US politics

[TrackerNeil]

Lev,

Hell, I'd do away with state bloc grants and mandates altogether. If the Feds want something done let them attempt to administer it themselves instead of pushing it off on the States to do for them.

Why Ser Scot...how very non-states'-right of you. ;)

[The Progressive]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_care_appointment

I don't know how we could reduce the deficit in Medicare & Medicaid with these sort of odious opposition from the Republicans in Congress.

"It's unfortunate that at a time when our nation is facing enormous challenges, many in Congress have decided to delay critical nominations for political purposes," Obama said in a statement Wednesday. "These recess appointments will allow three extremely qualified candidates to get to work on behalf of the American people right away."

Republicans have seized on comments like one Berwick made to an interviewer last year: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

Republicans say that shows Berwick would deny needed care based on cost. Supporters contend rationing already is done by insurance companies and Berwick simply wants transparency and accountability in medical decisions.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev, Tracker,

It does away with the fiction that States hve much left in the way of real power. It exposes the real level of involvement and control the Feds have in our lives and businesses.

Hereward,

I hope you don't get downsized.

[TrackerNeil]

Which neatly coincided with the financial crisis and bailout.

It's interesting to note that you can hear Fox News commentators call it "Obama's bailout", reflecting a widely held belief that TARP was the brainchild of the 44th president.

[The Progressive]

Lev, Tracker,

It does away with the fiction that States hve much left in the way of real power. It exposes the real level of involvement and control the Feds have in our lives and businesses.

What control in our lives and businesses are those, Scot?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Gosh Lev, you ought to read the Omnivore's Delimma for a short list. And that's just food from small farms.

[Ser Vlad]

How about that whole thing you guys have going on with Quebec? And doesn't Alberta, for example, look differently on some issues than Ontario?

There are regional differences, but the issue is with the role of the federal government versus the provincial. In America, I get the impression that people believe that legitimate authority should involve the states exclusively, and the federal government should be implicated only in external matters.

The issues in Canada are very different. Quebec is a decades-long conflict over whether or not they are a unique society, and what exactly that entitles them to. They speak a different language, have a different legal system (civil law, instead of common law) and all things considered are one of the biggest entitlement programs in the federal government. Quebec wants less federal legistlation over Quebec so they can be quintessentially french (including occasionally pushing for unconstitutional language legislation), but they most certainly want federal tax dollars flowing into the province. Quebec has highly subsidized education for their own citizens, highly subsidized insurance, all of which come from equalization payments that are made not only on the basis of have/have-not provinces but also along protecting Quebec's francophone culture. To put it bluntly, Quebec wants an incredibly unequal arrangement with the rest of Canada; it's partly why they didn't ratify the Charter.

Alberta's primary issue is that the federal government has been too focused on central Canada (Quebec/Ontario). Alberta wants less federal regulation on things like nautral resources, but their issue is not so much "state rights" as it is a perception of unfair treatment. They see Quebec as a massive entitlemnt program that syphons wealth from Alberta, and are against equalization payments between provinces along those same lines. It is not so much that they are against the federal government as they feel that the federal government is against them. Western Canada wants less federal power not because of a philosophical commitment so much as they think Quebec and Eastern Canada is screwing them and see an even more deregulated federal government as the only solution.

The thing is, our federalism is pretty decentralized. For example, education is almost exclusively provincial. This is why you have pronvinces with provincially-funded religious schools. We also have really fun things like a technically broader equivalent to the commerce clause that is actually far more narrowly interpreted.

The difference with the US is that there isn't, and has never been, this idea that the provinces were ever distinct state-like entities or should ever be seen or governed as such. This is the best way I can put it. Alberta's beef is mainly Quebec, and Quebec's beef is that they deserve special treatment. They want the federal government structured so to best achieve that.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

A very good and fascinating blog article about how federal bailouts are connected to drug-money laundering, the war on terror and the war on drugs, centered around a North Carolina man whose only crime was to deposit his legally-obtained money in a bank in amounts which the goverment considers offensive. A bit of a long read, but worth it.

