If a failed maneuver in the Kansas House on Tuesday means a primary seat-belt bill is dead for the year at the Statehouse, that will be frustrating. By neglecting the bill, lawmakers are passing up the potential to draw down $13.2 million in federal transportation funding — a move that state Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, had warned would be “a travesty in our current economic crisis.”
Some legislators still view the right to not wear a seat belt as some profound personal freedom. But primary seat-belt laws are proven lifesavers in other states. And as Rep. Dan Johnson, R-Hays, has said, “I don’t see where this takes any of our freedoms away. . . . It might let you live a few more years.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
150 Comments
It’s high time Kansas and all the states start telling the Feds. to stick to their Constitutionally outlined powers and get out of trying to run every little aspect of the states business and ours personally.
“He added that he recently spoke with a Hispanic woman whose daughter was not wearing a seat belt when she was killed in a car accident.
“She said, ‘I wish my daughter was here to tell me she was racially profiled. Now I have to talk to her at the cemetery,’ ” Cisneros said.”
News flash for the WEagle, wearing your seatbelt is required by law in Kansas. Yet this woman still died. Please put it together that even though they wrote it down on really important paper she still did not wear her seatbelt. The thirty lives estimate is a joke. It does not pass the common-sense test.
Besides, if you really want to reduce the number of automobile deaths then ban automobiles. Why worry about only a potential 30 when you can save them all?
“By neglecting the bill, lawmakers are passing up the potential to draw down $13.2 million in federal transportation funding…”
Yeah, it’s called “extortion.” We’ll give you the nice greenbacks, but only if you let us dictate what you must do to please us.
Good job, lawmakers. At least the Almighty Dollah didn’t win this time.
Thank you House Republicans. Once again your cooler heads have prevailed when the “stupids” in the Senate were ready to sell our rights (State’s Rights) for thirty pieces of silver. Instead of begging for crumbs from the masters table (Big Government), why not just keep it here in Kansas instead of sending it to Washington and hoping they send a little of it back.
I guess I don’t understand this. I thought wearing a seat belt in Kansas was already the law. I thought law enforcement officers only enforce it, if you are pulled over for some other event?
If that’s the case, what are we loosing the money for? Principle? I got some potholes on my street I’d like the state to fill. Not sure principle will do that. Maybe dead black cats would work, but the asphalt paid for with this money would work.
The state was foolish not to take the actions necessary and so turning down the money.
They just have to make the law. They don’t have to enforce it or give it any teeth.
Freedom is allowing adults to do things that aren’t so good for them- so long it isn’t putting others in danger. Wearing a seatbelt hurts nobody but the person not wearing the seatbelt and kids should be excluded.
And that’s the way it should be.
I would rather police officers be out there spending their time on traffic stops for speeding that really does put other’s lives at risk, than pulling someone over for not wearing a seatbelt.
No, this is just plain stupid.
As I recall, the seat-belt bill would have allowed the cops to pull over someone just for not wearing a seatbelt, even a passenger. Probably unlikely to happen much in actual practice (although if someone is sitting at a stop light without their seatbelt on, too bad), but the law would be good in practice for two reasons:
1) The argument that not wearing seatbelts is some sort of personal freedom is ludicrous. We ALL pay for the deaths and, most especially, long term disabilities that occur when people don’t wear seatbelts. I find it amusing that people do not draw the lines between common sense safety legislation and health care costs. Avoiding long term disabilities or extended illnesses due to avoidable causes is a no-brainer.
2) Turning down federal funds for transportation costs and infrastructure is just plain stupid. Period.
“Freedom is allowing adults to do things that aren’t so good for them- so long it isn’t putting others in danger. Wearing a seatbelt hurts nobody but the person not wearing the seatbelt and kids should be excluded.”
This is absolutely wrong. We all pay for this kind of stupidity.
Never had understand the resistance to wear seat belts. In my transportation safety classes we learned all about inertia, velocity and other stuff that happens when your automobile stops moving because of crash and you, the driver or passenger keep moving.
It’s been since the 1970s that seat belts installation was mandatory. The use of them should be mandatory as well.
Those against seat belt use are setting very bad examples for young drivers.
It’s sad.
I’ve always worn my seat belt, just because I don’t want to be one of those people you hear about on the news, that was ejected from the vehicle, flying through the air, and hit or land on something not so soft, like a wall, another car, barbed wire, a cow, a tree, I’d rather just die inside the car, with a little more dignity. Barring that it dosen’t catch on fire. ugh, that would suck.
My view on seatbelts parallels my views about motorcycle helmets.
Ride or drive free!
But if you crash, crawl your own sorry ass to the Emergency Room and don’t expect my tax dollars to pay EMTs’ salaries or to supplement your disability payments for your damaged brain and body.
Yeah, to wingnuts it might seem like the “Nanny State.” But it simply makes sense to strap in or wear a hard hat.
If it takes a law to get you to practice common sense…. Well, I guess I’m not surprised.
“They just have to make the law. They don’t have to enforce it or give it any teeth.”—BlowJb
What an ignoramus, completely lacking in any ethics, decency or honesty.
Well, I feel that a seat belt law is meant to keep people safe, not take away their freedoms. But if it’s the law, maybe WPD, and Paramedics need to hand out free seat belt cutters, to people who want them. Sometimes after a wreck, your seat belt won’t release, and if you don’t have a pocket knife or a seat belt cutter handy, you could be screwed.
Reg,
And we also shouldn’t drink alcohol, smoke, shew, eat sugar or fat, swim alone, pick our nose or any other of an endless list of things.
Do we want a government that mothers or nursemaids us on everything.
Leave people alone and leave them responsible for their actions.
Educate, don’t regulate!
This is absolutely wrong. We all pay for this kind of stupidity.
_________________________________________
Just how do we all pay for this kind of stupidity?
Batter up!
#
Boxlock20
Posted May 6, 2009 at 8:41 am | Permalink
Reg,
And we also shouldn’t drink alcohol, smoke, shew, eat sugar or fat, swim alone, pick our nose or any other of an endless list of things.
Do we want a government that mothers or nursemaids us on everything.
Leave people alone and leave them responsible for their actions.
Educate, don’t regulate!
———————————-
I look at accident prevention and safety from a risk assessment point of view.
Let’s say you get into a catastrophic accident where you were not wearing seat belts. You recover almost to full health after six months in the hospital and treatment.
In my theoretical position as a Safety consultant to an insurance company, I will recommend that the abatement of injury was not duly considered by the driver and therefore I recommend further incentives to put them in compliance with safe driving practices.
In English, that means your insurance rates are going to go up tremendously or your insurance might be suspended.
I will NOT wear a seat belt.
But passing up the money is foolish.
Just put the law on the books and then don’t enforce it or make it warning only.
In English, that means your insurance rates are going to go up tremendously or your insurance might be suspended.
________________________________________
That would be OK.
Good for the legislature, for once. If more states would tell the Feds to stuff it more often, we might actually restore some semblence of federalism, long since lost.
And folks, I have no doubt that wearing a seat belt makes my driving safer. But it’s my driving, and none of your da** business – so butt out. The nonsense of basing said regulation on “health care costs” is just an excuse to extend the nanny state further. Everything I do has some external impact, large or small. Taken to its logical extreme, if that’s the standard, NOTHING is outside gov’t regulation.
If you want to go there, go there alone. I won’t.
When the overall claims for auto accident injuries go up, doesn’t the cost go up for everyone with auto insurance? I’m not talking about individual personal rates – which occur whenever you file a claim. But overall rates go up the higher the cost for total claims?
As an individual, if I rear end a vehicle with occupants not wearing seatbelts, my insurance pays for the higher medical costs associated?
And we all pay for those nasty uninsured, when the state picks up the bill as well has paying for uninsured motorist coverage.
