5 ms·

I'm tempted to say that the uselessness of Congress is in indication of something else - we've pushed too much to the federal level. The decades-long tooth-and-

I'm tempted to say that the uselessness of Congress is in indication of something else - we've pushed too much to the federal level. The decades-long tooth-and-nail fighting over healthcare makes me think that an effective system just can't be done federally; there's too much disagreement between states. Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own?

calvinmorrison 6y ago
Balkanization is the fastest way to find out what works and doesn't and allow for local control and decision making, it also makes nice for frequent wars and nutty leaders.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  But if Arizona implements a different healthcare system than New York, even if each hates the other system, they don't get to have a war, because neither of them has a military. (OK, they each have their own National Guard elements...)
- rndmize 6y ago
  Nuttier leaders than what we currently have, you mean? As far as I can tell, the US did pretty well with less federal power for several hundred years; I don't really see how rolling back 50 years of federal policy would lead to balkanization.
  - wnoise 6y ago
    Several hundred? Two or even three is not usually not considered to be several.
jordanpg 6y ago
Or alternatively, that the federal government, as it currently operates, is simply no longer up to the task of modern governance. Too slow, too reliant on voluntary compliance, and most importantly, too difficult to make decisions with long term time horizons.
- ColanR 6y ago
  > Too slow, too reliant on voluntary compliance, and most importantly, too difficult to make decisions with long term time horizons. Not sure you want an efficient, consolidated government if the wrong party is leading it.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  Too large
- rayiner 6y ago
  Somehow other countries with federal systems manage to implement “modern governance.” This chart shows government spending by various levels of government: https://images.app.goo.gl/iVpyyr2Ftzo6m7PB6 https://images.app.goo.gl/iVpyyr2Ftzo6m7PB6 In the US, about half of all spending happens at the federal level. Germany, which also has a federal system as a matter of its constitution, also has the central government spending about half of all government dollars. Canada is even more federalist. The vast majority, about 3/4 of 4/5 of government spending happens at the provincial level. Denmark also has the majority of spending at the local level. Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Chile, and Mexico are about the same as the US in pushing about half of all spending down to the local governments.
  - paulmd 6y ago
    there's nothing wrong with a federal system, the problem is specifically with the US's system and how there are too many "veto points". Checks and balances and getting policy accomplished are essentially opposing goals. If you allow tons of "veto points" where having literally any control of any branch of government allows you to grind policy to a halt, then getting anything done relies hugely on gentlemanly good-faith. In a two-party system that gentlemanly good faith eventually breaks down and you end up with our current problem, where you need supermajority control of all branches of government to actually do anything, because if you lack even one single point of control then party-line behavior will allow everything to be ground to a halt. Parliamentary systems are better, there is just one house in most cases, and the executive is of the same party as the legislature, so when a government forms it has consensus and can execute policy. Yes, this is less checked-and-balanced, and that's a good thing, because accomplishing policy and checks and balances are opposing goals. Too much checks and balance and nothing gets done. If everything is fine that's great, but our system has been deadlocked for 20 years now, things are not great, and nothing can be done about it. And there are still an executive and judicial branches in a parliamentary system, it is still a federal system, just not the American federal system. The real "checks and balances" is ultimately voting. Having snap elections allows that check to be manifested much more readily when the government begins to go off the rails of public opinion. (the queen is actually a very interesting apparatus in the british government... apart from having some kind of maximum duration between elections, you are dependent on someone to decide when to call a snap election. Obviously you can't really rely on a government that is completely off the rails to call an election on itself, and party line voting poses obvious problems. So how do you deal with it? An oracle machine (in the crypto sense) that exists outside the system and can operate independently to decide when to call an election. Which is what the queen does, she can dissolve parliament and call an election.)
