"Fed Up with Federalism," by Harold Meyerson, in American Prospect
- (How, among other things, America's commitment to states' rights is undermining our
economic recovery...) This is really an amazing article that I stumbled onto by
accident.
Meyerson points out things I hadn't realized before (I always knew
something was wrong but I couldn't figure it out) - how America has a long
history of competing interests between state and federal rights, which has
it's merits and has served us well, until recently, where it's really getting in
the way of our economic situation...
From the article:
- "The love of federalism is a sometime thing; its critics and champions switch
places depending on who is in power at which level of government. But the
problem with our allegedly ingenious federal system is not simply that half the
time, if not more, it is an effective way to protect all that is biased and unfair in
the American nation. The problem is also that federalism inherently subverts a
coherent national response to many fundamental challenges the United
States faces, at a time when other major nations -- our competitors in an
increasingly global economy -- face no such structural impediment.
- "Given the sheer size of America and the distinct cultural identity of its many
regions, federalism has always made a certain amount of sense. The
abolition of the slave trade and the legalization of gay marriage had to begin
somewhere. As the rise of national government, transportation, and media
have eroded regional identities, traditions, and isolation, however, more
conservatives than liberals have found a refuge in federalism.
- "But even though federalism is more often the refuge of reactionaries than of
visionaries, it has an even deeper flaw: setting the nation at cross-purposes
with itself, and never more so than during a recession."
We need to get to the next level of our National Identity. The term
Federalism might confuse the issue a bit. But I think Meyerson does a
great job of explaining everything... He might have meant to say, "Fed Up
with State's Rights," or "Outdated Federal Practices," I don't know, but I
think he's saying we need more Federal government not less, less
parochial interference.
What he didn't say is that we will have to do this without Obama and his
economic team because they're on the wrong side of history on this one.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
KenSmet.com
| Economics |
Including:
- Federalism
WPA
Jobs
Capitalism
WPA
put America back to work in the '30's. It's what we need now. It was a wonderful program. (Ask any great-grandparent or older person you can find what they know or remember about the WPA, CCC, and the '30's.)
else seem manageable? There are so many things we need to do, so many things we shouldn't be doing. How did we ever get this far without guaranteeing these two things?
the equivalent of a two year old in 1865, finally getting to grade school by the early 1900's, and starting puberty in the late 1920's... (That isn't a smooth Timeline, I know, maybe we took steroids after the Civil War or maybe Lincoln inspired us to get on with it, we have not evolved at a smooth even rate with exact comparisons to normal human childhood.) Anyway, all through the 1930's and 1940's - until the 1960's - there is turmoil (as with any adolescent) and starting with the 1970's things start to finally taper off... We go to college, get a job, get another job - until finally, around this time, now, or so, we begin to mature... If you can picture that - a nation and an economy being like a child growing up with a long childhood and a long life to look forward when it finally "arrives" - the only question then is, "How long are we going to live?" Some people think when you stop growing you die, but that isn't true - it's just that things start to get "technical" at this point. When a person and a nation stops growing it means you're all "grown up." You're an adult now. You can last a long time if you play your cards right. But you're not a kid anymore, and it probably makes sense that you should stop acting like one... The same thing applies to nation's and economies -- it's time for all of us to grow up.
growth, it must, if that's the criteria, die, if there's no place or no way left to "grow." When all the best spots are taken, when all the big cities are full and the fresh water supply is running out (when privatization of water supply almost sounds good and starts to make sense), when all of the available good space is packed, the market is saturated, jobs are scarce, the economy has slowed way down... How smart do you have to be to think maybe it's time to switch to something else, other than growth, as the prime mover? Maybe it's time to pin our hopes on something else and someone else other that Peter Pan who insists, "I'll never grow up!" (If I grow up I'll just die.) If growth is out of the question in the sense of how much we've grown over the past few thousand years, especially over the last two hundred years in America, maybe a new basis for our nationalism and economy should include guaranteed healthcare and a job (for anyone who wants one and needs one and to heck with anyone who doesn't want to work, but no beer or cigarette money for them). In fact, maybe no granting of money to anybody for anything - to provide them food and shelter perhaps but not money - or, if it's going to be a grant of money, at least make it enough to live on? I don't know. Let's talk about it, and decide then what makes sense. If, however, you're stuck in the mud of the past and if you're afraid you might be taxed into the poor house by any changes - you could be right. But if you have that much money, say a million dollars, do you honestly believe you actually earned every cent of all that? Is that what this struggle is all about? 95% of Americans earn less than $100,000 a year. The current salary for members of congress is $165,200 per year. Where do you think the lines should be drawn? How many millionaires can we afford? It Won't be easy to Switch It won't be easy to switch away from growth as the underlying basis for monetary wealth and power - in this country or in any country on earth (growing up is not so easy for some) - but it really is time. Everything that worked so well for us and the rest of the world in our youth, in their youth, in everyone's youth - in our long past history of growth and success that was so wonderful while it lasted and that some think should go on forever like Peter Pan - sorry, it's time to grow up. Incidentally, no matter what the rest of the world does or doesn't do about any of this, we are all growing up and maturing at different rates and the whole world economy can no longer be based on youth and growth, either. Mother Nature won't allow it. Mature societies can no longer afford it. And it really is time to put nation building and economic growth behind us. It's time to put money at the end of the food chain not the front where it's been for too long. It will only hurt for a little while. The "L" shaped curve of monetary wealth so distorted and out of whack for so long in our history has ruled the roost long enough. Reason, common sense, and majority rule not money must prevail. Incidentally, I don't think we have time to phase this in over the next thousand years... I don't know for sure what we might call this new nationalism and economic-ism (just calling it democracy in action works for me) but having intelligent and informed public debates and open discussions on what to do and how to do it should work. Then, to have an open and honest vote not sold to the highest bidder, and to abide by the outcome, we should be fine... Lewis and Clark set the example for how to do government in the winter of 1805-06, when they wisely decided to take a vote on where to spend that winter... The situation was tense. Everyone involved had to believe the proceedings were fair - they all seemed to realize that authority alone would not be enough in this situation, or should be enough to trump common sense, decency and democracy - because the simple fact was Lewis & Clark just didn't know for sure what they should do and they were willing to admit it (apparently) - I'm not certain how the discussion went or how the vote turned out exactly, but I am certain from all accounts that they let York (a slave) and Sacagawea (a woman) speak and vote, and not a member of the expedition complained or even thought to complain about it or deny those two their voice and their vote? From some accounts York and Sacagawea saved the butts of the expedition more than once and were hero's of the expedition... Imagine that! Lewis and Clark and their expedition were way ahead of their time.
nothing to do, just rolls around heaven all day." It really is hard to put a price tag on some things, or make a profit from it except in a song! "Hey buddy, can you spare a dime?" |