Nanny feds extend meddling even further into states’ affairs

Federalism and Generalissimo Francisco Franco are still dead.

The latest foray by the feds into state sovereignty is the demand that states create climate change prevention policies before they can receive FEMA disaster relief funding. A few Republicans are offering token resistance.

Today the federal government has its fingers, hands and arms up the elbow in the running of states. The state of Nevada gets 35 percent of its state budget from the benevolent, meddling feds.

Amusingly, on the same day the Las Vegas newspaper had an editorial complaining about the FEMA demands, it had a news account reporting that the state is having to spend millions on storm drainage to comply with EPA requirements.

There have been ongoing stories about what the state can get in funding if it will take nuclear waste and bury it in Yucca Mountain.
The Supreme Court said Obama could not coerce the states into expanding Medicaid coverage by denying funding, but just about every other incursion seems OK.

Congress set the drinking age nationally by threatening to deny funding to any state that did not comply. Likewise the hated 55 mph speed limit.

Education funding is threatened if states don’t comply with No Child Left Behind.

Of course, the feds control 87 percent of the land in Nevada.

Advertisements

45 comments on “Nanny feds extend meddling even further into states’ affairs

  1. Winston Smith says:

    Let’s see here, the Fedbots create fiat currency, backed up by nothing but the “full faith and credit” of the government, i.e. a $18.221 trillion debt. They use this currency to bribe state and local governments into operating the way they want, i.e., ignoring the Constitution. Because these governments have been doing this for so long, they are fairly dependent on this movement of ones and zeroes, and wouldn’t dream of weaning themselves off teat.

    Simply a case of giving up the Tenth Amendment for a bigger share of the national debt.

    Mess of pottage, anyone?

  2. Rincon says:

    If the feds themselves cannot come to agreement on climate change, then it’s ridiculous for them to force it on the states. The real answer though, is that FEMA shouldn’t give out funds for every disaster anyway. If some schmuck with a newly constructed home on a floodplain gets flooded, it should be his problem alone. A similar logic should apply to states. Private insurance should be adequate for risk protection. Private insurers will insure almost anything. Cost is the only issue. If you can’t afford hurricane insurance, then don’t live on the coast. If you can’t afford earthquake insurance, then don’t move into California. The exception to this would be things nobody will insure such as nuclear attack, etc.

    As for the EPA requirements about storm runoff, if you don’t believe a factory should be allowed to pollute a river, then you shouldn’t allow a state vehicle maintenance facility to pollute a river either. The real, and unanswered question is, are the requirements reasonable or excessive? The conservative knee jerk of course, is that ALL requirements are unreasonable. They still long for the days of real freedom when rivers caught fire.

    A national drinking age makes perfect sense. The ability of an underage drinker to cross state lines to buy large quantities of alcohol to take home and distribute totally undermines the ability of the neighboring state to regulate its own territory. Besides, why should there be a drinking age anyway? Teenagers and children deserve individual freedom just as much as anyone else, don’t they?

    There is no need for a national speed limit, but the same applies to state limits. It may be best to leave that to the counties. As for education, it is no more intrusive for the federal government to require something than it is for the states. Any mandates should be either federal or local, not state. Should people in Las Vegas, with 1/2 of Nevada’s people, determine the educational requirements for someone living on a ranch or in a small town? The converse also applies.

  3. Winston Smith says:

    I guess it’s now the federal government’s responsibility to, “to change how the media reports on these issues.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/05/12/obama-rips-fox-were-going-to-have-to-change-how-the-media-reports/

  4. Rincon says:

    It should be the government’s responsibility to change the way media reports in one limited way. The judiciary essentially refuses to enforce our libel and slander laws when the victims are political candidates or appointees. The same applies to false reporting from the media whenever there is not a clearly identified victim. Telling lies about either political figures or the issues they deal with does a great deal of damage to society and is inherently irresponsible and fraudulent. Falsehood must be proved in a libel or slander case, so with jury trials, there is little danger of interfering with the media’s responsibilities. Doctors pay for malpractice. Media reporters should too.

