It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"Maybe the resolution came out of ALEC. If not them, some other ideology group with lots of friends in the states. You know, some donor or irritating constit. gets hopped up about this, it looks both harmless and virtuous, so the path of least resistance is to introduce it. GOP bodies that lean conservative will pass these (voice vote only), and more statist bodies won't. Bottom line: Nothing changes anywhere.
The relevence to this resolution: Meaningless resolutions are one of the many tools members of the political class use to keep the boobs mystified while they play enablers to the continuing operations and growth of the welfare/regulatory state. Opsommer (sponsor of the resolution) is better than most of his class, and I don't mean to pick on him, but at heart he's still a believer in the welfare state, and he thinks the concept of genuine limited government is obsolete (and that people who promote it are weird).
I've become very cynical about this kind of position-taking not because it's practitioners are (necessarily) bad people (rather than misguided), but because the people vs. the political class concept suggests that restoring true representative government requires a very different approach. Frankly, we're still trying to figure out what that approach is.
...We need to create a "shared grievance" that ties together the hundreds and thousands of smaller facts that our movement will have exposed and pursued regarding the failures, dishonesties and dysfunctions of government. Under a people vs. the political class model, all of these discrete stories become part of an overarching meta-narrative - but that narrative is not, "Government is and always will be incompetent." Instead, the refrain becomes, "That's the kind of thing that happens when people lose control of their government."
Originally posted by bpg131313
reply to post by orangetom1999
That's all the more reason for States to declare their sovereignty. I know it's coming down the road, we're spending way to much and this "stimulus" bill is growing more by the day. It's absurd. At this point I almost relish the idea of a federal collapse so the States can start doing things on their own. If we keep this union, we'll have to ensure that safeguards are in place to severely limit spending by the federal government.
As things exist today though, I'd rather the States handle their business themselves.
Originally posted by jtma508
Also, regarding the states' tax issues, you'd be floored by how much of a state's budget is required to be spent on federal programs. It's staggering. And the states have no idea where this money actually goes.
As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.
So far, eight states have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, including Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington.
Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
Senate, House eye different stimuli priorities
It's not just Republicans vs. Democrats; each chamber has different focus
WASHINGTON - The Senate agreement on a roughly $827 billion economic stimulus bill sets up tough negotiations with the House primarily over tens of billions of dollars in aid to states and local governments, tax provisions, and education, health and renewable energy programs.
But the competing bills now reflect substantially different approaches. The House puts greater emphasis on helping states and localities avoid wide-scale cuts in services and layoffs of public employees, while the Senate cut $40 billion of that type of aid from its bill.
Originally posted by whatukno
Yes because the first civil war wasn't bad enough. Let's start up a new civil war. GREAT idea!
You know how Obama got elected? He did it by uniting people towards a goal. To change our government we must collectively do the same, not threaten to secede from the union. We as Americans must stand united against our government and say "STOP ROBING OUR TREASURY!"
letter writing, phone calls, emails, YouTube videos. A collective effort on the part of the majority of Americans that voted for change and are seeing more and more of the same. We the people hold the power, We the people are the United States, it's damn time for us to remember that.