I’m reminded of the motorcycle helmet debate. Heck, let them drive their bikes naked for all I care – as long as I don’t have to pay for their injuries in any way.
I will NOT wear a seat belt.
_________________________________
Good. Darwin needs the company.
BlueJay
Posted May 6, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
I will NOT wear a seat belt.
But passing up the money is foolish.
Just put the law on the books and then don’t enforce it or make it warning only.
—-
Ya mean, JR only obeys the laws he likes? But . . . but . . . but . . . isn’t that what he regularly takes others to task for?
tsk, tsk, JR. Your hypocricy is showing. Again.
Reg,
I see your point of course and can agree to a point.
But like fleet said that would be okay, for those that don’t.
The same argument applies to anything that might result in a negative outcome or injury, like I mentioned, or for instance sky diving or scuba diving or cave exploring, hunting, roller blading etc.
Do those things a pay for it but don’t regulate every aspect of our lives.
When are people going to be responsible for themselves and not government.
I’m just tired of government and the bureaucrats trying run every thing around us.
I won’t wear seat belts.
GMC won’t obey gun laws.
A bit of a difference. Especially since I am not affiliated with law enforcement Mr. prosecutor!
BlueJay sings….
Go on take the money and run…
Good. Darwin needs the company.
==================
LMFAO!
The same argument applies to anything that might result in a negative outcome or injury, like I mentioned, or for instance sky diving or scuba diving or cave exploring, hunting, roller blading etc.
________________________________________
Smoking, drinking, running with scissors, not standing up straight….
GMC won’t obey gun laws.
GMC’s never said or implied any such thing. JR’s a da** liar.
That makes only one of us an admitted criminal. Which would that be? Hmmmmmm . . . . .
ANTI sings…..
Plastic flowers on the highway…
#
Boxlock20
Posted May 6, 2009 at 9:18 am | Permalink
Reg,
I see your point of course and can agree to a point.
But like fleet said that would be okay, for those that don’t.
The same argument applies to anything that might result in a negative outcome or injury, like I mentioned, or for instance sky diving or scuba diving or cave exploring, hunting, roller blading etc.
Do those things a pay for it but don’t regulate every aspect of our lives.
When are people going to be responsible for themselves and not government.
I’m just tired of government and the bureaucrats trying run every thing around us.
============================
Lot of folks don’t like mandatory seat belt use or enforcement.
It’s already mandatory for Federal workers and those serving in the military who drive on government installations.
I guess I’m more sensitive to the issue as in High School, I lost two dear friends (both females) when their car rolled over on top of them after they were ejected from the car. One of them I had a crush on.
A friend at the scene retold his story as they were following the girls when the car overturned. He and his two buddies were try to flip the car to get it off the girls so they could pull them out. It was one of those large 1960s automobiles, very heavy.
He heard the screams of the girl (all the while they unsuccessfully tried to right the car) – until their screams for help became faint and then silent.
It affected him for a long while, left a scar on his heart and troubled psyche.
Nice try counsel.
There IS no law mandating I wear a seat belt.
“GMC won’t obey gun laws.
GMC’s never said or implied any such thing. JR’s a da** liar. ”
I’m not gonna go get it. Everyone saw where you said you would not respect any further laws as to your responsible handling of firearms.
More in the same vein.
House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty
http://www.newsok.com/house-bypasses-governors-veto-to-claim-oklahomas-sovereignty/article/3366762
The bill “would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to “get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should “cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.
Key said many federal laws violate the 10th Amendment, which says powers not delegated to the U.S. government “are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Constitution lists about 20 duties required of the U.S. government,…
Good for Oklahoma!!!!
Government already controls our lives. I have to live with a 1.5 gallon toilet! My shower head is built with a flow restricter and with the new ones, it’s darn near impossible to remove them.
My shaving cream is labeled to warm me about the can blowing up. My razor blade package warns me that I might cut myself.
Seems a fella can’t take a shieet, shower, or shave without government interference.
BlueJay sings…
Some sad song or other from the 50’s about a car rolling over.
ANTI sings…
If I ever get back to Oklahoma, I’m gonna nail by feet to the ground….
Like I said Reg., I am sensitive to your thoughts on this.
Folks that don’t wear seat belts are just plain foolish but again who am I or some bureaucrat to decide for them.
Sure if the nanny government is responsible for our care post injury then they should have a say, but get out of that too.
Got a run, bye.
“for Federal workers and those serving in the military who drive on government installations”
Just a clarification. If you drive a government owned vehicle, seatbelt use is mandatory. On or off the installation. POV’s is as you stated.
#
American_Way
Posted May 6, 2009 at 9:38 am | Permalink
“for Federal workers and those serving in the military who drive on government installations”
Just a clarification. If you drive a government owned vehicle, seatbelt use is mandatory. On or off the installation. POV’s is as you stated.
———————-
Being retired military, you are probably aware of the seat belt checks they do on all vehicles entering military installations.
Tickets can be issued by military police, payable to the applicable Federal Court system. :)
Fleettwood sings:
In the Oklahoma hills where I belong
“…when their car rolled over on top of them after they were ejected from the car. One of them I had a crush on.”
TOOOO many directions to go with that one!
I’m not gonna go get it. Everyone saw where you said you would not respect any further laws as to your responsible handling of firearms.
Yea, JR, there’s a reason you won’t go get it. Because you’re a da** liar. And you’re right – we all know you’re a da** liar.
There IS no law mandating I wear a seat belt.
Actually, there is, JR. KSA 8-2503. It’s just that law enforcement can’t pull you over for that alone. If you’re pulled over for another reason (could be nearly anything) you can be cited for the seat belt violation. You’re wrong again.
Don’t you get tired of that?
#
BlueJay
Posted May 6, 2009 at 9:43 am | Permalink
“…when their car rolled over on top of them after they were ejected from the car. One of them I had a crush on.”
TOOOO many directions to go with that one!
———————————
The death of someone’s teenage daughters is not humorous BlueJay.
GMC, who is a Butler county prosecutor with apparently nothing better to do DID in fact say that he would not respect any further laws as to the responsible possession of firearms.
Its against the law to not wear a seatbelt now.
And GMC most people only follow laws they agree with. The Drinking age is almost Universally ignored, as are most gambling laws, a majority of the population have tried pot, most people drive over the speed limit
The government says what kind of electrical wire I have inside my home. They also regulate what kind of wire I use outside. They tell me what size junction box is required, where it has to be exposed, and how it’s attached to the home.
The sidewalk in front of my home cannot have a crack over a certain size, and most slope a certain degree.
My mailbox has to be a certain distance from the roadway and a certain height.
My doors going to the exterior must have a certain fire resistance (1.5 hours?) which cost me more. My water heater and furnace are regulated.
I have to get a permit to run new electrical service and it has to be inspected.
In my former residence, the city said I could not nail any windows shut, my boat (which requires a fire extinguisher) had to be behind my house, and my fence could not be over six feet.
My trash cans had to be hidden, and only certain cans and trash bags are acceptable.
I could only place a sign in my yard during certain election period dates and rumage sales took a permit which authorized a sign two days before and one day after the sale.
My car had to have certain safety equipment, pollution controls (and pass a test), tires not bald, and lights that work.
My bed has a tag on it and it is a federal offense to remove it.
If none of these things threaten you – why does having a police officer being able to pull you over for NOT wearing a seat belt? It is already against the law and you can be ticketed if stopped for any other violation.
On second thought, to hell with the money.
No way you could rein in the busy body officers who would use this law to pull over people at will for no reason at all.
Prove it, JR. And post the entire exchange, not your carefully chosen exerpts. Let’s see who’s the liar.
And I won’t be intimidated by you, you coward, any more than I will by MH. What I do is irrelevent to the subject. If you think you can shut me up – and I know how you want to – you’re wrong.
