« Thoughts on Korea and "Progress" in Afghanistan | Main | Expansion of Metrorail, a sensible idea »

11 March 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Eric Dönges

It seems to be my day for nitpicking - Germany does not have disproportionate weight in the councils of the EU. Legally, it has the same weight as Luxembourg or any other EU member. Of course, if the other EU members want Germany to pay their bills, they'll have to do as Berlin says, because the golden rule applies in the EU as much as it does everywhere else.


That's been happening in Florida for a long time. The first thing they do is complain about the taxes for schools and even fire departments because they paid/built for all that stuff 'up north'. Lord knows they scream even louder when you need to build a new road/bridge because of all the retirees. Apparently they feel their obligation to the society (state) they are living in is over and that the locals 'owe' them.

Edward Amame

What is certain is that the power of the smaller states is large and growing.

Duly noted, NY Times. Also duly noted is the fact that the Senate refuses to consider ANY head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and successfully prevented any action on job creation proposals with a national unemployment rate hovering around 8-9%. Since we are apparently about the business of region-bashing here -- I'd just like to note (less politely that the NY Times) that the post-Obama immobilization of our federal government neatly coincides with the south's having "risen again."


James Madison's THE FEDERALIST NUMBER TEN explains that the Constitution is a system designed to distribute the power among the individual states to keep one faction from gaining too much power, as is apt to happen in a democracy.

Not long ago Democrats argued that minorities need the federal government to protect their rights from the white majority, creating quotas, hate crime laws, etc. Now they say the Republicans (whites)in the flyover states are blocking the will of the majority by having disproportionate representation in the Senate and want to change it. In other words,they see factionalism as good or bad depending on the issues involved and don't understand that our current structure of government keeps us from being ruled completely by one group.

Of course that is the theory and it works fairly well even though moneyed interests have gained too much power, but I think that problem is mostly due to the voter being uninformed and SCOTUS decisions.


Edward Amame

"...the post-Obama immobilization of our federal government neatly coincides with the south's having "risen again.""

Hallelujah! pl


It was chique to say, as a liberal, you couldn't stand either one. I'm not old enough to remember NYC pre-Giuliani with any real detail, but from all accounts it was a real shithole. Giuliani cleaned it up by giving the city the law and order it so desperately needed.

All this ties back into many of my personal issues with the left and liberalism in general, above the hypocrisy inherent in the philosophy.


I'm sorry to say that I don't remember the 1990s very well beyond raising a small child. Looking up those two disasters, I've read that there was tremendous criticism of FEMA's response to Floyd (although not anything about Clinton's response), but Fran seemed to get sufficient disaster relief funds.


Did Congress critters from those progressive large population states fight over approving or releasing disaster relief to those states affected by the two storms?


You mean as liberals flee the messes they made in California, New York, and New England, they try to enact their same insane policies in places that were doing just fine before the leftists showed up with their "white man's burden" to educate the rubes?

You forget the process works both ways. After Jorge Francisco-Martinez, illegal alien, rapes someone's grand daughter, the need for a closed border suddenly becomes readily apparent.


It's my name (well, a merge). Would 'Nem' be better?

I'm not trying to provoke you; I'm responding to the OP as well as to subsequent responses. In other words, I'm participating in the discussion, albeit taking a position that is not aligned with most people here. If that's against the comment policy, then let me know and I'll not comment again.

There wasn't much mentioned in the NYT article about what large population states were dictating to smaller states. There will always be resentment and anger when one 'side' feels the other 'side' is getting more goodies, and goodness knows our history has had its fill of one side getting more constitutional power and policy favoritism than the other. That's just the way this country has always rumbled; one party is always 'dictating' to others.

If the issue is gun control, as Tyler mentioned above, Congress has the right to approve or deny legislation, and then citizens or states can take it up with the courts as to whether such legislation is constitutional. That's the way it goes; it's not dictatorship. And if New York and Colorado, and perhaps Washington, pass stricter gun control laws - well, that's what states' rights are all about.

I just don't understand the level of dislike towards states that include more than 80% of Americans and which naturally have different needs - and have different perspectives - than citizens in more rural states. All this talk of those states seceding or breaking up - perhaps we should just pledge our allegiance or make our oaths to "the ephemeral United States."



Don't play the martyr with me. I tolerate you here because I don't want this to be an echo chamber for my voice. What you really want is more power for the Democratic Party. the framers built a myriad of checks and balances into the system specifically to prevent domination of the country by regions as unifomly ideological ans the New York and LA islands. If you want to make this an "ephemeral United states," try to amend article five. you should read federalist number ten.pl


I don't think that the Electoral College is " the main reason the U.S. has a two-party system". I think it's just the inertia of the Plurality-Wins system, locked in by the mutual interest of the top two parties.

Most Americans wind up voting against the candidate they hate most. It's no wonder we don't like our government.

Check out Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), or Ranked Preference Voting. Teach your State Reps about it. Then vote third-party candiates whenever you can.

PS: I never take ideas like re-designing the Senate, or even the Electoral College, seriously. They are flawed processes, but good compromises. Don't worry, they won't be changed.


You found a press release from FEMA? I'm sure there's one for Hurricane Sandy that would fit your definition of 'sufficient disaster relief funds'. As to your characterization of "Congress critters" those are you words, not mine. The House of Representative did not appropriate any significant disaster recovery funds for the State of North Carolina of the type the State of New York is now demanding.