eropple 6y ago
> Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own? Because I'm not really interested in abandoning my fellow citizens who lack the means or the support structures to leave where they currently are to the tender mercies of people who plainly don't give a damn about them. Even every "red state" has plenty of people in need who can't afford to go elsewhere and shouldn't be asked to abandon their families and their lives to just not die. (EDIT: I normally don't respond to killed comments, because feeding the trolls sucks, but: I live in Massachusetts, dude. I'm used to a state that actually works. I wish you all had them too.)
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  This is verging on an ad hominem attack: we need more federal powers because those people are awful baby killers! The reality is everyone cares, they just disagree sharply on how to solve issues or which issues are priorities — to which the solution of several independent approaches seems reasonable. When people in state A see that state B is doing much better because of policy X, they can choose to enact similar. I’m not sure I understand why they need to be compelled to adopt your preferred policies. It’s interesting that you discuss “red states” being in need — but ignore the prolific violence in “blue cities” and poor trapped there. As they say: Cure yourself, doctor.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  This is not specific to one party. There is someone out there, opposite to you, who says the same thing but replace red state with blue state. The root problem here is the people who insist that their political beliefs should be implemented for everyone in the country, not just for the people around them who agree with those beliefs. This idea that "we can't leave anything up to local government because there might be some local government out there who disagrees with me" is why we have so much federal gridlock.
  - eropple 6y ago
    Of course there is "another side". They're wrong, but they understand it's a fight, and my side still doesn't, so kudos to them at least for that. I don't particularly care about self-inflicted wounds, but the splash damage upon the people whose lives they make worse in the offing is a damning indictment of this conception of federalism. Shit's broken, and it's broken for the weakest among us, and it's only getting worse with the "drown it in a bathtub" corps stomping through the White House.
Paperweight 6y ago
Rural counties are conservative, urban counties are liberal, and never the twain shall meet. I posit that there will always be this conflict until cities have a blue federation superimposed on a red countryside. But the constitution isn't set up that way. Maybe next time.
- eropple 6y ago
  This can also be reformulated as "rural counties are empty" and point to a lot of the agita around much of the current political climate, 'cause land having as much of a vote as it does is pretty odd.
- zeveb 6y ago
  I think we need to reverse the unconstitutional Reynolds v. Sims decision which forbids the states from being set up like the federal government, with one house elected in proportion to population and one house elected geographically. The decision itself was rooted in little more than pipe dreams and moonshine, and the results are, I think, responsible for more than a little of our current dysfunction (another huge problem is the weakening of the parties themselves — they used to serve as a moderating layer, but no longer do).
- rayiner 6y ago
  The political disagreements within states are a lot less intense than the political disagreements between states. Maryland is a solidly blue state at the federal level. But we have a Republican governor with a 78% approval rating who won a third of Black voters against a Black candidate in 2018.