Put up or shut up, JR. Coward.
Junior wants the government to control every aspect of everyone’s life, except those aspects he doesn’t like.
Typical.
Did I mention, I can be ticketed for not shoveling snow from my sidewalk within 24 hours of a one inch snow?
GMC, who is a Butler county prosecutor with apparently nothing better to do…
_________________________________
This, from a guy who actually has nothing better to do, except maybe check the mailbox for his Vision Card. Should that be called the Blind Card?
They just can’t see getting a job.
No way you could rein in the busy body officers who would use this law to pull over people at will for no reason at all.
But junior, you love the government in people’s lives. You think the government should be in charge of everything.
BJ, not respecting the law and breaking them are two different things
More in the same vein.
House bypasses governor’s veto to claim Oklahoma’s sovereignty
http://www.newsok.com/house-bypasses-governors-veto-to-claim-oklahomas-sovereignty/article/3366762
——————–
Those sooners have got it going on. Common sense prevails there as I have said before on this blog.
“And I won’t be intimidated by you”
No, but you do jump entertainingly when confronted with your own posts here!
Amway writes:
If none of these things threaten you – why does having a police officer being able to pull you over for NOT wearing a seat belt? It is already against the law and you can be ticketed if stopped for any other violation.
Because studies and statistics have shown that those who do not wear seat belts tend to engage in risky driving practices.
It also sets a bad example for young drivers.
- The NHTSA estimates that 15,383 lives were saved by seat belts in 2006. From 1975 to 2006, seat belts have saved the lives of 226,567 people.
- Of those thrown completely out of a vehicle in a car crash, 75 percent died. Only one percent of people totally ejected from their cars had on a seat belt during the crash. Over 30 percent were not wearing seat belts.
– In 2006, 42,642 people were killed in car accidents. The NHTSA was able to gather seat belt data on 30,251 of the 42,642 car occupants that died in car crashes. Nearly 56 percent, or 16836 people, of the 30,251 with available restraint information were not wearing seat belts at the time of the fatal auto accident.
– Research found that 7064 people killed in car wrecks during the daytime were not wearing safety belts. Of those killed in nighttime car accidents, 9,615 were not wearing seatbelts.
*National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Heh!
Re: the pic at the top of the thread?
Safety Sally has her seatbelt but is driving with the door open?
#
BlueJay
Posted May 6, 2009 at 10:06 am | Permalink
Heh!
Re: the pic at the top of the thread?
Safety Sally has her seatbelt but is driving with the door open?
———————————–
It’s a common practice in photo shoots.
Next time you watch a movie, notice that the rear view mirror has been removed because it blocks a great deal of the car’s interior when shooting from the outside or the inside.
Actually, Tom, I didn’t go that far. What I wrote was that I would not compromise any more in passing any further gun laws or limitations.
One may “not respect” – if by that you mean disagree – any law. But one is not free to simply break them at will. A society of ordered liberty cannot operate if each person is entirely sovereign, to do as we will. We are all subject to law (JR excepted, he thinks, apparantly), whether we agree with it or not. We are all also free to work to change that law, or oppose any further restrive changes. As I will, on that subject.
Let JR do his vaunted “bone-dig.” In fact, I dare him to. Let’s see if he posts the entirity of the exchange, including the entirity of what I actually wrote, so people can see for themselves.
He won’t. He can’t, and claim what he claims. So he won’t.
After a close study of automobile and aircraft accidents, I decided that anybody who doesn’t wear a seat belt is the same as a motorcycle rider who doesn’t wear a helmet: Stupid.
Hey, organ donors, thanks for your contributions.
Dennis
“Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice. They would once again be the party of community and civic order.
They would begin every day by reminding themselves of the concrete ways people build orderly neighborhoods, and how those neighborhoods bind a nation. They would ask: What threatens Americans’ efforts to build orderly places to raise their kids? The answers would produce an agenda: the disruption caused by a boom and bust economy; the fragility of the American family; the explosion of public and private debt; the wild swings in energy costs; the fraying of the health care system; the segmentation of society and the way the ladders of social mobility seem to be dissolving.
But the Republican Party has mis-learned that history. The party sometimes seems cut off from the concrete relationships of neighborhood life. Republicans are so much the party of individualism and freedom these days that they are no longer the party of community and order. This puts them out of touch with the young, who are exceptionally community-oriented. It gives them nothing to say to the lower middle class, who fear that capitalism has gone haywire. It gives them little to say to the upper middle class, who are interested in the environment and other common concerns.
–David Brooks
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/opinion/05brooks.html
—
Reason # 9,874,562,314,778,236 that the GOP is quickly reducing itself to the exercise of regional power only.
“except maybe check the mailbox for his Vision Card”
I don’t think Bluejay even has to check his mailbox. From what I read the other day when a couple of us were figuring Bluejays AIG, once the card is delivered, the gubermint can add money to the account electronically.
This saves the taxpayer money, and Bluejay doesn’t have to remember all the numbers in his street address and stumble around to find his mailbox.
Dumbest argument on this thread: The federal government withholding federal funds to imporove highways if states don’t pass a seatbelt law somehow violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
Sometimes, you just can’t fix stupid.
The idea that states can fund their own infrastructure without federal assistance is ludicrous, and infrastructure is a perfect modern example of why we have a Constitution rather than the Articles of Confederation. And if Oklahoma, like apparently Kansas, wants to be dumb about it, well, I wish we could hold the legislature accountable, but too many voters are not paying attention.
And Blue Jay, you’re wrong. It is currently illegal to drive without a seatbelt, and I agree with cops being able to ticket you if they catch you driving without one. Because, when it comes to insurance rates, health care costs, and even time on accidents spent by emergency staff, we all do pay for it.
And if the federal government tying highway funding to common sense legislation is somehow a violation of federalism (and I don’t think it is), then this situation simply reveals the flaws of slavish devotion to the concept of federalism.
“You’re trying to make us do this if we are to get money from you, so you are violating our state’s rights.”
Yeah, THAT makes sense.
Anything to reduce the number of kids that have a pickup truck roll over on their faces and crush the life out of them must be opposed on general principles! Next thing ya know, they’ll make use headlights at night!
“and crush the life out of them must be opposed ”
29,000 of the highway annual deaths – over half are related to drunk driving.
Did I miss the post on how many die because they were not wearing seatbelts?
“If 90 percent of Americans buckle up, we will prevent more than 5,500 deaths and 132,000 injuries annually.” Car accidents dot com
Previous may be bum scoop:
More than half (55%) of passenger vehicle occupants killed were unrestrained.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.416f74e8613992381601031046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4427b997caacf504a8bdba101891ef9a_viewID=detail_view&itemID=3db938a77c825110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD&viewType=standard
Da** ‘bot moderator!!!
Agnatha –
With all due respect, using the threat of withholding of Federal dollars as blackmail to force states to pass legislation the Federal gov’t would not have the constitutional authority to pass independently is in fact anthema to any real federalism. It makes the states little more than administrative units of the federal gov’t, rather than political entities in their own right responsible to their own citizens. Yes, I understand that states are not in fact fully sovereign and haven’t been since the adoption of the Constitution (Oklahoma’s entirely symbolic silliness notwithstanding), but the Constitution you claim to support envisioned actual real, operable, enforcable limits on Federal power.
With the overwhelming bulk of tax dollars flowing to the federal gov’t today, rather than to the states and then to the feds (as per prior to the 16th amendment), the feds are in a position to do through blackmail what they may not constitutionally due: dictate to the states on matters properly and better left to state decisionmaking.
The SCOTUS’ gutting of any real limitations on federal power by an vastly over-expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause completed the circle, and real federalism effectively went into a coma some time ago. Some didn’t even notice.
