State vs. federal power and its effect on liberalism vs. conservativism

[Spats]

I posted most of this at the end of one of the Ron Paul threads, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

The current progressive dogma is that a "strong federal government" benefits left-wing policies, whereas a weak federal government benefits right-wing policies. This is a misapprehension based on the abuse of the term "state's rights" by the neo-cons, by which they mean "states can do anything we like but not anything we don't like". What would happen if the power of the federal government were restricted to its Constitutionally mandated powers? (See Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.)

First, decreasing the power of our national government does not mean government magically goes away. There is a reason our country is called the "United States": in the Constitutional vision of government which Ron Paul espouses, the states have equal or greater power to govern themselves than our national government currently asserts. (Read on for the surprising yet common-sense result.)

We currently think of state government as a weak entity somehow inferior in power to national government: this is because the national government takes and redistributes so much money in taxes, and asserts so much regulatory power, that it doesn't leave much room for states to make meaningful policy decisions. (This is a recent development. The 16th Amendment did not pass until 1913, and most of the government regulatory agencies we think of as eternal were created since WWII.) A less powerful federal government would leave the states to take up the slack, or not, as each saw fit.

So how will stronger state vs. national government affect us as residents of one of the United States?

Current national policy is not representative of our people, because the Senate does not represent population equally. 36,457,000 liberals in California get the same Senate representation as 515,000 conservatives in Wyoming. Blue New York (19,306,000) gets the same representation as Red Montana (944,000). Blue Illinois (12,831,000) gets the same representation as Red Alaska (670,000). States with high populations, whose people are massively underrepresented in the Senate, are mostly Democratic. States with low populations, whose people are massively overrepresented in the Senate, are mostly Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population

Because of this, it's easy to see that the right-wing mountain and agricultural states influence national policy far disproportionate to their tiny population, and that as a result, the federal government has become much more conservative than the average American. (Remember, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by a margin of several million.) Therefore, decreasing the power of the Federal government will allow states to, on average, become more liberal in their policies.

Let's go a bit deeper. States do not receive the same amount of money back from the federal government that their citizens pay in taxes. Here's a chart showing the states that benefit the most (dark blue) and that lose the most (light blue).


The full report is available here:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Notice how the dark blue "taker" states are almost all conservative Republican states with low populations? And the light blue "giver" states are almost all liberal Democratic states with high populations?

Californians, for instance, receive only 79 cents back from each dollar that we pay to the Federal Government. How much would California benefit if we weren't paying 27% of our tax dollars to subsidize red states? We could have statewide health care, high-speed rail all over, and a tax cut besides. Same with New York ($0.79), New Jersey ($0.55), Illinois ($0.73), Minnesota ($0.69), and most of the upper Midwest and East Coast.

In summary: the federal government is more conservative than the United States population as a whole, and it takes hundreds of billions of dollars each year from liberal states and gives the money to conservative states. Therefore, a weaker Federal Government will strongly benefit liberals and liberal states.

Progressives: do you still feel so enthusiastic about that "strong Federal government", now that you know how much more power a few public land welfare ranchers in the West have than you do over its policies? Now that you know how much of your federal taxes are simply welfare payments for red states, how smart does more federal power seem? The red states all want to "get that dang gummint off our backs!" Why don't we do just that, and see how they feel about subsidizing their own dams, highways, and grazing and mineral giveaways on public land?

[MassLiberal]

While there is a lot I agree with, there are many flaws with the weakened federal gov't which would negatively effect the more progressive states.

Think about the environmental consequences, a weakened EPA and limited enforcement of pollution laws would cause companies to flock to red states in order to avoid regulation, a scenario which would negatively effect life across the nation.

Unfortunately, I'm working my ass off right now, and am unable to respond in full to the points that you have raised. But they do merit discussion. Maybe I'll be able to address them in a month when the NH primary is over.

[RootSkier]

Who are you working for, MassLiberal?

[danimal's dead]

I've seen this graph, I've heard this argument ad nauseum.

The reason Montana gets so much federal money is because such a large percentage of the land here is federal. In the East, almost no land is Federal.

I bet if you looked closely, most of the federal money spent in Montana goes to the forest service, park service, and firefighters who work on Federally owned lands. If you'd like to turn those lands over to the state of Montana we'd be happy to manage them ourselves and turn them into productive forests instead of bark beatle infested fire traps. The US government sure isn't "managing" them. Unless you consider doing nothing, and letting billions of dollars in timber burn up every summer to be "stewardship." Seriously, Canadians I meet down here laugh at us for how badly our federal government manages our national forests.
And I'm not a clear cut it all logger, quite the opposite, I believe in selective harvesting. Hint, if you saw what selective cutting produces you might like it (see beautiful glades). But librodouches have so much control of our courts that every time someone tries to harvest trees on federal land, even when the area has been completely burned, they file multiple lawsuits and tie up the timber sale for years, by which time the burnt trees have rotted. But I can't convince you people of anything, you all drank the Koolaid. But if you actually lived out here for a couple of decades you might actually understand what I'm saying.

The other federal dollars would be for federal highways and I can't help it they built I-90 through this State and I can't help it that this State is wider than the East Coast is long (that may not actually be true).

