| Monday, November 24, 2008 - 04:29 pm |
Okay.... This thread has been hijacked... If you guys want, I'll make the effort to start an entirely new England vs. Scotland thread for you...
As far as our discussion here, I may have not made this clear in my first post but I'm only addressing changes in the state governments and how they affect state matters (budget, laws, gov't efficiency, etc...). I'm not talking about changing federal or local.
"It would be impossible. Laws vary dramtically between states."
Of course it's not impossible, it's just highly improbable that it would ever happen. I understand the differences in laws between states but people move from one state to another all of the time. Laws are usually not a factor in that. There are only a few states with highly controversial laws. That would just have to be dealt with using the democratic system.
"New Hampshire has no Income tax, for example, compared to the rest of new england, which does. The economy of massachusetts is based on high tech industries, while maine is based on fishing and logging. Connecticut has a high finance history, while Rhode Island is a maritime state. Funding for schools varies from state to state, often dramatically. Etc etc etc."
I think it would be a perfect opportunity for states to rewrite their constitutions, tax codes, laws, etc. Nobody should have to pay anymore in taxes than they are now. If anything you should be paying less because of the whole economies of scale principle.
This isn't a topic of whether it will happen or whether we could convince people to vote for it. Just what your opinion of
"Our government is federalist. Means that we have a layering of responsibilities. Because of that, at each layer, each section of the layer does things dramatically different."
We're not talking about changing the type or function of government..... just consolidation of states. Of course there could be a discussion of the inefficiencies of government, but that would be an entirely separate topic we could spend a lifetime on.
"i very much beleive in local goverment, and i that should not be taken from me. redividing the country into larger states, will just allow populated zones like NYC, LA, ect to enforce policies that don't work in rural areas... if this is a theoretical discussion, i'm very much against it..."
I don't see how local government would be affected if this were to happen. In fact, if the new state borders were drawn to have roughly equal populations, California would be split up and N. Cali would probably go somewhere with the Northwest. Also, if this were to happen there would be no need for an electoral college (because populations would be similar) and you wouldn't have to worry about red or blue states.
All, we're talking about changing is state government.
"it seems the bigger the "government" becomes, the less likely my veiws are reflected in it... "
This would actually reduce the size of government.
"redividing the united states would only speed that process, for a few extra dollars, that i wouldn't see..."
Well, this is under the assumption that consolidation would be so that it would reduce the costs. So that should either allow countries to balance their budgets without raising taxes, or to reduce their taxes.
I personally don't think that's too far of an assumption to make. It's exactly what businesses do all of the time in order to reduce costs.
I agree that it will never happen. No argument there. I even stated in my initial post. As for there being too many other pressing issues, I believe that the most pressing of them all is the economy. We're talking about raising taxes and government interference (with socialistic tones) in business to solve our economic woes when we should be looking for ways to reduce costs. This would certainly address that.
As for Texas, I think it would stand as a model for size and population that we are going for, especially if we were to go with the 13 states idea. It's the only state that I wouldn't touch.