And this doesn’t help:
In a historic first, Uncle Sam has supplanted sales, property and income taxes as the biggest source of revenue for state and local governments.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-fed-states-revenue_N.htm
Do you really think the federal gov’t will ever give up, once acquired, this ability to dictate policy to the states? I don’t. Federalism, as the founders envisioned it, is on it’s last, wheezing, unstable legs. (Neither will they give up control of the industries they have effectively nationalized, BTW. Real capitalism – even the effectively mixed but primarily private enterprise form of capitalism we’ve known, and which has provided a higher quality of life for more people than any other system or any other place or time, may be on its last legs too). Gov’t power always seeks to expand, and never voluntarily retracts; gov’ts, left their own devises, always trend toward tyrrany. And every extension of gov’t authority contains a corallary trimming away of personal freedom.
However, many states – and many citizens who actually BELIEVE in limited government, rather than give lip service to it – often resent same, and find it anthema to freedom. That’s why I find it refreshing that the House found the backbone, especially in lean times, to tell the feds to stuff their money and assert their independence. It doesn’t happen often; more often we simply take the dollars and complain about the limitations – often inane and meaningless – imposed by a far-away bureaucracy we have little direct influece on. We too often give away our independence and sovereignty – what we retain of it – for a few scraps from the federal table.
Seatbelt use is Kansas is already a law, this law ONLY gives the police a chance to pull you over soley for not using it or if you ask any law enforcement officer you know personally it is so that they can pull you over and use it as an excuse so they don’t get accused of profiling. Because drug dealers and gang members don’t wear seatbelts! And if anyone remembers when they past the law in the first place they claimed they would NEVER use it to pull you over. Go back and read the articles.This bill would save zero lives because it won’t change the habits of even one driver.
Let JR do his vaunted “bone-dig.” In fact, I dare him to. Let’s see if he posts the entirity of the exchange, including the entirity of what I actually wrote, so people can see for themselves.
He won’t. He can’t, and claim what he claims. So he won’t.
——-
Told ya so.
What is it called when the Kansas taxpayers send money to the Federal goverment and the Federal goverment won’t give it back unless we jump through their designated hoop?
Tyranny?
NASCAR and other race drivers are required to wear helmets – because helmets save driver’s lives when they wreck.
Surely, requiring all people inside a moving car on the highway or any other city street to wear a helmet would save many lives.
If we should require seatbelts (or in this case make not wearing one a primary violation) because doing so may save lives, then we must also require helmets, which would also save many lives.
I use the seatbelts, why make a big deal out of using something that is another tool that might work to your advantage?
And other thing, Kansas does not manufacture their own money; they use the federal government’s money.
So if the federal government wants to call the shots, they can so long as Kansas is depended on them.
then we must also require helmets, which would also save many lives.
______________________________
And pillows. Lots of pillows.
ANTI sings…..
Plastic flowers on the highway…
=============================================
Daniel joins in all his tone deaf splendor..
Bits of glass for the machine to sweep away
One time my now ex-wife and I were driving south on Broadway and I got pulled over for speeding in a 30 that I thought was a 40. Oh well. Anyway, she was not wearing her seat belt so the officer wrote her a $10 ticket. (More for her mouthing off, I think than not wearing the belt.)
She’s still pi**ed off about it. I think it’s funny.
Dennis
I always wear my seatbelt, and I think people that don’t are making a stupid mistake.
One time I was in a wreck too. Long story, but it was decided I was at fault and I was ticketed. The old man and his old wife in the other vehicle were both injured slightly in the wreck. Neither were wearing their seat belts when I ran up and pulled them out of their car (it looked like it was going to catch fire, but it did not).
Both of them were cited/ticketed for not wearing seat belts.
My insurance paid. But their not wearing seat belts may have impacted their claim and any future action against me.
PS: I’m not a bad driver.
Oh, and BTW –
Told ya JR wouldn’t put up. He can’t.
One thing that amuses me is which people are supportive of a seatbelt law.
One would think that the conservative Republicans would be all against yet another government encroachment on personal freedoms. And one would think that the liberal Democrats would be all for another nanny-state law protecting people from themselves.
But no!
With some exceptions, many of the conservatives seem to favor the seatbelt law and many of the liberals seem to be against it. Perhaps we can’t always stand on principle?
Why do I need to?
I can.
But so far, I’ve got you twice count it twice to dare me to prove you said what you said. This LATEST time, you obviously saw my nic on “recent comments” and threw down the challenge again.
Did you get any work done today or were you just obsessing on this and waiting for me?
Obviously defensive much?
I wasn’t the only one who saw the post of yours I reference. You ranted about it all day that day. I don’t feel the need to prove anything.
Be more convincingly righteously indignant and I’ll mull over gettin’ out my shovel. In between time, here’s another one for you!
It is nice to see our state stand up to the federal blackmail which is outside the authority granted to the fed by the US Constitution. Read the 10th amendment sometime…the Constitution specifically limits federal authority–and “our” government has way overstepped that authority.
Value of seat belt laws is not the issue..it is one state standing up to federal blackmail.
I’m a conservative and I disagree with any seat belt law other than for those so young, or incompetent, as to not be able to make an informed choice. I guess the incompetent part would includes most Dimocrats.
Again, educate….don’t regulate!!!
#
Agnatha
Posted May 6, 2009 at 8:06 am | Permalink
“Freedom is allowing adults to do things that aren’t so good for them- so long it isn’t putting others in danger. Wearing a seatbelt hurts nobody but the person not wearing the seatbelt and kids should be excluded.”
This is absolutely wrong. We all pay for this kind of stupidity.
—————-
I agree we all pay for it, and I’m willing to do that in exchange for my freedom and yours. I’ll pay for the stupid things you do, and you’ll pay for the stupid things I do.
Do you really want me to come to your house and tell you ‘you can’t have that trampoline, four wheeler, motorcycle, bottle of wine, or big mac?
We all have our demons. I’m not for forcing people to do what they don’t want to do.
#
Boxlock20
Posted May 6, 2009 at 7:35 pm | Permalink
I’m a conservative and I disagree with any seat belt law other than for those so young, or incompetent, as to not be able to make an informed choice. I guess the incompetent part would includes most Dimocrats.
Again, educate….don’t regulate!!!
============================================
What this idiot doesn’t quite understand is the money is already in Washington, and this state could use it. But it seems the “states rights” idiots also don’t understand the fact we are all paying, in higher insurance costs and higher medical costs, for the bozos who refuse to wear seat belts. These same con idiots rant and rave about paying any of their taxes for subsidizing d*am*n near anything. It’s no wonder nobody votes for Republicans anymore: They’re all braindead.
Way to go kansas senate. You just showed how really stupid you are. Next, you’ll try to get intelligent design back in the classroom. Sheesh . . . frikin nitwits. Give yourselves a bonus.
O, by the way, moron, how’d those non regulations work for the investment industry? Not so good, huh? Educate all you want, but regulate when the common good is in order.
“What this idiot doesn’t quite understand is the money is already in Washington, and this state could use it.”
And “what this idiot doesn’t quite understand is” that this is exactly the same attitude and belief that a prostitute has. I mean the money is already in his pocket, all I have to to is comply with his wishes and I get some.
What does that make you JMWalker…but a cheap prostitute.
That is exactly what the Feds are trying to do with all of the states and us as individuals.
Screw you!!!
Maybe I am being too hard on ol JMWalker.
When I say “Educate…but don’t regulate”, I base that concept on the ability, the capability, of those like JM to be educated.
I’m afraid with JM that is impossible.
So maybe, accepting he is UN-educatable, he has a point.
“Boxlock20″ –
Yeah. You’re the expert on education.
I “take you to school” every day.
Monkeyhawk is exactly what his ‘nic’ eludes to.
He possesses the intelligence of a monkey, or less.