[uncle crud]

You can gin up all the reports you want, they won't change a few essential facts.

- There is very little (if any) practical difference between Republican and Democrat politicians at the top of the Federal ladder. In certain states this is true of the state political positions and people as well, and those certain states would be states with big government contractors.

- "Big government" is a phrase that is far too broad and vague to make any sort of sense as a tag for the "theory" or "view" of any group. Case in point: the current "conservative" Bush-Cheney Admin has grown the Fed Budget and Govt well beyond what "liberal" Clinton-Gore did.

- Everyone wants a reasonably large central government, when you get right down to how they want certain essential services and how they wouldn't want to do away with many things that currently are done or funded by the Feds. The breakdown or division comes in where people want the money spent.

- The primary beneficiaries of a powerful and large federal government are those who are employed at the top levels, where decisions on funding are made. Hence the members of a president's Administration, and members of the US Congress, are the foremost beneficiaries of a big fed govt with a big fed budget.

With these things in mind, Spats, I find that study you reference to be nothing more than ideologically driven conjecture. It makes for an interesting start point in conversation, but I'll be damned if I'd find it convincing or conclusive on anything but matters of opinion.

I'd also suggest that you might want to examine what Ron Paul truly represents before you stump so heavily for someone who is so poorly qualified to lead anything other than a failing obstetric medical practice.

[Hugh Conway]

The reason Montana gets so much federal money is because such a large percentage of the land here is federal.

Nope, that argument doesn't work

[grrrr]

Nope, that argument doesn't work

Actually, his post was so fucking moronic, it isn't worth replying to ... however, if the feds want to start dumping those kinds of dollars into firefighting, I'm all over it.


"Everyone wants a reasonably large central government, when you get right down to how they want certain essential services and how they wouldn't want to do away with many things that currently are done or funded by the Feds. The breakdown or division comes in where people want the money spent. "

Be careful with the "everyone's". I for one, would like to see the federal government slashed deeply and permanently. That means no more federal education money, a whole lot less social security, and no more Iraq's.

[Rusty Nails]

Your "conservative taker states" sent 11 Democrats to the Senate and only 9 Republicans. The blue/red distinction means very little. No matter what we do, we will be governed by morons. Or Oprah.

[likwid]

I posted most of this at the end of one of the Ron Paul threads, but I think it deserves its own discussion.

It should have been left there.

Shouldn't you be shopping for a Bayliner or something?

[Grange]

I've seen this graph, I've heard this argument ad nauseum.

The reason Montana gets so much federal money is because such a large percentage of the land here is federal. In the East, almost no land is Federal.

I bet if you looked closely, most of the federal money spent in Montana goes to the forest service, park service, and firefighters who work on Federally owned lands. If you'd like to turn those lands over to the state of Montana we'd be happy to manage them ourselves and turn them into productive forests instead of bark beatle infested fire traps. The US government sure isn't "managing" them. Unless you consider doing nothing, and letting billions of dollars in timber burn up every summer to be "stewardship." Seriously, Canadians I meet down here laugh at us for how badly our federal government manages our national forests.
And I'm not a clear cut it all logger, quite the opposite, I believe in selective harvesting. Hint, if you saw what selective cutting produces you might like it (see beautiful glades). But librodouches have so much control of our courts that every time someone tries to harvest trees on federal land, even when the area has been completely burned, they file multiple lawsuits and tie up the timber sale for years, by which time the burnt trees have rotted. But I can't convince you people of anything, you all drank the Koolaid. But if you actually lived out here for a couple of decades you might actually understand what I'm saying.

The other federal dollars would be for federal highways and I can't help it they built I-90 through this State and I can't help it that this State is wider than the East Coast is long (that may not actually be true).

I don't have to live out west to know what the USFS methods for logging are. I spend a great deal of time hunting, hiking, and yes cutting wood in the Nat'l Forest by my cottage. We have forest fires here as well. Selective cutting is good, but it also has it's down side. The logging roads put in for selective cutting often cause erosion problems. Every time I walk down a new logging road I am almost guaranteed to see a class one trout stream being degraded from an improper stream crossing and lets not talk about the issues of wetland impacts. Timber theft from loggers in my state alone is in the millions of dollars. Clear cutting can also be very productive, but so can leaving a forest alone. Not all species like edge or open habitat and deadfalls provide habitat for a lot of wildlife.

This idea of logging to prevent forest fires is laughable. Walk through a forest that has been logged, especially selective logging. The slash that is left over is perfect fuel for a forest fire.

You also mentioned bark beetle. I'm not very familiar with the bark beetle, but here the invasive species of the day in forestry is the emerald ash borer (EAB) and oak wilt disease is a major problem. Both of these problems are exacerbated by logging. The DNR now has rules for transportation of wood because of EAB. Many invasive plants are introduced by logging vehicles.

Bottom line is to talk about logging as this perfect forest management tool is naive. It's only one tool in a foresters tool belt.

[lemon boy]

Beware when a self avowed libertarian tells you that something they want will really further your progressive ideals.

oh and pssstttt the value of a forest cannot be measured in boardfeet.

