My visceral opposition to strong states' rights comes from a variety of sources. First, I don't like the way my state generally does things. Utah is a drag. This is an intellectually shallow argument against states' rights, but its real for many people.
Second, I think the constitutional arguments behind it are pretty weak, or have become weaker in a changing world that the Founding Fathers could not possibly have foreseen. I went into detail about this here.
Third, I think there are certain basic privileges and protections that the federal government should ensure that many states are hostile to, such as health care, which we'll discuss more below. I support the federal government setting minimum standards for health care, the financial sector, etc. that are binding on states and put all Americans on a more equal footing. As long as we are the United States of America, what's bad for one of us is bad for all of us.
Fourth, I distrust corporations more than government and think corporations have too much power, and decentralizing their main counterweight, the federal government, strikes me as a way to strengthen corporations and allow them to run amok (think Gilded Age abuses and oppression, and go read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair).
Fifth, and related to the previous two points, is the threat of a race to the bottom. This occurs where, in economic competition, competing political entities will race to deregulate and dismantle consumer protections in an effort to attract businesses. Wal-mart, for instance, is not going to be relocating its headquarters to a state with strong union laws on the books.
Sixth, the history of states' rights isn't exactly inspiring. States' rights has been synonymous with slavery, Jim Crow, anti-segregation, and a whole slew of civil rights atrocities. The latest incarnation is for certain states to take an incredibly hostile view towards immigrants, which I find despicable and not very Christian. Certain states don't seem to be able to mind themselves when it comes to civil rights and it just won't due for them to drag us all down to their level.
Finally, conservatives have ruined the issue for me by attaching it to their social agenda and supporting states' rights when it suits them (abortion, immigration) and opposing it when it doesn't (drug control, gay marriage). There are actually hardly any people anywhere on the political spectrum with a consistent stance on states' rights and I therefore find it hard to get on board.
Despite all of this, I can't help but agree with the famous line from Justice Brandeis that, "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." The individual states as laboratories of democracy is an appealing metaphor that works on many levels. I like the idea of states being courageous and searching for new, progressive solutions to our problems. But it only works if states find themselves out ahead of nation as a whole as opposed to falling behind, and if the state doesn't have an elevated stature above the others in a certain area.
For example, New York and Delaware hold the keys to the corporate and financial engine of the nation. If they aren't out ahead of rest of us in governing corporations and banks and protecting consumers, then the whole nation suffers. So when they dropped the ball and the nation slunk into the Great Recession, the federal government had to step in and try to fix things. It would have been better if those states had taken the lead and reformed the financial system before disaster struck, but they didn't and that's why we have the feds to step in and clean up their mess.
It became clear many years ago that there was a serious problem with the health care industry. Tens of millions of Americans couldn't get coverage, coverage wasn't portable which tied people to their crappy jobs, and those with coverage were facing rising premiums greatly outpacing inflation with benefits falling by the wayside. If various states had taken this seriously and fired up their bunsen burners and tried to find real solutions perhaps the federal government would not have had to play such a heavy hand. The one state that did, Massachusetts, became the basis for the federal reform. But otherwise they didn't. But now they are.
Vermont is about to create a single-payer system. California and Oregon have progressive systems aimed and covering all residents. This is good, and could be the beginning of real health reform in the country. The states should be out in front, and when they are the whole federalism system works better. Unfortunately, that race to the bottom almost always means that they are not, and that is why it is too risky to put too much faith in states' rights, for now anyway.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Two things: 1) If you haven't found consistent state's rights political sub groups then you don't spend enough time reading libertarian political stuff.
2) I totally disagree with your statement:
For example, New York and Delaware hold the keys to the corporate and financial engine of the nation. If they aren't out ahead of rest of us in governing corporations and banks and protecting consumers, then the whole nation suffers. So when they dropped the ball and the nation slunk into the Great Recession, the federal government had to step in and try to fix things. It would have been better if those states had taken the lead and reformed the financial system before disaster struck, but they didn't and that's why we have the feds to step in and clean up their mess.
Just because a business incorporates in a state doesn't mean that state has any power to govern it's business, ESPECIALLY when you're talking about the financial meltdown.
If you really ask yourself what was the singular cause (and yes, there is one singular cause) to the financial meltdown, what is it? I'll pause while you noodle it.