calvinmorrison 6y ago

Balkanization is the fastest way to find out what works and doesn't and allow for local control and decision making, it also makes nice for frequent wars and nutty leaders.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
But if Arizona implements a different healthcare system than New York, even if each hates the other system, they don't get to have a war, because neither of them has a military. (OK, they each have their own National Guard elements...)
rndmize 6y ago
Nuttier leaders than what we currently have, you mean? As far as I can tell, the US did pretty well with less federal power for several hundred years; I don't really see how rolling back 50 years of federal policy would lead to balkanization.
- wnoise 6y ago
  Several hundred? Two or even three is not usually not considered to be several.

jordanpg 6y ago

Or alternatively, that the federal government, as it currently operates, is simply no longer up to the task of modern governance. Too slow, too reliant on voluntary compliance, and most importantly, too difficult to make decisions with long term time horizons.

ColanR 6y ago
> Too slow, too reliant on voluntary compliance, and most importantly, too difficult to make decisions with long term time horizons. Not sure you want an efficient, consolidated government if the wrong party is leading it.
WillPostForFood 6y ago
Too large
rayiner 6y ago
Somehow other countries with federal systems manage to implement “modern governance.” This chart shows government spending by various levels of government: https://images.app.goo.gl/iVpyyr2Ftzo6m7PB6 https://images.app.goo.gl/iVpyyr2Ftzo6m7PB6 In the US, about half of all spending happens at the federal level. Germany, which also has a federal system as a matter of its constitution, also has the central government spending about half of all government dollars. Canada is even more federalist. The vast majority, about 3/4 of 4/5 of government spending happens at the provincial level. Denmark also has the majority of spending at the local level. Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Chile, and Mexico are about the same as the US in pushing about half of all spending down to the local governments.
- paulmd 6y ago
  there's nothing wrong with a federal system, the problem is specifically with the US's system and how there are too many "veto points". Checks and balances and getting policy accomplished are essentially opposing goals. If you allow tons of "veto points" where having literally any control of any branch of government allows you to grind policy to a halt, then getting anything done relies hugely on gentlemanly good-faith. In a two-party system that gentlemanly good faith eventually breaks down and you end up with our current problem, where you need supermajority control of all branches of government to actually do anything, because if you lack even one single point of control then party-line behavior will allow everything to be ground to a halt. Parliamentary systems are better, there is just one house in most cases, and the executive is of the same party as the legislature, so when a government forms it has consensus and can execute policy. Yes, this is less checked-and-balanced, and that's a good thing, because accomplishing policy and checks and balances are opposing goals. Too much checks and balance and nothing gets done. If everything is fine that's great, but our system has been deadlocked for 20 years now, things are not great, and nothing can be done about it. And there are still an executive and judicial branches in a parliamentary system, it is still a federal system, just not the American federal system. The real "checks and balances" is ultimately voting. Having snap elections allows that check to be manifested much more readily when the government begins to go off the rails of public opinion. (the queen is actually a very interesting apparatus in the british government... apart from having some kind of maximum duration between elections, you are dependent on someone to decide when to call a snap election. Obviously you can't really rely on a government that is completely off the rails to call an election on itself, and party line voting poses obvious problems. So how do you deal with it? An oracle machine (in the crypto sense) that exists outside the system and can operate independently to decide when to call an election. Which is what the queen does, she can dissolve parliament and call an election.)

eropple 6y ago

> Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own? Because I'm not really interested in abandoning my fellow citizens who lack the means or the support structures to leave where they currently are to the tender mercies of people who plainly don't give a damn about them. Even every "red state" has plenty of people in need who can't afford to go elsewhere and shouldn't be asked to abandon their families and their lives to just not die. (EDIT: I normally don't respond to killed comments, because feeding the trolls sucks, but: I live in Massachusetts, dude. I'm used to a state that actually works. I wish you all had them too.)

AnHonestComment 6y ago
This is verging on an ad hominem attack: we need more federal powers because those people are awful baby killers! The reality is everyone cares, they just disagree sharply on how to solve issues or which issues are priorities — to which the solution of several independent approaches seems reasonable. When people in state A see that state B is doing much better because of policy X, they can choose to enact similar. I’m not sure I understand why they need to be compelled to adopt your preferred policies. It’s interesting that you discuss “red states” being in need — but ignore the prolific violence in “blue cities” and poor trapped there. As they say: Cure yourself, doctor.
ryandrake 6y ago
This is not specific to one party. There is someone out there, opposite to you, who says the same thing but replace red state with blue state. The root problem here is the people who insist that their political beliefs should be implemented for everyone in the country, not just for the people around them who agree with those beliefs. This idea that "we can't leave anything up to local government because there might be some local government out there who disagrees with me" is why we have so much federal gridlock.
- eropple 6y ago
  Of course there is "another side". They're wrong, but they understand it's a fight, and my side still doesn't, so kudos to them at least for that. I don't particularly care about self-inflicted wounds, but the splash damage upon the people whose lives they make worse in the offing is a damning indictment of this conception of federalism. Shit's broken, and it's broken for the weakest among us, and it's only getting worse with the "drown it in a bathtub" corps stomping through the White House.

Paperweight 6y ago

Rural counties are conservative, urban counties are liberal, and never the twain shall meet. I posit that there will always be this conflict until cities have a blue federation superimposed on a red countryside. But the constitution isn't set up that way. Maybe next time.

eropple 6y ago
This can also be reformulated as "rural counties are empty" and point to a lot of the agita around much of the current political climate, 'cause land having as much of a vote as it does is pretty odd.
zeveb 6y ago
I think we need to reverse the unconstitutional Reynolds v. Sims decision which forbids the states from being set up like the federal government, with one house elected in proportion to population and one house elected geographically. The decision itself was rooted in little more than pipe dreams and moonshine, and the results are, I think, responsible for more than a little of our current dysfunction (another huge problem is the weakening of the parties themselves — they used to serve as a moderating layer, but no longer do).
rayiner 6y ago
The political disagreements within states are a lot less intense than the political disagreements between states. Maryland is a solidly blue state at the federal level. But we have a Republican governor with a 78% approval rating who won a third of Black voters against a Black candidate in 2018.