I grew up in New England, where there is less obvious federal involvement as in the West. The popular history there, as I understand it, is a kind of benign neglect of federal power.
Here, in the far West, it is decidedly graphic - much of the land is federally owned, in one way or another. Vast tracts of land and resources are under the federal aegis.
Political battles here often turn on who has the authority. Water, fishing, oil, logging, environmental protection, development, mining, etc. etc. And most recently, mandated environmental standards.
It's an interesting mix.
I'm very pro federal involvement and federal responsibility. We pay for it. You pay for it.
It always boggles me when Republicans call for less government when running for office. And *more* government when they get in office.
Go figure.
I think the crux is they are talking out of both sides of the Republican mouth.
"Less government" means less investment in the middle class - an investment that has historically paid enormous dividends for the country.
"Less government" means less domestic programs. Less social service programs. Less support for our basic domestic infrastructure.
"Less government" means less effectiveness, less oversight, less competence and less accountability.
"Less government" means a failure of the social contract we have with federal government.
It's called the Constitution.
We the People of the United Sates, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