.........
Okay. You're right, it was too much debt, well even more specifically the economy had too much leverage in their debt. Now, ask yourself, who or what was the main culprit in that debt expansion? You're right, that's harder to pin down, however I think it's quite easy to point to what opened up the floodgate and there wasn't any sort of reform or regulation that either state could have enacted to prevent it because the abuse was a direct result of our idiot law makers tinkering with federal statutes.
I also think it's noteworthy to say that the feds haven't actually come in and cleaned up anyone's mess. Cleaning up a mess would insinuate that the problems have been addressed, they haven't. The fed cleanup to the mess in the financial sense was the equivalent of me cleaning my room as a kid where all I really did was stuff all the crap under the bed.
That works well to fool your mom and to get you out on your bike for the rest of the day but at some point in the future you discover that plate or bowl with moldy food on it that has started to ruin one of your favorite shirts and you realize the cleanup never happened, it was just postponed for a while and waiting as long as you did just amplified the mess.
I don't think that NY could have single-handedly prevented the meltdown, but there were certain measures it could have taken against all this over-leveraging--some of which are being taken now, after the fact--that could have made a positive difference. I agree that the financial overhaul legislation falls short of actually fixing the problem (I think it should have gone further, which I imagine you disagree with), I could have worded that better, but the fact is that the feds came in to try to fix it after the states had failed. If the states weren't playing a race to the bottom, the feds wouldn't have had to step in at all.
Regarding libertarians, yes I suppose they are more consistent on this issue, but even they have a muddy view. Some libertarians are anti-fed and anti-state, some are anti-fed and pro-state. They are consistent as to regulation from the federal government, but inconsistent as to regulation from state governments. I suppose they win the prize for at least being the closest.
"Just because a business incorporates in a state doesn't mean that state has any power to govern it's business"
This is way more complicated than that. First, Delaware essentially writes the corporate laws for America because it is corporate-friendly and houses the great majority of corporations. The laws of the state of incorporation are very much controlling on corporate governance. Then it comes down to where the transactions are taking place and a lot of other factors. But the state of incorporation (again, almost always Delaware), plays an outsized role in regulating business activities.
"I don't think that NY could have single-handedly prevented the meltdown, but there were certain measures it could have taken against all this over-leveraging--some of which are being taken now, after the fact--that could have made a positive difference."
They could have made a positive impact, but I don't thing it would have made a bit of difference in the end result.
There's nothing that New York State could have done (or Delaware for that matter) that would have trumped the repeal of Glass-Steagall. In the exact moment our federal lawmakers said it was fine for banks to use depositor funds in risky, speculative activity, it was out of the state's hands completely.
"..... I agree that the financial overhaul legislation falls short of actually fixing the problem (I think it should have gone further, which I imagine you disagree with), I could have worded that better, but the fact is that the feds came in to try to fix it after the states had failed. If the states weren't playing a race to the bottom, the feds wouldn't have had to step in at all."
Well, I don't agree with whether or not it should have gone further, or not as far because those are pretty nebulous terms, but I agree that it doesn't actually do anything to fix the financial system.
Whenever your financial reform legislation is crafted by financial lobbyists it's not going to be "far enough" in terms of actually fixing the problems you are reforming.
My first step in financial reform would have been to reinstate Glass-Steagall in it's original form. The financial crisis would not have been possible (at least not in the way it went down) had that never been repealed. Now, the flip side of that is that you actually have to have punishments that are meaningful in your regulation. If I steal a billion dollars doing bad business and once people find out I'm doing it I get fined a 100 million dollars then it was worth it.
Add some jail time for the fraud and meaningful punishments (like losing your license to be a bank) and we're talking. We didn't do that, we picked winners and told them no matter how badly behave we can't live without you. As soon as that decision was made, the financial reform was doomed.
"The latest incarnation is for certain states to take an incredibly hostile view towards immigrants, which I find despicable and not very Christian."
Towards ILLEGAL immigrants. Why do you liberals insist on referring to these people as immigrants? It's insulting to the ones that go through the legal hoops. I find it despicable that your state would choose to pass laws to make life easier for these criminals and, frankly I HATE that the Church had so much involvement in that legislation. I love the benefits that immigration can bring to our society and our economy, but I will always hold disdain for criminals and usurpers.