Col: No.


Tyler: I recently asked someone why the immmigration system needed to be "reformed." Here are some facts: "Over one million persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading countries of origin of immigrants to the United States were Mexico, India, the Philippines, and China. Nearly 14 million immigrants entered the United States from 2000 to 2010." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

That seems like a pretty generous immigration system to me. And since I've personally benefitted from America's legal immigration system, I say, "Thank You, America."

However, by "reform," I think "reform" supporters mean another amnesty. That would be the third "final" amnesty of my adulthood.



None of my ancestors "immigrated" to the US. There were no immigration laws then. You are all newcomers to me unless some of you are Indians. Washteh! pl



"No." No what? pl


Federalist 10:



Hardly the martyr; you've been known to ridicule commenters who've insisted on a different POV, and to ban others for sometimes undiscernible reasons. Because of this, I've looked in the past for a comment policy and, not seeing one, merely wondered if you have one; and, if so, how I and others could avoid either ridicule or banishment. (Example of comment policy: I read a classic film blog that allows just about anything except any criticism of "Citizen Kane").

I'll support any national party that cares a whit for the wellbeing of the country and its people - education and training, business, health, infrastructure, security, etc. At the moment, the Democratic Party (and thank you, BTW, for writing 'Democratic') is the only one that goes beyond lip service, albeit unsatisfactorily. That's pretty much the defining line for me, other than a party that's not bats--- crazy. Which just goes to show that history is a marvelous thing, and that once upon a time I'd have been a Republican.

If the framers' intent was to prevent political domination by one region over another using the checks and balances of executive, legislative, and judicial branches, we would not have had a Civil War. The Constitution was as flawed as the framers' themselves, and it still is to some degree, particularly concerning disproportion. But, Article V pretty much prevents any correction for a long time to come.

I don't care about the anti-government and somewhat elitist anti-urban (or is northern?) sentiments; what irritates is that these sentiments tend to emanate from states which, however proudly independent their citizens profess to be, receive a lot more funding from the very federal government they abhor, and which is largely subsidized by those populous states they scorn.



While we are picking nits: Legally yes, but practically, of course, no. And that's not because it is being asked to foot anyone's bill.

The ECB, not the Federal Republic, is the world's one and only source of Euros. It is Germany's influence (and beyond it that of the northern core) that keeps this capacity from being used for anything but life-support operations in the south.

A U.S. anaology would be if the states hardest hit by the collapse of the housing bubble (Florida, Arizona, Navada, California, etc.) were told to suck it up and make due with reduced Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security payments, as punishement for having let Wall Street extend their populations so many predatory loans.

Nancy K

I never left CA because I felt it was a mess. I am or was a 4th generation Californian, and thought I would never live anywhere else. However I have a daughter and grandchildren in NC so here I am in the South.
Fred mentioned that transplants like me don't like to pay their fair share. Well that is not true in my case. I am quite willing to pay taxes for good schools, even though my grandchildren do not live in the same district. I also want the roads to be good. Now that I am here, this is my home. I know how important it is for the next generation to be well educated and for our infrastructure to be up to date. The reality is I am an American not just a Californian or a North Carolinian. This is my country not just my state.


The thing about the internet is that you can claim what your real intentions were all day. If you haven't fled because of the high taxes + crime, then plenty of others have fled California. It is quickly taking on the face of Brazil with its ultra rich, heavily guarded enclaves contrasted against first world world ghetto. Then you have the middle class getting squeezed out as the Democratic super majority raises taxes and gives more benefits to illegal aliens as fast as it can in order to create a new majority.

The problem is its not just roads and schools you want, but you want your insane social policies that liberals can't see wrecks other states (see: in state tuition for illegal aliens, among other things in CO). Not every road needs to be a four lane expressway for your comfort, not every school needs hundreds of millions of dollars sunk into it so some NYC transplant can feel like Brylienne is getting a world class education when in reality the majority of the money is going to administration.



"you've been known to ridicule commenters who've insisted on a different POV, and to ban others for sometimes undiscernible reasons."

Well ma'am, if you want to play in this sandbox you will need a toughter skin. I am infamous for not being much of a "team player" and I don't care if you don't like the way I do things or how I play with the other kids..

"If the framers' intent was to prevent political domination by one region over another using the checks and balances of executive, legislative, and judicial branches, we would not have had a Civil War."

What? Perhaps you could explain that.

"Citizen Kane?" What?

"anti-northern?" No, there are some good people up there. pl


nancy k

"I am an American not just a Californian or a North Carolinian. This is my country not just my state." Maybe we should just get rid of the states and divide the country into administrative districts like the ones on the map above. pl


Hey overlay that map with a map of where the most minorities live and tell me what you find.

While northerners have the ability to barricade themselves in whitopias and send their children to private schools to shelter themselves from the fallout of their insane, self destructive social policies, some of us have to deal with the shockwave that results.

Eric Dönges

I disagree with you analysis. What the southern EU states want amounts to getting the taxpayers of the northern EU states to assume the liability for their loans. Why should we ?

As to your analogy - it is nothing like that. It would be more like if California demanded that New York back California state bonds to pay for Medical.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad