alfadriver wrote:
In reply to SVreX:
So the safety net that we have isn't good enough... Does that mean it should be more and easier? As far as I can tell, it's hard for the reason you found- get people off of it ASAP.
As for the rest- how do you have "some" for any of the other questions?
Some pollution protection? What gets to be allowed?
Some roads? Which ones should be left to go back to nature?
Some schools? Who gets educated and who does not?
Some sewers? Some water? How do you partially do that?
Some commerce rules? Which ones should be scaled back?
Some worker protections? Should we scale back on workplace safety rules, and let people get fired for no reason at all?
People running for office claim they want to do that all the time- but never, ever come up with specifics. I'm 100% for looking at laws to make sure they are effective- scaling back the parts that are useless. But just saying you want "less government" without being specific is pretty useless.
What it is SPECIFICALLY that we let government over manage our lives?
Once we get that, then we can figure out why that law/rule is in place in the first place. All laws/rules have a source/reason. Someone's rights were taken away in one form or another- thus a law to protect them.
Your list is a hodge podge of things that should or should not be dealt with at the Federal level. It's a really important distinction.
"Government" is both, but Toyman's comments were specifically regarding the Federal government. Without that separation, it's pretty hard to answer your question.
So, this is what "some" means:
Commerce: it is the Federal government's job to guide interstate commerce, and international relations. "Commerce" as a general statement is not their job, and they need to get their mitts off attempting to regulate local commerce. I think we could lump several things into that pot, such as minimum wage, benefits, employment law, etc.
Sewers: this is not something I know much about, but again, I see it as a local, not Federal issue. Water is sometimes different- aquifers cross state boundaries, and impact interstate relations. Therefore, the Feds sometimes have a role.
Pollution: Almost ways has an impact beyond local. It is generally an interstate issue, or an international one, so the Federal government has a role. But their role should be to guide the relations between the entities, not mandate the solutions which are not always functional at the local levels.
Schools: honestly, I'm torn. My liberal upbringing makes me want to believe that our country would be stronger with quality education for all. Unfortunately, the Federal government is exceptionally good at giving us programs like "No Child Left Behind", and it is clear to me that they are incapable of effecting positive change at the local levels. So, after decades of consideration, I think they should not be involved in education. They can, however, encourage approaches and resources that address issues that impact our National educational well-being. (BTW, I was raised in an area that was rated in the top ten in the nation for education, and currently live and raise my children in one of the worst in the country, so I have some varied experiences).
Roads: some are Federal highways, some are state, some are local. So, my answer "some" is quite adequate. Dirt roads are not so bad.
Worker protections: these are already so out of balance they are pathetic. Minimum wage of $15 per hour may sound like a low bar to people who live in Seattle, but it is way above the median income in some rural areas. A Federal approach to this creates imbalance, and skews economies. Safety is also ridiculous. I have had 3 injuries recently because of PPE's I was required to wear that make my job more difficult. Ron White is unfortunately right on this one- "You can't fix stupid". My jobs are about 30% more expensive because of Federal worker regulations that do not understand how we actually DO the work and get things done. They are promoting the use of illegal workers and "creative" employment practices because the guidelines are so foolish, and so pitiful at recognizing the loopholes they create.
So, bottom line, "Some". The Federal government is much too big to understand the dynamics and nuances of what needs to happen at the local level to encourage growth and healthy environments.
Most of what they propagate makes some sense in urban areas, or government projects, or high density populations, but it doesn't make sense to a lot of real people in the real world.
Hope that helps.
)