So apparently no one actually wants to talk about states' rights, which I guess I get as it's not the sexiest topic around.
Josh, I talked about the "illegal" part of the illegal immigrant debate here. Here's an excerpt:
"So the question is where does illegal immigration fall in our sense of justice. The facts are that most illegal immigrants come here to find a better life. There are more jobs, security, and opportunities in America than nearly anywhere else on Earth. We are a nation built upon the very idea immigration, most of it illegal or at least unethical, and that is not lost on those coming today. They would likely go through the legal process of immigration if it were reasonably available to them, which it is not. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are peaceful, otherwise law-abiding, intelligent, and hard working. And Hispanic, which makes it easy for some to delineate differences from themselves and single them out. It makes it easier to hate them.
"My idea of justice is that it is not morally sound to harbor such hatred-filled feelings towards Hispanic illegal immigrants and demand full justice by punishment. I don't think it fits the crime. The crime is that they are simply here, they haven't infringed on any of my rights and haven't hurt me in any way. The jobs argument is slippery at best. They are simply generally good people trying to make their lives better in the only way they know how. They have families and are trying to give their families the best life and most opportunities that they can. . .
"Justice through mercy is much more fitting. If we identified them, gave them a path towards citizenship, enforced some penalty such as a fine or a loss of some social benefits until they become citizens, and dealt with them humanely and morally, we'd be much better off and justice would be much better served."
I'm proud of how the church is handling the issue, I think it is the most humane and charitable way to move forward. I understand we disagree, though.
Finally, I was hoping to get your take on the baseball posts. Agree? Disagree?
I support states rights.
1. Utah can do its thing and my state is virtually unaffected. The same goes for most states.
2. The states created the federal government as a sort of moderator between disputes between states - both foreign and those that are part of the union.
3. The federal can set standards for health care, financial, ect., but it has no power to enforce them outside the territories or employees. If the federal government wants to enforce the standards, it should go through the amendment process.
4. Corporations must operate under the laws of the state in which they operate. When the corporations partner with the government we have a problem in that they can use FORCE against customers and citizens. Without the government assisting the corporations, they are powerless against their customers. Overnight the IRS or any state can close a business or corporation.
The states formed the federal government. The states delegated power. The power of the state comes from the citizens - not illegal immigrants. The regulatory agencies can change regulations and close a business nearly instantly. Businesses leave CA often, because the state makes it increasingly expensive in taxes and in indirect costs through regulation.
I have little confidence in a federal government addressing local concerns. The billions spent on poverty programs and education programs have not produced results promised. In fact the creation of the FEDERAL RESERVE was supposed to prevent financial crisis, but all it has done is make it easier to saddle taxpayers with trillions in debt.
Libertarians and libertarians have much distrust for all levels of government - for good reason. I believe our founders felt that local governance was better than government from far away. I am certain that is why in the beginning that the federal government relied on states to provide soldiers and gold.
"3. The federal can set standards for health care, financial, ect., but it has no power to enforce them outside the territories or employees. If the federal government wants to enforce the standards, it should go through the amendment process."
I disagree with this. Between the Commerce Clause, taxing and spending authority, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and other sections, there is plenty of room in the Constitution for the federal government to enact and enforce standards that must be met by the states.
"I have little confidence in a federal government addressing local concerns. The billions spent on poverty programs and education programs have not produced results promised."
I don't know what results were specifically promised, but the federal anti-poverty programs have been enormously successful in my opinion. Poverty rates overall have fallen since New Deal and Great Society laws have been enacted, and quality of life has increased. This is particularly true for the elderly. Now, the trend over the past two or three decades has been a dramatic increase of the disparity between the rich and poor due to an increasingly regressive tax system which is a trend I think needs to be reversed.
I agree with your point broadly, though, that local governments can respond to needs better than the more distant federal government. I think Medicaid is a good example of how this can work. The feds pass legislation and standards and fund the states to make the appropriate local choices. I am perhaps not very liberal when it comes to education because I think local states/districts need more control than they now have, but again with funding and standards coming from the feds to ensure that every kid in the nation gets adequate and equal education.
Post a Comment