|
Zonie63 -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (12/22/2013 11:25:12 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The odds of a person being incapable of purchasing from one corporation are much, much smaller than they are of that same person being incapable of escaping the Federal Government.
That's debatable, since many corporations are international and have operations in multiple countries.
Also, with so many buyouts, mergers, along with subsidiaries, parent corporations, etc., it's not even readily apparent to the average consumer which corporation he/she might be dealing with. Grocery stores are a good example of this. There's a local grocery chain here called Fry's, but it's really a subsidiary of a subsidiary which is owned by Kroger. But they didn't change the name of the stores to "Kroger," because most people here were familiar with the name "Fry's," so that's what they're still called.
The Federal government did it differently when the Gadsden Purchase came about. Right or wrong, at least there was no ambiguity about what was occurring.
quote:
You do know that there has been a bill sponsored every year, for the past several years. to remove Presidential term limits, right? It's gone nowhere, and wasn't likely to go anywhere, any time, but that hasn't been out of the question.
Oh yes, I knew that. I remember it was discussed even back when Reagan was President. I agree, it's gone nowhere, and not really much of a concern at this point.
quote:
The Federal government is slowly creeping towards "1984." Whether it's for "security," or "our own good," or "equality," isn't really material. Erosion of liberty is happening, and has been happening. And, it's not reserved to just one party, either.
But is it happening due to some conscious (possibly nefarious) intention? Could it possibly be deemed "necessary and proper"? Or is it a case of good intentions leading us on the road to Hell?
I'm not sure how far it's gone or how far it's going to go. I would think that if we were living in a genuine police state, we would know it. There would be no ambiguity or guesswork required on our part. If we are headed in that direction, I would say that we pretty much set ourselves up for that a long time before anyone really realized what was happening. I don't think there was any grand conspiracy or any long-term malicious intent.
Historically, two Presidents who were noted for being quite heavy-handed in the exertion of Federal power (Lincoln and FDR) are also greatly revered in the American political consciousness. It can be argued that they faced an immediate short-term need which required immediate and swift action. Nonetheless, despite the fact that they presided over sad, horrible, tragic events in our history, we Americans still cheer for our victory and honor those who participated and contributed to it, especially the Presidents who led the Federal government during those dark hours.
I'm not here to debate what they did or whether it was Constitutional. But in this country, we've also allowed for a bit of leeway for the Federal government to operate as it sees fit. We've given them that latitude and discretion. If Americans truly wish to take that away from the Federal government and make them more accountable and limited in what they're allowed to do, then sooner or later, we're going to come around to facing certain "Sacred Cows" in our history and our overall political consciousness.
If our liberty is being eroded, it's because we hold a "system" and its symbols more sacred than the principles upon which it was founded. To me, it's far better to just stick by a coherent set of sound principles of governance and amicable human interaction, rather than bickering over what words mean or stuck with our nose in a rule book. That's how people get away on technicalities. It's how the government can actively erode our liberties yet still make it look like we're a "free country" - just because it says so on paper. That seems to be where a large part of the problem may lie. We worship the paper and other symbols so much that we've forgotten what they stand for.
quote:
Individuals elected to government want to be re-elected, generally. It's not as much about doing their job, as it is getting re-elected and providing for themselves. Once elected, they'll likely play ball so that once their time in office is finally over, they're set to get a job with a strong income stream at a business as a payback for something they did in office.
While it's great that an individual is looking out for his own well-being, it's not great to do that at the expense of the rest of country.
I agree completely, although I don't see how seeking out more power would benefit the individual you're describing here. Once he's out of office and in the private sector, then it would be in his interest to not support the idea of giving the government more power.
To some degree, I would suggest that the process you're describing above could actually have the effect of eventually undermining and reducing the amount of power wielded by government. If the government is seeking out more power, then looting the treasury on behalf of big business and allowing the internal structure to rot is not a very wise or effective means of maintaining power over the rest of the country.
As the article in the OP points out, it seems quite evident that there is a lot of opposition to the Federal government at present, some of it quite serious and even from high levels of political power. Not just within the United States, but all around the world.
If our government wants to increase its power, then they've certainly gone about it in a rather foolish and bumbling manner, even to the point of exhausting their resources and financial wherewithal to be able to achieve this alleged goal. Political gridlock, infighting, and other internal divisions in government also weaken its overall power and capabilities to exert control over society. The government seems more hampered than anything else, something analogous to a beached whale crawling with scavengers.
I'm less concerned about our current government trying to gain more power, since our politicians and bureaucrats seem hellbent on wanting to drive it into the ground and loot it for all they can get before it finally collapses on itself. What I'm more worried about is what might come in the aftermath, as that would probably be closer to "1984" than what we have now.
quote:
If you distill it down all the way, it's really only about how we get to the same ends. Liberals tend towards Government being the means, and Conservatives tend towards empowering the individuals to provide for themselves.
I don't believe that's strictly true. I think conservatives might tend to gravitate towards the status quo, whatever it might be. Back in the Founding Fathers' time, the "conservatives" would have been the monarchists and the arch enemies of our Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have been radical documents in their eyes.
