As for the budget, a couple days ago I was looking up budgets. It was amazingly difficult to find any 2 pie charts that agreed. Those I looked at had defense spending anywhere from 18-50%. Not sure where the truth lies, but getting out of Afghan. and ramping down on Iraq has got to help.
we are out of iraq and that's a huge mistake in my view. that's the place we should have stayed. afghanistan is a crap hole and not worth one more dime or life. we should have spent 6 months flattening it, not that you'd really be able to tell the difference, and then been done. anything else that needed doing later could have been done with the occasional bombing until they decided not to host terrorists anymore.
Kathyp, we might agree on more than we think Wink I like the idea of some state sovreignty, but it seems impractical. For example, if the states took on disaster relief, how exactly does the state devastated by the hurricane take care of itself? If we left welfare to the states, how do impoverished states keep their citizens clothed and fed? If we leave regulation to the states, how does interstate commerce work? And what about national natural resources? What if the western states decided to clear-cut the national forests, something many of us would consider national treasures? Same with education. Should American children have basically similar educations, regardless of whether they grow up in WI or GA?
they would do it in the same way they used to do it. they'd get together and fix things. they might have to raise taxes on themselves in the short term to do it. they might have to put aside some regulations to do it. originally FEMA was designed to help states coordinate relief in some of these bigger disasters. states already get federal money for disaster prep and states have national guard, and can request coast guard help. why should as state expect another to pay for their disaster? federal money does not come from the government, it comes from us.
an impoverished state might not be able to keep it's people fed and clothed. people would have to decide if that's what they really wanted their states to do. some people might have to move. some might even have to work!
clear cuts are beautiful and full of wildlife. i love them. + timber grows back. it's a crop. :evil:
i'm not sure how state sovereignty and national treasures clash, but it is true the the feds have taken tons of land that should belong to the states. here, they have made much of my mountain off limits except for some very limited use, by claiming it a wilderness area. i must pay for it, but i can't use it.
schools should belong to the states. don't like what your school is doing? change things. can't change it? move. the biggest problem with schools, and cost, is the unions. it doesn't take a ton of money to teach kids, but it takes a ton of money to support the unions.
part of the reason for having largely sovereign states was to give people choice. live in the state that most closely fits your needs and beliefs. at one point, this even included religious beliefs. some states had state supported and sanctioned churches. it was about giving people maximum choice with minimum interference from government.
yes, that means taking some risk. it means that some people won't have stuff and won't do as well. the idea was to have equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
interstate commerce used to be limited to things that were really interstate business. now the clause is used to regulate everything. if we went back to the original mandate for regulation of interstate commerce, we could keep it, and not interfere with business as much as we currently do. it's not an all or nothing proposition.
BTW...you know those farm subsidies you dislike? thank FDR.