    Unfortunately, there is little that we can do to eliminate the routine distortion of reality practiced by the media. Slanted news coverage is sleazy, but unwise to suppress.

  5. A free people can figure out what is the truth without some judge holding their hands. Free speech and free press mean people are free to speak in error and even to lie, deceive and manipulate.

  6. Hey that sounds a bit like the US Senate…

  7. Patrick says:

    If “the pen is mightier than the sword” holds some truth, and people understand that there is room to regulate the use of weapons, how can anyone believe that a “mightier” and in some cases, far more destructive “tool” like a pen ought to be available without restriction?

  8. You assume everyone agrees with regulating weapons.

  9. Steve says:

    He doesn’t care if anyone agrees…he wants to declare himself absolute ruler of the universe.

  10. Patrick says:

    I assume people want to regulate the USE of weapons. As any reasonable person would want to regulate the use of any tool that can create unjustified destruction.

  11. Steve says:

    “As any reasonable person would want to regulate the use of any tool that can create unjustified destruction.”

    I can see it! Background checks for hammers.

  12. Steve says:

    And chainsaws….in Texas.

  13. Rincon says:

    If you want to be consistent, then be sure to wipe out the libel and slander laws. No need to regulate weapons. Oh, and get rid of fraud laws too. Every man for himself. Anything to eviscerate government power.

    Steve, you need to reread Patrick’s words. He said, “As any reasonable person would want to regulate the USE (my capitalization) of any tool that can create unjustified destruction”.
    The USE of hammers and chainsaws is indeed regulated. It is not kosher to use them aggressively on someone’s noggin for example.

  14. Patrick says:

    Thanks Rincon, but I did used CAPS in my original post. For some reason, Steve chose to ignore that.

    Or alternatively, his ability to read and comprehend is lacking.

  15. Barbara says:

    How about repealing the 17th amendment? This would boost the sovereignty of the states and help restrict federal meddling in everything we do.

  16. Patrick says:

    Yes, the USE of hammers (or other tools) to cause unjustified harm is illegal and therefore regulated. As you point out above Steve.

    The point remains, why would speech or “the pen” be treated differently?

  17. Steve says:

    It isn’t.

  18. Patrick says:

    But it is. Check out the “Sullivan” line of Supreme Court decisions and ask yourself whether that standard applies equally to the use of other tools with regard to “public figures”.

  19. Steve says:

    Sure, when people can be arrested for saying “Sometimes I just want to murder you.” even though nothing happened. The pen (freedom of expression) is most certainly under attack. In many ways far more than the “use” of a physical object is regulated.
    People can be jailed simply for the use of words that they will never act on.

    A recent example comes out of Rochester, NY. They arrested him on a “Domestic Violence” charge. But it was words, only words, that got him arrested…and not even at the scene!

    You can use all the legal references you wish…facts and actions are what get my attention.

    Time to ban Hammers and start calling for background checks, with three day waiting periods before you can have the hammer you need today!

  20. Steve says:

    Freedom of speech! The “pen” is treated “different”?

    http://eagnews.org/mom-sues-school-district-over-sons-2013-arrest-suspension-for-nra-t-shirt/

    Time to enact background checks for the purchase of “T” shirts!

  21. Patrick says:

    I wonder if “Free Speech” advocates would feel about the free speech rights of a student coming to first period (though sixth period) first grade (through twelfth grade) class blaring rap hit “cop killer” at the boxes highest volume?

    I wonder how many would suggest that the 10th Amendment protects the “rights” of states to ensure that public school students have the “right” NOT to be subjected to such disruptions in their classes (or in other settings for that matter) because they have rights which are being interfered with by the other students “expression” of free speech?

  22. Steve says:

    You spew hypotheticals while I cite actual incidents.

