That is basically the way the U.S. as a whole works now. States set the vast majority of their own highway rules outside of the interstate system and even then, they have some degree of freedom. They just happen to converge on the same types of solutions because it is dumb not to and they work with neighboring governments. I didn’t say anything about raw science or the FDA. Harmful levels of e. coli can be handled nationally because meat distributors operate nationally.
The overall point is to keep things at the lowest level of government possible. It isn’t good for the federal government to build policies on the types of lifestock you can keep at home because some people live in Manhattan and some live in Montana. It also isn’t wise to establish national water conservation policies when some areas are literally swimming in water and some are in a drought.
You are basically arguing against the U.S. as it works now which will take more than a few truckloads of Che Guevara to make much headway on.
So if I propose a national water distribution program that allows us to maximize arable land around the country with the ability to adapt to climate change, that should be handled at the state level?
How about disease control? Do we leave that up to states or do we define it as a national defense problem?
How do we handle state emergencies that are too big for the affected state to handle? Do we solve the problem ad hoc, leave the state on its own, or is it legitimate to have a national response capability?
And this is the question I never get answered: when you have megacorps with bigger influence and resources than some states, who intervenes when said corps become the monkey on the state’s back?
What do we do about regulating the finance industry? Repealing Glass-Stegal didn’t work out too well. I shudder to think how the States individually would have responded to the global economic crisis.
Heck, what about currency? Maybe each State should have it’s own currency (in case it is not gold, that is)? And determining citizenship should be a State thing, as well as recognizing the citizenship of other States? Or would this make the US of A look too much like Europe?
Why would you think that a fiscal conservative would say that the Federal government can’t establish a national currency? It’s in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 under the enumerated powers if you care to look it up.
There are people all over the spectrum calling themselves fiscal conservatives. I’m not sure if those States proposing their own gold backed currencies are led by fiscal conservatives - it’s tough to keep track.
Trying to pin down what a “fiscal conservative” broadly can be defined at is difficult for the rest of us. There is the basic tenet of being “for smaller government, and that private sector is more efficient at almost everything than the government sector.” But when you try to get to specifics like what President was a good example of a fiscal conservative, or why fiscal conservatives were so shy and quiet during the Bush years, or what is an example where the government should be bigger, or how to prevent another global economic meltdown, there is little substance.
No one is an advocate of long-term deficit spending. Obama’s scary predictions were made to make clear that structural solutions are needed , and certainly not to suggest that long-term deficits are a solution. (If you don’t see yours as an attack-a-strawman argument, I’d be curious where you get your news.)
AFAIK the only politicians advocating that the Federal government pursue suicide as an objective are the lunatic Teabaggers like Congressman Joe Walsh, who wants to shut down government because “this country needs to crash.”
Understanding the past is a key to influencing the future. I’m disappointed you were unable to give a less equivocal answer to the question: Which Party was responsible for increasing Federal debt? It was Dick Cheney who said “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.” It was the Democrats who provided every single affirmative vote on the 1993 budget that led to the surpluses of that decade.
Do we have serious fiscal problems? Definitely yes. Is the solution to save money by laying off even more federal regulators and cutting back on the tsunami warning system? I don’t think so. The lunatic right-wing fringe does seem to think so. How about you, jtgain ?
The things that really couldn’t be done if people weren’t forced to do it. A government (and I mean any government, not just the federal government) should only do those things that are necessary for a government to do. In my mind these things include protection from external and internal enemies and providing a basic non-gameable safety net for the poorest citizens. And I’m not too offended by governments being in charge of roads based on the impracticality of all roads being private.
“failing to protect its borders makes the whole idea of a government rather stupid.”
Protecting its borders is a necessary thing for a government to do because any government worth the name is charged with protecting its citizens from invaders.
(Now, on immigration policy, I favor extremely secure borders with extremely easy ways for those who aren’t criminals or terrorists to settle here and make a life for themselves.)
So as you think it through you begin to make exceptions to your hitherto absolutist viewpoint and suddenly your position is not so different from… uh, people who don’t necessarily identify as fiscal conservatives.
But of course there are a lot of factors to take into account as move from a basic abstract philosophy to a workable policy. One of my favorites is the birth rate and the implications for fiscal conservatism of the government suppressing family planning.
But the wrinkled old elephant that smells like pee in the room is the question of what to do about the elderly. They appear to be consuming the lion’s share of the budget (or the elephant’s share, rather). Would fiscal conservatives support, say, sharply curtailing Medicare coverage as retirees get older (read: death panels)? Or is that too nuanced for today’s fiscal conservative?
Hell, according to Rand’s philosophy, the government getting involved in family planning at all is social conservatism, not fiscal. Different animal that just happen to be sharing a doghouse at the moment.
As for Medicare, again, it depends on whether the economies of scale in medical care are worth the government getting involved. Rand would probably say to scrap it.
All you have to do is imagine wiping the government slate clean and then ask yourself, “what is the minimum I need to pay in to keep myself safe?” Oh and not really put much thought into it so the number stays low.
That’s how you get “as much as it takes to keep me safe” fiscal conservatism. Blank check there, “keep your hands off me and out of my pockets” everywhere else.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, either. There’s a spectrum of opinions, and the biggest single issue I see with fiscal conservatism is that it’s too often cross-pollinated with social conservatism such that the only stuff that gets funded is ideas from the latter.
Public health care is a big money-saver, but I don’t think economy of scale is the reason.
Many times I’ve wished people addressing economic questions would just ignore everything they think they know about economics’ complexities and instead pretend they’re organizing a community on a desert island. You’d want doctors and nurses in your community. Would you consider it productive to also appoint a large number of people whose only function was to deny needed medical care?
Public health care is a big money-saver, but I don’t think economy of scale is the reason.