Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Government has its limits

My column for the Daily News is online.  It’s called, “Government has its limits.”

Well… it does.

(7) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0704 hrs
Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Fascist.

    Posted by Lance on June 08, 2010 at 0935 hrs


  2. I have an honest question.  Please lets not go off on the liberal v consevative arguments that will inevitably turn this topic into a bunch of name calling.  here it is. 

    In your opinion, with out name calling or finger pointing, what role should government play in the day to day operations of the United States?  this is directed to all readers not just Owen.

    My personal opinion is that it should be more than just the requirements of the constitution, but not to the levels that we have reached at this point in time.  Military, roads and infrastructure, emergency management, safe borders, interstate commerce, SEC are all examples of things that I think the government should have a hand in.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0944 hrs


  3. I agree with you mostly, anon. I think the states are better at handling social programs, if necessary. I don’t like that the federal government has stuck its nose into education. Overall, I think government should exist to make things easier for the economy to grow. So provide infrastructure, keep our financial system stable (with the Fed and by controlling spending vs. taxes), protect the borders, etc. I think even emergency management should be more local. Let California work out how they want to handle The Big One. Let the upper midwest take care of the Great Lakes, let the Gulf region take care of the Gulf. We work better in smaller groups.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1009 hrs


  4. yes Wendy i agree.  in addition I like the way the SEC is designed to regulate finances and I do like the Interstate highway system.  These, I believe, are things that cannot be left to states.  Heck, drive between counties in Wisconsin and see the difference in the roads at the county line
    Also, NCLB has been a real money waster.  The idea is great but implementation has been horrible.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1049 hrs


  5. Federal government exists to “provide infrastructure” Wendy?  “I do like the Interstate highway system ...  These, I believe, are things that cannot be left to states. “  Are you sure Anon?

    Would even President Eisenhower have to marvel at what a weapon “federal highway funds” have become?  States must set their legal drinking age at 21 or lose federal highway funds.  States must set their blood alcohol level at a certain point or lose federal highway funds.  State must make seatbelt use a primary enforcement item or lose federal highway funds.  Continue this list if you want.

    The point is withholding federal highway funds have become a nice way to bypass the tenth amendment.  See the Supreme Court decision in 1987 (South Dakota v. Dole).  Do you think the federal government playing such a large role in the nation’s highways is still a good idea today?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2131 hrs


  6. I’m with Ted here. There is no reason that an interstate highway system couldn’t exist without interference from the feds. I am a federalist, I think that our republic is best served by the small scale laboratory approach to government, a la the 1996 welfare reform act which was adopted by the federal government after its success in Wisconsin.

    The tenth amendment is included in the bill of rights for a reason.

    As far as I am concerned the federal government should stick to the roles it was prescribed by the constitution. Protect the borders, raise armies, regulate interstate commerce… etc. The powers of congress are very clearly written out in Article 1 Section 8, and I don’t think there is a person alive who would argue that we have not gone WELL beyond that specified role of federal government.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 0827 hrs


  7. Ted and Dj,

    I’m not disagreeing with the fact that the federal gov’t is too much a part of our lives.  But, honestly if local gov’ts can’t get local highways and county highways to an equal standard do you really think that we can have a coherent workable interstate highway system without it being run by one entity?  I don’t.  If we limit ourselves to the constitution we will be without some things that I have found to be very benficial in the working world.  One example would be the ICC rules fro interstate trade and the SEC when it does its job.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1014 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.