From my zoo experiences creatures like the ‘Monkey’ do little to contribute but simply eat, defecate, and play with themselves…you know what I mean, uh.
That monkey could not even find a school let alone take anyone there.
But he needs something to hang on to make himself feel adequate.
Aw, JR, feeling picked on?
You’ve still made no point. Put up or shut up. Just post it all, not carefully selected “quotes.” If you have the balls.
HARDLY!
I haven’t posted any quotes GMC.
Yet.
Why do you need me to?
This is your third call that you have been wronged by what I posted about something YOU posted. And still, you got no seconds, no backup.
What does THAT tell you?
I didn’t think so.
We both know the truth, JR. You ain’t got it. I know it. You know it. And they know it.
Astoundingly, “GMC70″ posts on his own time.
What? Did you have to bring some “work” home?
Are you trying to convince me or yourself GMC?
IF I wanted to do a bonedig, I would rather go back and look for where you said you wanted to take potshots at red light cameras.
Or any one of several of your early meltdowns here.
But, if you insist….
I don’t know, JR, what does it tell me?
That I don’t feel the need (as you do) to fire up the e-mail and bring in my homies? That truth is not subject to majority vote?
You raised the issue, you laid out the lie. The burden’s on your shoulders, not mine. Back it up, little man. Just tell the whole thing.
Do you have a point, MH? Think a little intimidation might work when truth doesn’t?
No, on both counts. You’re just an ass.
Or did JR light up the e-mail to get his “seconds” to have his back?
Cripes.
It is YOU who feel you and your words have been wronged GMC.
My temptation is to tell YOU to prove it.
But if you are begging me to further embarrass you…
BlueJay sings…..
You’re simply irresistible.
The prosecutor is feeling persecuted.
I should say here that I have met GMC.
In person when affronted with his own words, he replies with a loud “Harummph!”
Here? He just put the “kick me!” sign on his back.
I will of course, HAPPILY oblige!
Link to thread to follow.
Here ya are GMC: (that was easier than I thought!)
“….No more. We have, and have long gone past “reasonable” gun regulation. Many gun owners, this one included, will not compromise any more. one more little bit.”
You posted that in the middle of the day. But your syntax “one more little bit” betrays emotion overcoming your ability to type.
You spent the rest of that thread trying to qualify your post. But your original sentiment is clear.
You intend to violate any further regulation on your responsible possession of guns.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/04/when-rampage-killers-are-licensed/
link to the thread where GMC says he will violate any further legislation as to his responsible ownership of guns.
Like I said, JR, post it all. Before and after. You won’t.
Why? Because I didn’t say what you assert. He**, even what you post does not say what you assert. If the rest is posted, that’s obvious.
You didn’t even post the thread where readers can see for themselves. Not surprised, of course, just an observation.
You’re pathetic, JR.
“GMC70″ reverts to –
“…You’re just an ass.”
That’s what you learned in three years of law school. For you, I guess, money well spent.
Pretty much all you have.
Except –
“… did JR light up the e-mail to get his “seconds” to have his back?
Cripes.”
Paranoia strikes deep, “GMC70.”
I just happened on WE Blog this evening and was amazed you were posting during non office hours.
Wow; I’m shocked. He actually posted it.
Go ahead, folks, read it all. Try to find any language which says I will “violate any further legislation as to his responsible ownership of guns.” You won’t find it. If it was there, JR would have posted it. What he posted was a carefully hacked piece of a much longer thread that he SAYS (without any words which actually say that, of course) ‘mean’ that.
I’ve nothing to fear.
Still trying the little intimidation game, MH? Still won’t work. I know shutting me up has become a priority to you, having had your ass handed to you on more than a few occasions.
Oh, and by the way – when you’re being an ass, “you’re an ass” is entirely appropriate. Simple, direct, to the point, and entirely truthful.
“Go ahead, folks, read it all. Try to find any language which says I will “violate any further legislation as to his responsible ownership of guns.” You won’t find it. If it was there, JR would have posted it.”
I posted a link to the whole thread GMC.
For a Prosecutor, I sure seem to get you damned defensive.
My already shaken confidence in our Justice system is NOT reassured by a man who has the power to send other human beings to jail who cannot even defend himself from his OWN words.
Shutting you down never has been my priority, “GMC70″ –
Pointing out your hypocrisy, though, has come pretty easy.
And they could dust your ass for my fingerprints, I’ve handed it to you so many times.
Are you intimidated? You keep bringing up that word. You seem almost (I dunno) intimidated by the prospect.
A very LONG time ago GMC, when you were GMC 1970, I opined to a friend that you were the best hope for reasoned debate from the right.
Here, I will admit that I was wrong.
I invite the forum to do a search engine exercise.
Type this:
“WE Blog”+”GMC 1970″+”liberal circle jerk”
What other point is there to your recent meme, MH? It sure as he** doesn’t drive discussion on any points at issue. I know your rationale; you do too. That road has been tried before. I just say it. You won’t.
JR, you wouldn’t know reasoned debate if it bit you in the ass. You’d proclaim you hate it, like you proclaim you hate nearly anything – and anyone – who dares to disagree with you.
Find any language which says “I won’t obey any more gun laws?” Anything remotely close? Nope. If it was there, you’d post it. You don’t. Because it isn’t.
Case closed, ass handed. You’re a da** liar. And we both know it.
Oh, and just for the record, who wrote – today – that he would not obey the law? Wanna guess, anyone?
Yup. That lovable (OK, not so loveable, since hate is where he lives) hypocrite JR. Here’s the exact quote, and unlike JR’s tenuous assertion, it takes no tortured interpreting, inferring, or implying:
—
BlueJay
Posted May 6, 2009 at 9:08 am | Permalink
I will NOT wear a seat belt.
—
DOH!! The law, BTW, is KSA 8-2503. Look it up if you like.
And with that, I’m off. Enjoy the drivel sure to follow, folks.
IF I am a liar GMC?
Why do you feel so compelled to call me one?
I am not a lawyer like you. But I AM familiar with the concept of “merits”.
I am comfortable in mine and the case I make.
You, CLEARLY, are not.
LOL… on the WE Blog surrounded by such idiots as Monkeybrains, BS Clark, and others, BlueJay considers himself to be king.
It is all yours pal. Have at it.
Even the more reasoned people on the left have gone away from this blog.
It is all yours BJ.
Upon review, this was an interesting thread today.
Other than the usual Bluejay continuous attacks accompanied by Monkeyhawk – Republicans & Democrats actually too unusual positions on this subject.
If you skip over the Bluejay/Monkeyhawk attacks, good opinions were shared by all.
Republicans & Democrats actually took
“Other than the usual Bluejay continuous attacks accompanied by Monkeyhawk”
[FE]Yeah, right, because Boxlock’s contributions to this thread were so well thought out.[/FE]
Other than that, AmWay, I do strongly agree with you in principle that this thread was interesting because people’s usual political identifications were not predictive of where they fell on this thread.
I am not a lawyer like you. But I AM familiar with the concept of “merits”.
I am comfortable in mine and the case I make.
—-
Sure you are. Keep telling yourself that. At some point you might actually believe it.
‘Cause, well, that’s why you speak to the merits of issues.
Oh, wait: you actually rarely, if ever, actually speak to the merits of issues. Instead, you engage in personal attacks; it’s your only stock in trade.
Note that after Chas attempted to get people to back off yesterday, it’s the first thing you did today (today’s open thread). Not on merits, just on attack. And you even laid out your intention: to drive others off the blog.
That’s quite sad. What it demonstrates is a fear of other points of view, and a lack of confidence in one’s own. But that’s the “merit” you’re comfortable in.
Like I told Chas – I don’t participate in the kind of attacks Chas spoke of, but I understand them: you reap what you sow. You sow attack, and you get same in kind.
Congratulations.
