Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In his article about the lessons to be learned from the US Census, Michael Barone recalls Justice Louis Brandeis' statement that the states are the laboratories of reform, and concludes that the 2010 Census tells us which state experiment worked best. His answer is Texas.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 010_census" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some snippets from Barone's article:

"The lesson is that high taxes and strong public employee unions tend to stifle growth and produce a two-tier society like coastal California's."

"The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent."

"The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent."

"The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent."

States work best when intrusion by the federals is kept to a minimum. The best government for home......IS home.

So who is the one so far who has voted against Barone's analysis?

Do you care to offer an alternative analysis of your own?

Barone usually analyzes things pretty thoroughly, and he's not an ideologue. Somehow, I sense that TTBF will rise from the primordial Donk ooze and challenge that statement.

I agree with Justice Brandeis - the states are the "laboratories of democracy" in fact, it's not even really disputable - this is clearly demonstrable.

I disagree with Barone's conclusion that simple growth is a satisfactory measure of positive outcomes. While I would never suggest that coastal California is a model for success either... because it isn't - I would suggest that measuring "success" by growth alone is mistake.

California's problems aren't a problem of one party control or another - but rather a problem of direct democracy. California has handcuffed itself with silly-ass referendums that force the hands of legislators... mandating funding for after school programs, and a dozen other niceties - meanwhile stripping the state of any authority to raise revenues without yet another referendum... it's a recipe for the budget shit-mess they are in. it's not partisan so much as it is the disproving of the "wisdom of crowds" notion.

Texas is growing, and rapidly. You can chalk it up to many things - conks will tell you it's things like weak unions and low taxes... I would counter that it would seem more likely that its a) proximity to Mexico (ripple effects of NAFTA and also immigration b) the explosive growth of the energy industry c) warm weather and aging boomers looking for semi-retirement and d) the huge influx from the gulf coast following Katrina

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I agree with Justice Brandeis - the states are the "laboratories of democracy" in fact, it's not even really disputable - this is clearly demonstrable.

I disagree with Barone's conclusion that simple growth is a satisfactory measure of positive outcomes. While I would never suggest that coastal California is a model for success either... because it isn't - I would suggest that measuring "success" by growth alone is mistake.

California's problems aren't a problem of one party control or another - but rather a problem of direct democracy. California has handcuffed itself with silly-ass referendums that force the hands of legislators... mandating funding for after school programs, and a dozen other niceties - meanwhile stripping the state of any authority to raise revenues without yet another referendum... it's a recipe for the budget shit-mess they are in. it's not partisan so much as it is the disproving of the "wisdom of crowds" notion.

Texas is growing, and rapidly. You can chalk it up to many things - conks will tell you it's things like weak unions and low taxes... I would counter that it would seem more likely that its a) proximity to Mexico (ripple effects of NAFTA and also immigration b) the explosive growth of the energy industry c) warm weather and aging boomers looking for semi-retirement and d) the huge influx from the gulf coast following Katrina

I would expect you to be against "silly ass referendums" because you and your ilk have never respected what is the will of the people. The people of California have time after time expressed their will at the ballot box on issues that are controversial, services for illegal mexicans, schmeckle nuzzlers getting married, etc etc and the losers, you are an example of a loser, run to federal court and get injunctions blocking what the PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN ON THROUGH THE BALLOT.

citdog wrote:States work best when intrusion by the federals is kept to a minimum. The best government for home......IS home.

Try living in Utah or Idaho.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: California's problems aren't a problem of one party control or another - but rather a problem of direct democracy. California has handcuffed itself with silly-ass referendums that force the hands of legislators... mandating funding for after school programs, and a dozen other niceties - meanwhile stripping the state of any authority to raise revenues without yet another referendum... it's a recipe for the budget shit-mess they are in. it's not partisan so much as it is the disproving of the "wisdom of crowds" notion.

Yeah, Democracy sucks. Who knew a Democrat feared the tyranny of the majority?

Cluck U wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: California's problems aren't a problem of one party control or another - but rather a problem of direct democracy. California has handcuffed itself with silly-ass referendums that force the hands of legislators... mandating funding for after school programs, and a dozen other niceties - meanwhile stripping the state of any authority to raise revenues without yet another referendum... it's a recipe for the budget shit-mess they are in. it's not partisan so much as it is the disproving of the "wisdom of crowds" notion.

Yeah, Democracy sucks. Who knew a Democrat feared the tyranny of the majority?

we live in a republic for a reason. direct democracy reduces our politics even further to bumper sticker politics... and that's bad enough as it is - without having major issues decided by boiling down complicated and nuanced policy debates to "you're an america hater who supports terrorists!" or "you just hate children"

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: we live in a republic for a reason. direct democracy reduces our politics even further to bumper sticker politics... and that's bad enough as it is - without having major issues decided by boiling down complicated and nuanced policy debates to "you're an america hater who supports terrorists!" or "you just hate children"

Yeah, those major issues get really stupid when one side says, "the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them." - Matt Taibbi

Good to see that even you recognize your ignorance.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Yeah, Democracy sucks. Who knew a Democrat feared the tyranny of the majority?

we live in a republic for a reason. direct democracy reduces our politics even further to bumper sticker politics... and that's bad enough as it is - without having major issues decided by boiling down complicated and nuanced policy debates to "you're an america hater who supports terrorists!" or "you just hate children"

Because the average citizen is too stupid to understand a "nuanced policy debate" correct? we need politicians and party hacks to have them for us. Contrary to your parties 'solid base' who you have made slaves of with the entitlements SOME of us poor little folks know what the hell is going on.

biobengal wrote:

citdog wrote:States work best when intrusion by the federals is kept to a minimum. The best government for home......IS home.

Try living in Utah or Idaho.

I'm not a big fan of foreign travel.

I did not read the posts, but the Federalist papers have three issues for protecting federalism as it pertains to federal and state legislative power(point 3 obviously)

Justification for protecting states from federal intrustions (Federalism)
a. The division of power vertically, between federal and state governments, lessens the chance of federal tyranny.
b. The states are closer to the people and thus more likely to be responsive to public needs and concerns.
c. The states can serve as laboratories for experimentation.

Then we went far away from that in the Lochner era of the commerce clause power, but its still an interesting theory pre and post Lochner.

dgreco wrote:I did not read the posts, but the Federalist papers have three issues for protecting federalism as it pertains to federal and state legislative power(point 3 obviously)

Justification for protecting states from federal intrustions (Federalism)
a. The division of power vertically, between federal and state governments, lessens the chance of federal tyranny.
b. The states are closer to the people and thus more likely to be responsive to public needs and concerns.
c. The states can serve as laboratories for experimentation.

Then we went far away from that in the Lochner era of the commerce clause power, but its still an interesting theory pre and post Lochner.

no those FOUNDING PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT ended when their defenders stacked their arms at Appomattox Court House. in case you didn't hear about it here is a link.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/Chamberlainappomattomax.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;