Updated: July 22, 2011 | 5:13 p.m. July 22, 2011 | 6:00 a.m.
AP Photo/Tom Strickland (L), Mario Tama/Getty Images (R)(Left) A small collection of flowers honoring Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon sit at the base of a statue of former Indiana Gov. Oliver P. Morton outside the Indiana Statehouse on Sunday, Sept. 14, 2003. O'Bannon died Saturday in Chicago after suffering a stroke Monday, Sept. 8. At times, the past six months in the imposing state Capitol building in Indianapolis has seemed more like a track meet than a typical legislative session.
After the 2010 election expanded Indiana Republicans’ control of the state Senate and provided them a majority in the state House, GOP lawmakers joined with Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels to briskly advance a long list of conservative priorities. Together they adopted tough measures on illegal immigration (including legislation similar to Arizona’s controversial enforcement bill); expanded the school-voucher program; limited collective bargaining by teachers; and overrode local restrictions that prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in many public buildings. To much fanfare, Republicans defunded Planned Parenthood and enacted a raft of constraints on abortion, including a ban on the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy—a provision that critics say violates the constitutional right to abortion that the Supreme Court established under Roe v. Wade in 1973.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
It's a self-regulating process. And the states were meant to provide options for Americans, who can usually find a way to vote with their feet -- at least eventually.
The only caveat here is that if a state wants to pursue Socialist policies, as many do, then the practice of paying for those government-slave-goodies through wealth transfers via the federal government MUST STOP.
If CA, NY or IL want to be Socialist states, stupid, but, okay fine, so long as those states pay for their programs out of revenues they raise from their state citizens/residents and from state industries or other state resources.
The problem now is that the federal government plunders the Free States to give handouts and bailouts to the Socialist States. You can live in a state where its citizens are more than willing to receive fewer state government services in exchange for paying lower taxes -- yet still have to pony up to pay, essentially, for vulgar teacher unions in CA or whatever.
As a student of American history in the era between the Revolution and the Civil War, I’ve noticed that the past 20 years have reminded me of the 1850’s.
Yes, they are. And we’ll probably have to split up eventually.
Thing is, if the conservatives leave the union, we’ll probably end up taking back the burned out wastes of the failed liberal states in a generation or two. But that would be an improvement over the current state of affairs.
bump
To include the split election that put Lincoln in the WH. It could happen in 2012.
Who’s Lincoln?
If the Messiah were to steal the next election, I do believe there will be a revolution or secession by some number of states (let us hope and pray). If so, I hope Florida is one of those states which withdraw; otherwise, I’ll move to one that did (TX or AZ perhaps). If there is a choice, I won’t live in an “O Commie” state!
The split is actually the coastal counties and urban zones v. the burbs and outlying counties.
Most of the land mass of the US is occupied by conservative, hard-working, freedom-loving people. Most of the dense urban populations are takers and commies. If there is conflict, it will be along these lines.
We don’t need to bust the union, we simply need to reestablish a robust federalism such that the states can each strike their own balance of government services/intrusion v. tax burden.
Basically, a virtual secession from the Federal Leviathan that makes a mockery of the Tenth Amendment today.
As I said, I don’t care if a state wants to be a welfare state so long as they don’t force the rest of us to pay for it. If a state wants to give all its citizen $100K a year AND it can find a way to pay for that without receiving forced wealth transfers from citizens of other states, so be it.
We’ll just see how long that lasts, eh.
Oh, and states would have to have their right to establish residency and other constitutional requirements for eligibility for state services returned to them by the Supreme Court.
Who is Lincoln? Good question.
Actually, most states and both political parties have moved to the Left in the recent decades. Some states have moved Left much more radically than others.
If the Supreme Court slaps down Obamacare and other similar federal strongarming, and reestablishes a robust interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, and the GOP/TEA succeeds in getting increasing limits on federal spending, the Free States (those whose citizens want LESS government and LOWER taxes) will be able to really take off and leave the Socialist states even further in the dust.
Which the Socialist states could remedy by adopting more conservative policies.
Similarly to the Indian reservations, the federal government more or less would have to continue to fund (using our tax dollars) the urban government-slave plantations it created with its stupid, reprehensible, morally wrong welfare state.
And like the Indian reservations, the government plantations would run their course over time.
Those who wanted out could leave, as they can today, but there would be those who choose to die on the plantation and birth their children into that slavery.
However, if the spending on the welfare state and other entitlements could be reduced, each state could increasingly enact “Free State” policies.
Wasn’t it in that era that the Whigs were displaced by the Republicans as well?
Just as the Tea Party is displacing the GOP.
The problem with that is that the states that want to be welfare nannys will demand that all the others pay for their programs. There’s a lot more of them than there are of ‘personal responsibility’ states, so that will *never* happen.
True. But a lot of that is simply pragmatic “follow the money” garbage.
The feds take our money and then say we can get a few pennies of it back if we agree to their Leftist bullcrap. So State leaders say, yeah, all your Leftist bullcrap belongs to us, at least somewhat just so they can get the money.
If a state’s citizens were not so burdened by federal taxation, and were more free to enact various types of state tax codes, you’d see conservatism manifesting itself more clearly.
Good luck with that.
But if a state wants to try it, I don't see anything under the Constitution that necessarily prohibits it. A state could give its citizens any kind of handouts it wants -- just don't ask/demand/FORCE the rest of us to pay for it.
Example: Alaska is a state with a lot of oil. Apparently there's some way that the state government gives a part of the profit from the state's oil to each state citizen.
I'm okay with that. Because I'm not paying for it.
Even more of a parallel with the GOP and its displacement by the Tea Party.
Because it's really not too strong to say that the present troubles are also about the GOP trying to have it both ways on slavery -- only this time is universal slavery (at least indentured servitude) with the federal government as the slavedriver.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.