And yes, it’s been fun, and stimulating. Have a great weekend.

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.

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.

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.

Should be:

“To pass up on those funds, when the state is in the red, is unreasonable.

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.

Other times, however, not so much.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Havin’ problems there buddy?

Who?

Who?

Who?

Who?

Monitor should have caught it
Monitor should have caught it

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!!!

;- [

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!!!

;- [

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.

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.

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.