    Get off your self created pedestal and find reality.

  23. Patrick says:

    I wonder how many supposed “free speech” advocates would support a soldier’s “right” to speak freely to the “enemy” during wartime about military “secrets” that lead to the death of Americans?

  24. Steve says:

    Hypothetical….

    Nice scarecrow.

  25. Rincon says:

    A prerequisite for calling the “soldier” hypothetical is a belief that such a soldier has never existed. Is that your position Steve? The concept is clearly based in reality. What is the purpose of playing these rhetorical games?

  26. Steve says:

    Straw is flying today.

    People sign legal agreements to join up and become soldiers. Those agreements define their responsibilities in that capacity.

    I smell hay burning.

  27. Patrick says:

    A waiver of a Constitutional Right? I suppose the state will now be entitled to have all citizens waive all their Constitutional Rights as a condition of continuing citizenship.

  28. Steve says:

    Obviously never been in the military.

    You should try talking about things you might know something about.

  29. Patrick says:

    Steve:

    Let us hope, for the sake of you, and whatever dependents you may have, that your livelihood does not depend on your deductive abilities; the world needs ditch diggers too.

  30. Steve says:

    You are making an ass out of yourself.

  31. Rincon says:

    So why should our right to lie be greater for a politician than it is for the rest of us? Should it not be the same for all?

  32. Steve says:

    Anyone can be president.

  33. Politicians surrender privacy.

  34. Rincon says:

    The issue is not privacy; it’s slander and libel.

  35. Athos says:

    repeal the 16th, 17th, and 26th amendments. Implement the the 28th (laws apply equally to congressmen and citizens).

    Sorry I’m late to the discussion.

  36. Patrick says:

    Tom took such an absolutist position here regarding free speech, that I just had to try and point out instances when I’m guessing that even he would agree speech MUST be circumscribed even amongst free peoples.

    Soldiers, students, citizens must all, at times, be restrained from using their ability to speak freely and most reasonable people understand why.

    A witness during a trial is restrained from lying by the laws against perjury. Soldiers are restrained from speaking freely to the enemy, and students (and other citizens and non-citizens) are restrained from speaking at times due to considerations for other students and other citizens (during school hours, and during political gatherings where no single person has the right to dominate the discourse)

    Is that really so bad?

  37. Steve says:

    AS usual, Patrick is trying to slide, twist and spin the discussion into the thing he desires for it.

    Namely more regulation on the protected speech of the press.

    The founders specifically mentioned the press in the First amendment for a reason. The press needs this freedom do perform the functions envisioned by the founders and it is not only the founders, this press protection has a long history in Europe as well.

    There are regulations governing even this protection. Sadly, it appears Patrick does not like the freedoms specifically assigned the press and seems to wish a “Pravda” like model for this country.

    I say the press is self regulating and has shifted left all on its own. Happily there are places where this freedom is being used to push this momentum in the other direction…back toward a more reasonable middle.

    This is what appears to upset people like Patrick.

  38. Patrick says:

    Steve objects (strenuously objects) to people creating positions for him, but seems to have no problems doing that for other people. I call that hypocrisy.

    I pointed out that reasonable people understand that some restrictions on free speech are accepted and for good reason. There are restrictions on people lying in Court, and on students in classes preventing them from unreasonably interfering with other students right to learn, and even on people’s rights to participate in political activities, and a soldiers “right” to speak freely if that speech would result in a danger to this country’s security, and for good reason.

  39. Steve says:

    See?

    This is what appears to upset people like Patrick….

    Note the operative word Patrick misses, with intent.

  40. Rincon says:

    No specific response to Patrick’s words noted. Operative word? Sorry Steve. I only do puzzles on a voluntary basis.

  41. Rincon says:

    Rhetorical games again Steve. This is getting old. Do you think I can’t look up the damn word?? The definition of operative gives absolutely no clue as to what the operative word actually is in this context. Once again, I’m done with this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s