Oh. Found that language yet? No? I’m not surprised; it doesn’t exist.
‘Ain’t it grand’….Agnatha, the jawless fish searches out my posts, being so consumed by them. Ha ha ha!
It’s checkmate GMC and you’ve lost again.
King BJ has spoken…. and in his own little fantasy land in the depths of his twisted brain he thinks someone besides the likes of Monkeybrains and BS Clark care.
“With all due respect, using the threat of withholding of Federal dollars as blackmail to force states to pass legislation the Federal gov’t would not have the constitutional authority to pass independently is in fact anthema to any real federalism. It makes the states little more than administrative units of the federal gov’t, rather than political entities in their own right responsible to their own citizens. Yes, I understand that states are not in fact fully sovereign and haven’t been since the adoption of the Constitution (Oklahoma’s entirely symbolic silliness notwithstanding), but the Constitution you claim to support envisioned actual real, operable, enforcable limits on Federal power.”
How is withholding FEDERAL funds from states an infringement on the state’s power by the federal government? States are far more than administrative units of the federal government, and sometimes that is a good thing, but sometimes it creates a mess.
“With the overwhelming bulk of tax dollars flowing to the federal gov’t today, rather than to the states and then to the feds (as per prior to the 16th amendment), the feds are in a position to do through blackmail what they may not constitutionally do: dictate to the states on matters properly and better left to state decisionmaking.”
That’s a matter of political opinion. As I stated in another thread, I have seen instances professionally where states have NOT been in a better position to implement policy, but the feds pushed it on them anyway, and the states, in turn, pushed it on counties. Furthermore, I think in the very topic of this thread, your argument does not even come close to holding water. One of the reasons for supplanting of the Articles of Confedration by the Constitution was interstate commerce. The states had made a mess of things bu demanding their own currency, and doing their own fundraising for their infrastructure (lots of tolls). The Constitution was developed at a time where the fastest way to move goods and information was by horse or by polling a barge through a river, but even then the founders all saw a need for overriding federal authority on subjects like interstate commerce and all things relating to them, including infrastructure. The reason for the 18th Amendment was in part because of the necessity for consistent infrastructure across the country. And on the very subject of this thread, I think it is very hard to impossible to argue that the Federal government does not have a legitimate and very strong interest in having a consistent infrastructure throughout the country, and also in highway safety that affects everyone in the country that pays health insurance premiums, taxes, and car insurance. To argue that state’s sovereignty should overrule that interest is, IMVSO, taking a federalist position waaaay beyond its logical extreme.
“The SCOTUS’ gutting of any real limitations on federal power by an vastly over-expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause completed the circle, and real federalism effectively went into a coma some time ago. Some didn’t even notice.”
I don’t agree with you (and for the record, I know that this is a politcal difference between us, because there are quite a number of legal scholars and professionals who also don’t agree with you). The country that the founding fathers lived in was not the country that we live in now by any stretch of the imagination, and commerce has taken shapes in ways not even the most ardent federalist of the period could have anticipated (and by the way, let’s be clear on this, the “founding fathers” were in no way even close to one mind on the issue of federalism, states’ rights, and limits and extent to federal authority).
“In a historic first, Uncle Sam has supplanted sales, property and income taxes as the biggest source of revenue for state and local governments.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-fed-states-revenue_N.htm ”
I think this is inevitable, and it would be naive indeed to think that states were not active partners in making this happen.
“Do you really think the federal gov’t will ever give up, once acquired, this ability to dictate policy to the states? I don’t.”
You’re wrong, factually wrong. It not only can happen, it does. I’ve seen it happen. Because in a democratic republic, particularly in the legislative branch power also comes with responsibility, and expense in money and personnel. All too often in this past 30 years, government on all levels wants to pass responsibility onto other levels, particularly if there is a price tag to that responsibility that they don’t want to have to explain to constituents. For that matter, there are times when the states get angry at the federal government for abdicating responsibility to them. Seriously, take a look at some of the recent governors conferences and what bipartisan groups of governors have said to congresscritters. I’ve said this before, counselor, and I will say it again, and I know I am right on this: You oversimplify issues that are not so simple. Governments are not always out to grab power, increases in government size, when it does happen, does not automatically result in losses of freedom. The world is complicated, waaay more complicated than ANY ideology can simply accomodate.
“Federalism, as the founders envisioned it, is on it’s last, wheezing, unstable legs.”
The rest of the paragraph I have already addressed above, but I just wanted to repeat something here. Federalism was a controversial subject among and between the founding fathers (it’s the primary reason why Jefferson and Adams had their legendary falling out, for goodness sakes). In some ways, I am sympathetic with the likes of Jefferson and Madison, but I think at times Adams and Hamilton were correct.
“It doesn’t happen often; more often we simply take the dollars and complain about the limitations – often inane and meaningless – imposed by a far-away bureaucracy we have little direct influece on. We too often give away our independence and sovereignty – what we retain of it – for a few scraps from the federal table.”
It is irresponsible to not pass a reasonable, common sense law just to express your independence and sovereignty, especially when in actuality such an action damages your own government, and reduces the resources that you need to be able to be a functioning “sovereign” entity. The idea that Kansas, with much of its population outside of the NE and the SC dwindling, can manage its infrastructure without federal funds, or that it can actually pay for such a thing on its own, within its own borders, withoug substantial federal help, is silly. Furthermore, I would bet that, when it comes to transportation infrastructure, Kansas as a relatively low population state gets more than it contributes tax dollar wise.
It has been said that to be able to speak or to write efficiently, using few words to express ones thoughts, is a mark of high intelligence.
After that garbage heap of Agnatha’s above I would wholeheartedly agree, and suggest he is at the bottom of the heap as well. That diatribe is analogous to looking in a mirror all day admiring his own image but getting nothing done.
How is withholding FEDERAL funds from states an infringement on the state’s power by the federal government?
_______________________________________
How about we do this.
You give me a bunch of money and if you do what I tell you to do, I’ll give it back.
The drive by poster snarks: “How about we do this.
You give me a bunch of money and if you do what I tell you to do, I’ll give it back.”
Riiiiight drive by. Reality check: t
The “bunch of money” the feds dole out is almost certainly greater than the “bunch of money” than the share of that funding the feds collect from Kansas. And now Kansas is deeply in the red, and the dumbest ideologues in the legislature are insisting that scheduled business tax cuts not be deferred on one hand, but on the other hand are deciding that they won’t pass a law to get funds that would relieve that deficit. Right now, I am wathing the spectacle of two dimwitted state senators pushing for drastic additional cuts in education while representing districts where the biggest employer, by far, are the local school districts. Why? Because they are pushing to go ahead with scheduled business tax cuts that will create a far less positive economic impact on their districts than the negative impact their education spending cuts will create. And when they are offered federal money (which is paid in by the entirity of the country), they turn up their noses at it.
Like Ksfarmgrrl has appropriately said, sometimes you can’t fix stupid.
Fixing the mess of the last post:
The drive by poster snarks: “How about we do this.
You give me a bunch of money and if you do what I tell you to do, I’ll give it back.”
Riiiiight drive by. Reality check:
The “bunch of money” the feds dole out is almost certainly greater than the “bunch of money” that the feds collect for that purpose from Kansas. And now Kansas is deeply in the red, and the dumbest ideologues in the legislature are insisting that scheduled business tax cuts not be deferred on one hand, but on the other hand are deciding that they won’t pass a law to get funds that would relieve that deficit. Right now, I am watching the spectacle of two dimwitted state senators pushing for drastic additional cuts in education while representing districts where the biggest employers, by far, are the local school districts. Why? Because they are pushing to go ahead with scheduled business tax cuts that will create a far less positive economic impact on their districts than the negative impact their education spending cuts will create. And when they are offered federal money (which is paid in by the entirity of the country), the same legislators turn up their noses at it.
