I see a lot of posters, especially after the Blue State vs Red State venting, talk about giving states more power and more money instead of the federal government. Gay marriage and Gun Laws have been said to be better dealt by State laws.
Information/Opinion: So overall… have US state governments been good administrators ? Have they dealt well with their local problems ? Have they helped economic development ? (Not only in comparison with the federal govt.)(Arnold I guess is not a good example either… being recent)
Which States governors have tended to do less well ? Better ? Why ? Historically ?
Finally… what if states are in fact strengthened considerably to the detriment of the federal government… what would be the consequences ? Short and very Long term ? (Would some become more empoverished… without federal money ?)
Is greater independence better ?
(Background: The first time I heard the suggestion of empowering state governments… my reaction was negative… but then in Brazil the local state bosses, especially what would be termed “red states” here, tend to be the most corrupt. So I’m curious to how american governors are.)
Oh come now. You get Toledo as a prize and call it a victory?
Being a state worker, I think state governments are pretty efficient and should have more power in infrastructure matters. As it is now, “donor” states give a bundle of money to Washington for highways and get only some of it back with restrictions on how to spend it. I’d personally like to see things like the highway program taken from the feds and let the states gather and spend their own money.
It wouldn’t have to be the case that states raise all their own revenue. Many countries have intergovernmental grants that allow states to decide spending from federally collected taxes. Some - Australia being the most sophisticated example - collect the bulk of taxes federally and redistribute money to the states based partly on “need”. So if you thought states were better attuned to the preferences of citizens (which is the major argument in favour of devolution), a system of horizontal fiscal equalisation could be employed. I doubt it would fly in the US, though.
When considering these things its always important to remember that the competence or otherwise of sub-national governments should not be presumed constant over large changes in power. A dumb government in a poor state might be a sensible response to a situation of little responsiblity and lots of handout. Governance might improve rather rapidly if real responsibilities were granted.
In MASSACHUSETTS, the state government is a bloated monster, that seems to be getting bigger all the time. The legislature is run by entrenched political hacks, who regularly IGNORE the electorate. Take the House: the Speaker of the House just resigned…to take a $500K/year job repesenting the biotechnology/drug industry! He was a dictator…if you voted against his wishes, you would find yourself banished to a basement office. Similarly, the Senate was ledby a long-term politician (Billy Bulger)…same story…any move to reform anything was quashed by Bulger. The main problem? The democratic party has had a hammerlock on the legislature for 50+ years-people are too stupid to vote Republican. I like to remind these dolts of this when the leagislature hikes taxes!
Oh, and the MA Supreme Court are all ex-legislators…that doesn’t help.
Every time the people TRY to take democracy into their own hands, the SC finds a way to invalidate referendums!
Forme, reform would include:
-term limits
-a 5 -month session for the legislature
-barring ex-legislators from becoming judges
-scrapping the senate…Nevbraska gets along fine with just one house!
I’d lasolike to have citizen’s committees in the leguislature, to keep the hacks from pulling stunts like passing bills after midnight, and other tricks!
I submit that West Virginia’s government is the worst of the 50 states.
Our leaders, in general, do not care about the people they represent. They are out for themselves. They rob the people blind and then do whatever special interest groups tell them (especially unions). The best interests of the state and citizens is immaterial.
The problems WV had 70 years ago are the same problems we have today, only magnified. Terrible schools. Too many high school dropouts. No jobs. Hostile business environment. No real tax base, despite having some of the highest taxes in the country. No real safety net for the disabled. Almost no help for those who WOULD work, but just need a little bit of help getting on their feet. Sharply declining AND aging population. Pitiful college graduation rates. The roads suck. No legislative help for doctors who are victims of a lottery mentality in this state, so they leave.
Instead of doing what needs to be done to improve things (better schools, more incentives to stay in school, etc.), they just expand gambling a little more. Then the crime rates go up. Not enough cops, you say? Doh. Oh well, let’s build another Super Wal-Mart. Look, West Virginians! Jobs! Never mind that Wal-Mart won’t pay taxes and only offers $6 an hour with no benefits.
And yes, I do blame the Democrats for it, because they are the ones that have been in charge for the past 70 years. Did they have good intentions? Absolutely. Have they delivered? No.
Republicans are only now starting to be seen as valid candidates and are finally getting into office. If things still suck after they have had a shot at running the state, we’ll know they suck too.
Ideally, the states could be seen as 50 labrotories for experimentation: a state enacts something new, time passes. The experiment works or doesn’t. The other states can copy things that work, avoid things that don’t.
This doesn’t seem to happen, however. I’m not sure why. Is it that state govt officials pay no attention to what other states do? Or because the Fed govt overrules anything radical a state may try (such as medical marijuana)?