Once again, it has been too long since I last offered my faithful readers a slice of my opinion. Top my absence off with the fact that I will be on vacation with my family for two weeks, I simply had to post before leaving. Here are a few things that have been on my mind:
Let's start with the All Star Game (because what would JMO be if it didn't start with sports?). A few quick thoughts: No one should be surprised (including a certain Brit I know who probably won't read this) that the American League won for the 10th straight year. I saw something last night that I never want to see again: Jonathan Papelbon pitching into the mitt of Jorge Posada! What's up with a multimillionaire getting a free 2008 vehicle for being MVP? Wouldn't it be a better plan to have a fan of his team win the car? Kudos to the managers of each team for selecting deserving players and not stuffing the remaining roster spots with their own team members (*cough* Ozzie *cough* Guillen). Home Run Derby: Wicked boring. Let's try highlighting some other skill next year. Okajima certainly deserved to be there, Barry Bonds did not. It's the first time I've ever seen someone go to the All Star Game because they lead the league in OBP (which is because no one wants him to break the record so if they don't have to pitch to him, they won't)! He's only got 17 HR (just over half of a truly deserving All Star like A-Rod). Anyone think it was more than a coincidence that he was voted to attend when the game is in his home park? Oh, and did anyone else hear his interview with Peter Gammons? Bonds was saying why the people who really know him like him. He said, "I don't party, I don't go to clubs, I don't do [pause] wild things." Yes, he paused. What would a normal person say there? Probably "I don't do drugs." Sorry Barry, you can't say that.
I've been thinking this for quite some time and have been putting off posting about it because I've always had more pressing, time sensitive matters to comment on. However, as we head into the heart of campaign season, I believe this is the appropriate time to finally make my revelation for revolution public. Here is my epiphany: The United States is too large geographically for a strong Federal government! This is why there is such division between the two parties and the citizens who identify with them. Here is my solution (This probably will not surprise anyone): The role of the Federal government should be limited and three-fold: provide national defense, decide international foreign Policy, and uphold the Constitution. There should be no laws created by the Federal government that cannot be easily categorized in one of those three purposes. In order to fund their responsibilities, the Federal government would be allowed to demand a certain amount of tax from each State government (not individual citizens or businesses) based on the per capita earnings of each state. It would be up to the State governments to determine how they would tax their residents (or non residents, if they choose to tax tourism) in order to meet that obligation and fund their own government and programs. Under my plan, (lockbox) each individual state would make their own laws about everything from the maddeningly mundane to the crazily controversial. This way, if you believe that partial birth abortions should be legal but never want to see a criminal put to death, you can choose to live in MA. However, if you believe that everyone should be presented with a free gun by the government on their 13th birthday and that every felon should face the possibility of dying for their crime, you can elect to live in TX. People and businesses will gravitate towards the states that have the laws with which they most agree. Suddenly, MT is booming and NY is a wasteland. Additionally, this would allow for the possibility of a true Democracy (which we do not have. We live in a representative Republic and anyone who claims that we live in a Democracy should have their right to vote revoked.) We never have any questions on the national ballot because we don't want people in TN telling us in CT how to live. (That's the same logic that will cause the EU to eventually implode. The Czechs, Pols, Brits, etc don't want the Germans dictating how they must live) But if the laws are only created by each state, the people would actually have a chance to have their voices truly heard by choosing which laws will pass and which will fail! Think of the benefits: lobbyists vanish overnight because you can't give every American an all expense paid trip to Greece. If you don't like the laws under which you live, move! People would stop spending in excess of 5 million dollars to win a job that pays $250,000 per year. Sure, there would be some consequences: the birth rate in VT would plummet because homosexual couples can't have babies, and UT's population would explode because Mormons don't believe in birth control. Healthcare would be amazing yet expensive in AZ, and free but terrible in CA. Of course, if Jefferson had fought harder against the Federalists when this nation began, I wouldn't have to be suggesting such a solution. But he didn't and we are stuck with the mess we've got. So who's withme on this? Anyone out there ant to make that which is just my opinion, just theirs?
6 comments:
Oh, come on, where's all the good conversation on this one? Sure it's a huge, radical thought, and one that was essentially settled by the founding fathers, BUT, let's just say... in an ideal world... do you think it's a good idea to give more power to the states and reduce the federal government .... even if it might mean that states would inact laws and encourage behavior that would not be favorable to a conservative president and congress?
Let's get some conversation going !
~Lynn-nore
What I want to know is: where were all the comments on the global warming post (besides all of mine), you know, the one that Marc practically begged everyone to comment on?! That real life debate/issue deserves more conversation than political theorizing, in (just) my opinion. Ha!
Define "conservative."
I believe Marc has a good argument. I'm all for less government--because we all know that the current president and congress themselves are the very ones enacting laws and encouraging unfavorable behavior to the American people!!
I agree with Marc that it would be a great idea to have more power given to local government and less control from Washington. I think about the examples where local politics are often much more impacting that federal laws. Here in the Nashville area there is much debate around the topic of school uniforms in the public schools. The Nashville metro school system -- Davidson County - has had multiple town meetings with terrific turn out by parents and educators voicing their opinions. Now THAT is how government ought to govern it seems -- by the people for the people and where the people actually have some contribution to the decision making process. Likewise individual counties and towns are able to make decisions about things such as driving while using a cell phone -- it seems likely that incidence rates of cell phones contributing to car accidents could be higher or lower from town to town or state to state -- therefore let the local legislation make the laws.
Meanwhile -- I think this entire conversation is about as productive as discussing the impact of garden gnomes on religion - our nation is no where in sight of reducing federal government to this extreme!
Lynn-nore
Marc,
This is totally off topic, but please forgive me.
I just watched "The Prestige" last night (Hugh Jackman & Christian Bale) about magic. I was wondering if you'd seen it (if you even have time?) And what you thought. It seemed like a movie you would like to pick apart and analyze and figure out before the characters had! So...if you have seen it, could you email me and explain the last "trick" to me? (don't want to give anything away to those who haven't seen it - its a good one!) and if you haven't seen it, I recommend you get it. You could have a lot of fun with it :)
How're you feeling about the Sox these days?
Jenna
I know that this was posted in July, but just in case this gets looked at, I just want to say that those three things that dude pointed to here are in fact what the federal government is allowed to do. Upholding the constitution is exactly what they are doing by creating agencies for executive branch issues, passing funding bills too, as well as making decisions on abortion and gay rights. So what's revolutionary?
Welcome Rob (with on B)
It is a broad brush with which you paint to claim that somehow passing funding bills is upholding the Constitution. I'm not sure I see the Constitutional mandate for funding for the National Endowment for the arts, or for stem cell research, or for environmental laws. These are all ways that the Federal Government would be overstepping its power in my political plan. I suppose I should have clarified what I meant by "upholding the Constitution." I didn't mean that the Federal Government (FG) would be allowed to pass as many laws as it saw fit regulating the activities of the state. I merely meant that the citizens of the United States could take their complaints to the FG and have them ruled upon. For example, perhaps the FG would determine that Michigan's law that all Michiganders drive American made vehicles is unconstitutional, but they wouldn't be allowed to pass a law regarding it, they'd simply have the authority to tell Michigan to change their law.
Basically, my FG would have laws that pertain only to National Defense and Foreign Affairs. All other Domestic issues would be decided solely by the individual states. There's the revolution!
Post a Comment