Like Ksfarmgrrl has appropriately said, sometimes you can’t fix stupid.
Agnatha
Posted May 7, 2009 at 10:10 am
Word count: 1,125
Paragraphs: 15 (but you can cheat on this one)
Lines: 71
O.K.: Calling all posters. I know I’m long winded, but I don’t want ANYONE to comment on my long winded posts ever again!!!
;- [
Agnatha
Posted May 7, 2009 at 10:10 am
Word count: 1,125
Paragraphs: 15 (but you can cheat on this one)
Lines: 71
O.K.: Calling all posters. I know I’m long winded, but I don’t want ANYONE to comment on my long winded posts ever again!!!
;- [
gomenazi on the dupe post
gomenazi on the dupe post
Monitor should have caught it
Monitor should have caught it
“Like Ksfarmgrrl ”
Who?
“Like Ksfarmgrrl ”
Who?
“Like Ksfarmgrrl ”
Who?
“Like Ksfarmgrrl ”
Who?
Hey AmWay.
Havin’ problems there buddy?
Agnatha –
They’re complaining about length; well, here goes. And BTW – I appreciate the discourse on meat and substance, not petty crap as so often dominates here.
This isn’t about the feds paying for infrastructure. The feds will do that because it is in their interest to do so.
This is about accepting the tacking on requirements as conditions of those dollars on matters that are irrelevent to the infrastructure and over which the feds have no constitutional authority; here wearing seatbelt. Whether drivers wear, or don’t wear, seatbelts makes not one iota if difference as to the building of the infrastructure at issue. And yes, I oppose mandatory seat belt laws. It’s my head, and my windshield. Butt out. To take your justification to its logical extreme, NOTHING that you and I do is beyond micromanaging by the nanny state. Freedom means, as was put above, the right to do at times dangerous and self-destructive things.
And yes, it may be seen as a minor thing. But if we cannot assert that we are something more than an administrative subdivision on minor things, we certainly cannot on the major things.
The founders differed on federalism? Well, yea, they differed on lots of things. They differed, however, in the opposite way you imagine. No one thought the gov’t being created gave the federal gov’t too little power; rather the concern, almost universally (excepting perhaps Hamilton, who took little part in the convention) was that it was given too much. Ultimately, what individuals at the convention thought makes no difference. What they wrote in the Constitution, as understood by the language and terms of the period and as modified by subsequent amendment matters a great deal; in fact, it’s all that matters. And remember – while the Articles of Confederation failed because the national gov’t had too little power; the Constitution set up a system for making sure it did not gain too much. Federalism was a major part of that system. Notably, the Constitution left the taxing power in the hands of the states, not with the federal gov’t. There was a reason for that, as we have now seen. That has since changed, and the shift in power that followed was inevitable. And the 16th (not the 18th; surely you’re not referring to Prohibition here) amendment was not passed to fund infrastructure, BTW; it was passed because an income tax imposed by Congress to fund the Civil War was declared to be unconstitutional. History matters, Agnatha.
As to the inevitable power grab of governments and their march toward tyranny, if left unchecked; that’s a philosophical difference between us, I guess. You trust gov’t to do the right thing; I do not. History, BTW, nearly everywhere in the world supports my position. And human beings haven’t changed, and never will; this side of heaven. I would note, further, that the Founders were almost uniformly on my philosophical side of the divide. They had the experience of throwing off what they considered tyrrannical gov’t, and were familiar with the writings of Locke, Hobbes and Montisque; writers concerned not with how to give gov’ts too much power, but how to limit gov’t power. The new Constitution proposed in 1787 nearly failed ratification; not because it created a gov’t that was too weak, but because many feared it created a gov’t that was too strong. That is why they insisted, as a condition of ratification, on a Bill of Rights limiting specifically limiting that new gov’t. That Bill of Rights included the oft-ignored 10th amendment, specifying that powers not specifically granted to the Federal gov’t were left to the states. States are now attempting to reassert that prerogative; I fear they are closing the door after the horses have already escaped.
That is also the reason, as an aside, for the 2nd amendment’s prominence. As Madison (the “Father” of that constitution) put it: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” – The Federalist 46.
Madison also wrote on the need to effective limits on gov’t: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. – The Federalist 51
And he understood the reality of how gov’ts userp power. Tyrranny will come clothed, not in the uniform of obvious enslavement, but in good intentions: “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
I’m taking the long view; it’s not about this petty little $13 million or so; that’s the scraps. It’s about retaining self-government at the level it is most appropriate.
When it comes down to it, Agnatha, what you’ve told me is that you’re perfectly happy with the scraps from the federal table, and will sell your soul to get them. Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.
And BTW, Agnatha, as simplistic as the “drive-by poster” put it, he’s just about right. Whether Kansas comes out net ahead or net behind in the dollars taken/dollars doled out sweepstakes is beside the point. What the feds do is exactly, if not quite as simply put, as fleettwood puts it.
Actually, the conditions on federal funding to the states is precisely designed for the states to deny funding.
If it were a federal mandate, the same CONs would gripe about having laws imposed.
With conditions on federal funding, Washington simply says, “We think this is a good idea and if you don’t, scrape you’re own damned bodies off your outdated highways.”
Back when the Republic Party was in power in Congress, they spewed out “Block Grants” which gave the states money to spend as wildly as they could imagine (such as giving $20,000 dollar bonuses toe Republic Party leadership staff).
So Congress steps up and says “We have money, but there are conditions,” and CONs get up on their hind legs and whine.
We hear a lot of whining from CONs these days.
And there is plenty to whine about, the worst president ever and a incredibly stupid majority in Congress.
Stupid ‘puter suddenly sent me to another web page, and I lost my post.
“They’re complaining about length; well, here goes. And BTW – I appreciate the discourse on meat and substance, not petty crap as so often dominates here.”
Likewise.
“This isn’t about the feds paying for infrastructure. The feds will do that because it is in their interest to do so.
“This is about accepting the tacking on requirements as conditions of those dollars on matters that are irrelevent to the infrastructure and over which the feds have no constitutional authority; here wearing seatbelt.”
Your authoritative pronouncement as to what the federal government has authority over is nothing more than personal opinion, counselor. You are essentially saying that the federal government does not have constitutional authority over its own funds. Sorry, that’s so much nonsense. I have worked for a long time in the field of developmental disabilities, both for private agencies and for special education. The idea of the federal government putting strings on the funds that they distribute to states and agencies is not an alien concept to me. And while sometimes the strings are stupid, other times the strings are not only a good idea, but they are good management. I can think of a couple of instances over my professional career when our state has misspent (one time intentionally) money that the fed provided for a different purpose. More to the point, please indicate where in the Constitution it specifies that the federal government does not have the authority to specify criteria for federal funding. Why should states be different from any other agency?
“The founders differed on federalism? Well, yea, they differed on lots of things. They differed, however, in the opposite way you imagine. No one thought the gov’t being created gave the federal gov’t too little power; rather the concern, almost universally (excepting perhaps Hamilton, who took little part in the convention) was that it was given too much.”
1) I am well aware of the history of the Constitutional convention.
2) You seem to confuse your very specific political perspectives with absolute reality, and this is a pattern you demonstrate a lot, counselor. Were all the participants in the Constitutional Convention concerned about limiting federal authority, or giving the federal government too much authority. Of course they were. However, to claim that this concern was THE overriding concern comes from looking at history through a single chosen perspective. The founding fathers were also all to a greater or lesser degree concerned with not giving the federal government enough authority. They were, in other words, concerned with the balance between preserving freedom and good governance. This reminds me of the discussion we had about the size of the government being inversely related to personal freedoms for citizens. INVSO, you grossly oversimplified the issues then, and you are doing it again.
