Originally posted by Scorereader
Originally posted by Tedbear
Originally posted by Scorereader
Well, taxes have definately increased. And they are a burden. I, for one, though, would love to see a low low federal tax rate and allow services to be provided for by state and local municipalities. The money raised through state and local taxes rather than federal funds. IMO, the money would be better spent by the local gov't who knows where the specific needs are rather than by a Federal governing body making sweeping decisions that may help some, while hurting others.
I agree that in theory
that might be a good idea. However, some states have a history of policies that run counter to true principles of Americanism.
Let's not forget about things like segregated schools, segregated mass transit, poll taxes, literacy tests that were applied to only some citizens, failure to prosecute lynch mobs, etc. etc. These states were dragged kicking and screaming into the concept of equality for all.
Somehow, I don't think that a Lester Maddox or a George Wallace could have been counted on to make wise decisions where equitable distribution of tax dollars and public services were concerned. One of the favorite arguments of these people was that the federal government should stay out of the affairs of the states, and allow the states to run everything themselves. Without federal oversight and intervention, troglodites like that would still hold sway.
Yes, those incidents are, hopefully, behind us, but unfortunately, records like this make it difficult for many people to put trust in state governments to make judicious decisions. Like I said, your suggestion is great in theory, but history should make us cautious about this idea.
I'm sorry Tedbear, I didn't realize that State governments were made up of only Governors and void of state congressmen and senators. I was unaware that local municipalities, counties, towns and villages were lacking in mayors, councilmen, executives, and a host of other local elected officials and representatives and school boards. And I was unaware these government bodies have no effect on the people they represent. Because, according to you, it is only a great theory that these agencies can best handle the needs of the people.
Lester Maddox....ha! How about the Federal government which supported slavery and Jim Crow Laws, the internment of Japanese-Americans, Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, and more. The Federal government led the way for people like Lester Maddox and George Wallace.
Well, Scorereader, perhaps you can supply the names of the State Senators and Assemblymen who supported the policies of Governors like those whom I named. I cannot supply their names, but clearly, the policies that thrived in many states for many generations could not have existed without the support of those same Senators and Assemblymen. If I knew their identities, I would supply them, but the fact remains that these nameless people were partners with the aforementioned Governors in their policies, as the actions of these Governors could not have been unilateral. The regressive policies to which I referred were created and perpetuated by a cadre of people on the state level, whose identities I am not privy to.
In an earlier era, fear of losing the South led the federal government to placate that region, and, shamefully, caused it to allow slavery to exist, and later, for Jim Crow Laws to be put into place. That does not mean that the federal government promoted these concepts, but merely that weak individuals on the federal level failed to take a stand. And, of course, there were bigoted people who were elected to federal office or appointed to high posts--a good example being Chief Justice Roger B. Taney who authored the Dred Scott Decision, thereby legitimizing slavery. A careful reading of U.S. History will verify what I have said.
As to municipalities, counties, etc. let's not forget the voting fraud that was created/supported/hidden by the mayors, councilmen, etc. who allowed votes to be cast in the names of legions of dead people (the most glaring examples that I know of are Chicago under Richard Daly, New York City under Boss Tweed, and Jersey City under Frank Hague, but there are scores and scores of lesser examples). Those same people squandered the taxpayers' money on contracts that contained rich kickbacks for themselves and their cronies.
Regarding the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW II, you should be aware that this idea originated with the Governor of California, Earl Warren. He got FDR and members of Congress so riled-up in an irrational fashion, that his concept was approved on the federal level. But, the idea did originate on the state level with the person who many people later considered to be dangerously liberal--Earl Warren.
Regarding the Tuskeegee Experiment, this was not something that was legislated by Congress or approved by any US President. Some misguided souls in the US Public Health Service came up with this racist medical experiment, but it was not a policy that was formulated by any of the elected members of the US government. Can you say the same thing about the policies of the Southern states for so many years? Obviously what went on in the "slave states", both before the Civil War and after was largely a result of legislation, executive orders, and policies promulgated by those state governments, which clearly includes State Senators, Assemblymen, and Governors.
I sense that you and some others are bristling about the realities of some of our history, but it is our history and it was largely the result of legislation that was approved by a majority of those states' elected representatives and approved by those states' Governors--and that is where the shameful past events from our federal government's history largely differs from that of some of our states.
As to school boards, a phenomenon that has taken place over the last decade or so is for "stealth" candidates of the religious right to run for school board posts, and only after their elections are their real agendas known to the general public. When school boards mandate the teaching of religiously-driven curriculum (such as Creationism), rather than science, then I think it is wise to be careful about endorsing these governmental bodies as the ones best able to make decisions in the best interests of all.
I did not claim that the Federal government (and its officials) is without fault. In fact, that was the original theme of this thread, if you recall the editorial about Mr. Hastert.
In fact, we need a Balance of Powers between the states and the federal government--as the U.S. Constitution enacted. We also need a System of Checks and Balances among the three branches of the federal government--again, as the U.S. Constitution enacted.
No one branch of government is omniscient. Citizens need to remain vigilant to excesses and bad policies on the part of government at all levels. Unfortunately, as the years pass, fewer and fewer of our citizens read newspapers or tune in to broadcast news media that present a balanced view of events.
Once again, you have misinterpreted my statements, but at least I do appreciate your helping me to illustrate my point! Thank you for your assistance.