[danimal's dead]

Here is a brief simple history of Western Forests in Montana.

Historically, natural fires each summer cleared away underbrush and weak trees, leaving the healthiest trees to thrive. In some places Native Americans even used fire to glade out certain areas.

Then the white man came, and we fought fire aggressively for over a hundred years. Fire no longer cleaned up the debris and dead windfall on the forest floor. Forests became tangles of pecker poles so dense you can't even walk through them, the forest is so dense that tree growth is stunted. These forests are not healthy, they are prime targets for bark beetle infestations and intense fires that burn everything to the ground even healthy mature trees that are ingnited by the overwhelming amount of blowdown, winfall, dead timber and incredibly dense lodgepole pines that choke out everything in the forest.

Don't take my word for it, come see for yourself, I would be happy to take you on a tour. I know you think "logging bad, conservation good." But part of conservation is going to have to be cleaning up our sick forests before all of it burns. The best way to do that is selective harvesting. No it isn't as profitable for logging companies. But that isn't the point. The forest fires are getting worse and worse every summer here, soon we won't have any forests left. Then what will you green nazis "protect." IMO environmentalists are currently doing more harm than good when it comes to protecting our forests.

And by the way, Montana has 2 dem. Senators and a dem. governor and only 1 republican rep. You people have become so leftist that you can't even get along with the conservative part of your own party.

[stupendous man]

danimal- the kind of logging that would work as you describe is not profitable for big logging companies. it doesn't happen b/c the companies want old growth in exchange for thinning beetle kill or burned wood.

spats - first, the electoral college/senate system is in the constitution. your argument is about reducing administrative agencies. two different subjects entirely and one can't be changed by ron paul.

second, the agencies are here to stay. before world war II there was about 200 million less people in the US, and in the rural areas of the west and in cities, for example, there was rampant poverty, segregation, environmental destruction, no public education to speak of or for the very privileged few. libertarianism works well unless you are unfortunate enough to be a "not have."

[lemon boy]

Historically, natural fires each summer cleared away underbrush and weak trees, leaving the healthiest trees to thrive. In some places Native Americans even used fire to glade out certain areas.

Then the white man came, and we fought fire aggressively for over a hundred years. Fire no longer cleaned up the debris and dead windfall on the forest floor. Forests became tangles of pecker poles so dense you can't even walk through them, the forest is so dense that tree growth is stunted. These forests are not healthy, they are prime targets for bark beetle infestations and intense fires that burn everything to the ground even healthy mature trees that are ingnited by the overwhelming amount of blowdown, winfall, dead timber and incredibly dense lodgepole pines that choke out everything in the forest.

Sorry but this is just a flat misstatement about how fires work in western pine forests.

[Buster Highmen]

You people have become so leftist that you can't even get along with the conservative part of your own party.

You gots too much righty in your tighty whiteys.

[Tippster]

Better than too much pinky in his Tinky Winky....

[Steven S. Dallas]

This only makes sense if you assume that liberals will be happy with having their own bastions of liberal-ness to occupy, and that the individual states are more important than the entire country. I don't really identify with either conservative or liberal thought as a general proposition, but I do care what the other states in the union do even though it doesn't affect me directly. It matters to me if kids in Arkansas have shitty educations, even though I will probably never go there, because they're Americans and I'm an American too. A Jeffersonian Republican I am not, I guess. He seemed kind of effete, anyway, so I'm okay with that.

[RootSkier]

You have to be pretty effete to use effete in a real sentence.

[Steven S. Dallas]

You have to be pretty effete to use effete in a real sentence.

That makes sense.

[danimal's dead]

Sorry but this is just a flat misstatement about how fires work in western pine forests.

I'm keeping it simple because I only have a few minutes here and there.

But, I worked on Mt. Hood National Forest as a timber marker for a selective harvesting/thinning program and I worked for Flathead National Forest as a firefighter which took me all over the state and the West. I would bet I've seen a bit more of our "Western Pine Forests" than Lemon Bitch.

[Tippster]

A Jeffersonian Republican I am not, I guess. He seemed kind of effete, anyway, so I'm okay with that.

He liked to effete his slaves pretty regularly, too.

[lemon boy]

But, I worked on Mt. Hood National Forest as a timber marker for a selective harvesting/thinning program and I worked for Flathead National Forest as a firefighter which took me all over the state and the West. I would bet I've seen a bit more of our "Western Pine Forests" than Lemon Bitch.

wow, all that and you're still stunningly ignorant about fire ecology. Good job.

[The Dad]

wow, all that and you're still stunningly ignorant about fire ecology. Good job.

I don't know shit about this stuff.

But assuming that he is indeed as ignorant as you say, at least he's proved that he did, in fact, work for the federal government in that capacity.

[Telenater]

wow, all that and you're still stunningly ignorant about fire ecology. Good job.

Actually, I know a little bit about fire ecology and barring that this is a significant generalization, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with his statement.

[Odin]

No matter what we do, we will be governed by morons. Or Oprah.

Quoted for the truth.

And to say that Oprah is a FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE sexy lady. Mmmmm girl.... damn.