“And remember – while the Articles of Confederation failed because the national gov’t had too little power; the Constitution set up a system for making sure it did not gain too much.”
Yes, that’s true, but that is true among other things.
“Federalism was a major part of that system.”
But the founding fathers did have fundamental differences on just what federalism meant, and what the balance between state and federal, and for that matter between small and large state, should be.
“Notably, the Constitution left the taxing power in the hands of the states, not with the federal gov’t. There was a reason for that, as we have now seen. That has since changed, and the shift in power that followed was inevitable.”
The claim that the Constitution, left the taxing powers in the hands of the states is, to put it mildly, debatable (Article I Section 8). The clarification that came from the 16th Amendment removed the barrier to implementing a federal income tax by eliminating the headache of having to distinguish between a “direct tax” on income made from property that theoretically could not be taxed without apportionment from an “indirect” tax on wages coming off of services, which theoretically could already be taxed without apportionment. It did not, to my understanding, represent a wholesale change in moving taxing authority from states to the federal government. Congress already had the authority to assess taxes.
“And the 16th (not the 18th; surely you’re not referring to Prohibition here) amendment was not passed to fund infrastructure, BTW; it was passed because an income tax imposed by Congress to fund the Civil War was declared to be unconstitutional. History matters, Agnatha.”
Yes, it does. The results of the Pollock case did not leave the nation in danger of insolvency by making an income tax a practically impossible headache because of unpaid debts from the Civil War. I was using infrastructure very broadly here (if you don’t believe me, check out my earlier comments about interstate commerce). Consistent infrastructure refers to being able to have the same rules apply throughout the same country (and the clarifying change resulting from the 16th Amendment were very basic to having the same rules apply throughout the same country). However, even on the specifics of transportation and communication infrastructure, the Guilded Age was dealing with changes that the FF’s would not have anticipated (trains, telegraphs, phones). The strain of what a federal government has to cover increases with the size of territory, the complexity of technology and resulting economic exchanges, and increase in population, particularly when it is to keep that infrastructure consistent throughout the country (that lack of consistent infrastructure, in the broad sense of the term, was why the Articles of Confederation failed). Things do not stay the same. I therefore stand by my earlier comments (except, of course, you are correct, I was referring to the 16th Amendment).
“As to the inevitable power grab of governments and their march toward tyranny, if left unchecked; that’s a philosophical difference between us, I guess. You trust gov’t to do the right thing; I do not.”
Again, you greatly oversimplify our differences. It’s not so much that I trust government to do the right thing, but I think that in some instances, having a large government (which in a Republic like ours is accountable to more people than either smaller state governments much less a private entity) is safer than having small governments. In each case, you are taking the risk of trusting some entity to “do the right thing”.
“History, BTW, nearly everywhere in the world supports my position.”
No it doesn’t. The history of this country does not support it, and there are lots of instances in the world that does not support your position now (e.g., Afghanistan would benefit from having a country with a stronger central government than it has now). You can claoim that there is a simple relationship between the size of government and tyranny all you want, but it won’t change reality. Big governments can be engines of considerable tyranny, but so can small ones with relatively simple rules (do what we say, or we kill you and your family). The whole civil rights battles of the mid-20th Century, those who invoked the principles of states rights, self rule, and big government tyranny were in fact trying to prevent the Federal government from protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens. That’s a fact. Like you said, counselor, history matters.
What you seem to fail to understand is that I am not universally arguing for big government over small government. I have also seen the considerable flaws of “one size fits all” big government, and continue to see them. However, I have also seen the flaws of “leave this to the states or even counties or cities”. Simplistic principles such as “Big government is always more tyrannical than small government” do not substitute for common sense. In some cases, the risk does come from big government, but in other cases, it is quite the opposite.
And the fact is, the situation now is what it is. The federal government, as they have the authority to do, has put conditions on federal highway funds that IMVSO are not unreasonable. To pass up on those funds, when the state is in the red, is not unreasonable.
And since professionally I have had to deal with the consequences of “my head, my windshield”, I am not sympathetic to your claim.
“Back when the Republic Party was in power in Congress, they spewed out “Block Grants” which gave the states money to spend as wildly as they could imagine (such as giving $20,000 dollar bonuses to Republic Party leadership staff).
“So Congress steps up and says ‘We have money, but there are conditions,’ and CONs get up on their hind legs and whine.”
And cry tyranny! The federal abdication of authority (and therefore accountability) on some block grants provided some perfect examples of waste.
It should be noted, there were some block grants that worked pretty well also, but largely because there were some guidelines that prevented the funds from being misused while giving states discretion to distribute them in ways that made sense.
Other times, however, not so much.
I think the debate that needs to happen is what is the government’s role in protecting us from ourselves. There has to be a line somewhere, and obviously most people disagree on where that line is.
Sure seatbelts would save lives; so would helmets – in cars. But where do we draw the line?
There needs to be a public discourse on the government’s role before we can move past this sort of bickering.
“To pass up on those funds, when the state is in the red, is not unreasonable.”
Should be:
“To pass up on those funds, when the state is in the red, is unreasonable.
what a difference three letters makes.
We will, Agnatha, agree to disagree. What you characterize as “simplistic” I consider principled. You seek pragmatism, and let the long-term consequences be damned. I’m well aware of the complexities of reality, but the long-term consequences (and frankly, again, the barn door has been open far too long now) are not worth the price. IMVSO (does that make the argument better?).
And the shift in power that came with giving direct taxing authority to the Federal gov’t is, frankly, undeniable and huge. It (and the 17th amendment) is in large part the source of our present conundrum.
Your disagreement on “my head, my windshield” we’ll have to put to philosophical differences. It large part, it’s about lines in the sand and where they will be. And I’ll leave it at that.
“To pass up on those funds, when the state is in the red, is unreasonable.”
Oh, well the street walker on the corner trying to sell her body is in the red too. Does need make everything acceptable.
I think Agnatha thinks like a prostitute, maybe is one in some ways.
“We will, Agnatha, agree to disagree.”
Agreed.
“What you characterize as ’simplistic’ I consider principled.”
I understand that. You should understand that I consider it a principled position to deal with reality, rather than try to shoehorn reality into a particular political philosophy. Because it is in considering reality that choices become informed, and to do the most good and the least harm requires informed choices.
“You seek pragmatism, and let the long-term consequences be damned.”
The italicized portion of your comment is just plain wrong. My position (and of course you don’t agree) is that your “principled position” leads you to conclusions that are just flat out, empirically wrong. Your assumption that A (large federal government) automatically leads to your B (increased tyranny and reduced individual freedoms) is, IMVSO, flat out false in some cases. Actions have consequences, but the consequences have to be considered according to the best available information we have, not to political beliefs that lead to assuptions of knowledge that one really does not have.
Thanks for a stimulating conversation.
You should understand that I consider it a principled position to deal with reality, rather than try to shoehorn reality into a particular political philosophy.
Oh, cut the self-rightous BS, Agnatha. This is a balony as the “just want ‘reasonable regulations,’ implying, of course, that if one does not agree with the regulations the advocate prefers, one is not “reasonable.”
And there’s nothing “empirically wrong” about my position; in fact, I’ll stand by it. Greater gov’t always leads to less freedom; whether that is a trade-off we desire to make – IOW, whether the benefit is worth the cost – is another calculation altogether. It may well be, on some cases; certainly, the losses of some freedom by enforcement of our civil rights laws (to use the example you like to cite, and which took far too long) were absolutely worth the gains. But there is always a cost.
And gov’t, left to its own devises, always trends toward growth and tyrrany. Some facts are as basic as the sun rising in the east, and we ignore them at our peril.
In your own way, Agnatha, you are at least as ideological as I. You just don’t see yourself that way, because it doesn’t fit your view of yourself.
And yes, it’s been fun, and stimulating. Have a great weekend.