When compared with other governments (past and present) on a global scale, I think it's safe to say that the U.S. would count as a liberal democracy, and our measure of "liberal" and "conservative" in common political discourse is generally confined within the overall construct of the U.S. as a Constitutional, liberal, democratic republic, similar to other liberal democracies within the region known colloquially as "the West."
The reason I'm stating the obvious here is that part of the general presentation given by liberals and conservatives in the advancement of their particular agendas is the requisite need to demonstrate their adherence and orthodoxy to America's Founding ideals. Each side says they believe in freedom and liberty more than the other.
In reality, the difference seems to be one of emphasis, not any fundamental difference in actual beliefs. I don't think there's anything inherent in liberalism that automatically means "pro-government," nor do I believe that conservatism automatically means "empowering individuals." It also doesn't mean that liberals are against empowering individuals, nor does it mean that conservatives are anti-government.
And, with all due respect, if we're looking at track record here, liberals seem to have been the greater champions at empowering individuals and advancing the cause of civil liberties in this country, while conservatives have been the ones standing in the way and fighting them at every turn. Arguing abstract theories about left and right in this country may be one thing, but in practice, we've seen enough liberals and conservatives and how they operate to be able to put the "theory" of what they say into practical perspective.
I'm not saying that liberals are always right either. I'm not giving them a pass, although I think liberals have been rather wishy-washy these past decades.
Still, I don't think they really put their trust and faith in government as much as you might think, though. Liberals have been known to deliver some rather hard-hitting and scathing tirades against their government. By the same token, conservatives have been known to be extremely pro-government when it suits them.
quote:
The Constitution was an agreement among the States and the People. The States gave up a measure of authority in the creation of the Federal Government. Even if a Governor can persuade Senators to his/her cause, it's still nothing more than complaining loudly. There is no direct manner for a State to effect anything in the Federal Government. The intent was to concentrate power as little as possible to effect the best for the country. The Articles of Confederation were lacking in strength, so the Constitution provided more authority to the Federal Government. But, it was still to be limited authority.
The Senators would still have the same authority within the Federal government, whether they're elected by the People of a State or appointed by the State government which is also elected by the People. Their actual ability to affect anything in the Federal government is exactly the same, no matter how they're chosen. If a Senator doesn't satisfactorily represent his State's interests, then he/she can get voted out or recalled.
It also seems that giving a State government the power to appoint their own Senators makes for a system rife with cronyism and political spoils systems. I can't see how that would be best for the country. As you may recall, they convicted the former Illinois Governor for trying to sell the vacant Senate seat left when Obama became President. It's better to have an election as a barrier to that kind of corruption. (Not to say there aren't flaws with the electoral process, but that's another matter.)
quote:
Right about 2 decades ago, Toledo moved from a "City Manager" format to a "Strong Mayor" format I described.
There were those who tried to do that here, but it never really got off the ground. The local power structure is content with the status quo, where no individual has any actual overt "power," and nobody really knows who's in charge either. If anything goes wrong, the local government blames the State government, and the State government blames the Federal government.
Another thing that just came to mind, when you mentioned that the State and local governments are closer to home, it's also true that one gets to know the local government more closely the longer one lives in a place. One is more likely to have more direct dealings with a local official, so you get to know who these people are and the general flavor and culture of local government, as well as the State government. So, that may be another reason for having a Federal government to deal with. If I already know that the local guys are assholes, then I might take a chance on the Feds that one or two of them might not be assholes.
In fact, local grudges are really something to behold. It can get especially dramatic if two or more school board members are feuding with each other. There was also an ongoing feud and power struggle within the local community college board of governors which was probably one of the more memorable chapters in local politics that I can recall.
State and local politics has more a feel of a gutter-level street brawl, whereas Federal politics is supposedly more "dignified" and "professional." At least, that's an image which I've noticed in popular culture. Like in movies where Federal cops are dressed in suits and ties, speak as if they're graduates of Harvard Law, refined, well-mannered, professional, but quite athletic and physically fit, and expert marksmen too. In contrast, the local cops might be shown as lazy, unkempt, beer bellied, and quite possibly on the take and in cahoots with the local crime bosses. I'm not saying that such depictions are fair or accurate (as I don't believe them either), but they seem to create certain impressions in people's minds.
In any case, my point here was to just say that, for most people, they're most likely to have direct, intimate with some of the shit that goes on in their own local area, as opposed to what may go on in the Federal government, since that may be far away.
quote:
The State Government essentially just watches over the Counties and Cities while tending towards governance at the State (as a whole) level. There is a gripe about the State being more concerned with the 3-C's (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati) at the expense of the rest of Ohio, but I don't see that as much. Toledo, too, is the 3rd most populous City in Ohio with Cincinnati and Dayton being a close 4th and 5th, respectively. Columbus is second only to Cleveland.
Interesting. I didn't know Toledo was larger than Cincinnati. I always thought Cincinnati was larger. Arizona is slightly different in that the majority of the State's population is concentrated in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Tucson is older and was once the State capital, but Phoenix grew much faster. Another aspect common to most Western states is the amount of land within State boundaries which the State has practically no authority over, since it's designated under Federal jurisdiction. Indian Reservations, military reservations, national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, BLM lands, etc. After all that, there's very little of "Arizona" which is actually left.
|
|
|
|