[Galactus]

How about that whole thing you guys have going on with Quebec? And doesn't Alberta, for example, look differently on some issues than Ontario?

Like most non-american socities it seems to be more a periphery/centre dynamic than anything else.

The poor, sparsely populated areas that tends to provide a lot of natural resources vs. the rich, urban growth regions.

Really, every country has these tensions.

[The Progressive]

Gosh Lev, you ought to read the Omnivore's Delimma for a short list. And that's just food from small farms.

So just like commodore, you're perfectly capable of inspecting and maintaining your own safety standard on any food products you consumed?

[Galactus]

Legalize marijuana, then regulate and tax the hell out of it. They'd make a fortune.

Not really. These kinds of point-taxes might be helpful, but they *really* don't change the overall budgetary situation much: That depends on the big taxes (income, property, corporate...) not these minor ones.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

No, I didn't say that. However, I think it's wron for the FDA to push farmers who don't want to farm industrially to use industrial meat processing because small slaughterhouses don't kill enough animals to justify puttin an inspector there. Thus, puttin the small organic slaughterhouse out of business. I'd rather have the option to buy there or at the farm which the FDA will not allow if the meat is processed on the farm.

[The Progressive]

A very good and fascinating blog article about how federal bailouts are connected to drug-money laundering, the war on terror and the war on drugs, centered around a North Carolina man whose only crime was to deposit his legally-obtained money in a bank in amounts which the goverment considers offensive. A bit of a long read, but worth it.

Lol, I like how this libertarian rag used the pix from the film "no country for old man" ........ that was a nice touch.

Apparently johnny gaskins was an attorney of some sort ............ I'm curious as to how he amassed $450,000 in cash though.

[TerraPrime]

The fiscal conservatism seems like a shell game to me. It's never about true fiscal discipline or austerity, because those politicians who champion those values for real will never get elected. I think it's cute that people want a government with no waste. Show me a private or public entity with more than 1,00 employees that has "no waste" and then we'll talk. This talk of cutting waste and trimming spending makes for a convenient club to wield for those who're dissatisfied with the current administration, but it's all hot air and no substance.

While I also bemoan the easy-to-purchase politicians of the U.S., I also see this as something we cannot change. It is a product of the over-riding philosophy of the U.S. - individualism. People look out for themselves, and they value individual rights over collective rights. These politicians are products of this culture, and so that's they way they are. You can't on one hand fan the fervor flames of rugged individualism while on the other hand expect the appearance of a cache of selfless leaders willing to promote good for the public. It does not compute. In other words, you cannot in one breath demand tax cuts so you can retain more of your earned money at and ask that the politicians forego pork projects and frivolous spending for political gains. The politicians are doing what you're doing, in essence, so don't throw stones.

If we have cars, we will have car accidents, and some deaths. If we let people own handguns, there'll be violence related to handguns, and some accidents. If we pursue rugged individualism and capitalism, there will be corruption and selfish interests taking over the public policy. We'll just have to deal with it the best we can, as long as we agree that the over all benefit still outweighs the cost.

So, that's why I think "fiscal conservatism" is about as meaningful as "war on poverty." Both make easy-to-rally flags, but neither of them is realistic.

[The Progressive]

Lev,

No, I didn't say that. However, I think it's wron for the FDA to push farmers who don't want to farm industrially to use industrial meat processing because small slaughterhouses don't kill enough animals to justify puttin an inspector there. Thus, puttin the small organic slaughterhouse out of business. I'd rather have the option to buy there or at the farm which the FDA will not allow if the meat is processed on the farm.

Scot,

Before we continue further discussions about the certification process for organic farming, could you provide a link or two about the specific regulations that you claimed above?

ETA: nevermind Scot, I found it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599784/

I think you would agree with the suggestions for modifying the process for small farms as highlighted in that article. However, did you know that there are at least 36 states where state agencies implement their own inspection systems in tandem with the federal system?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There are regional differences, but the issue is with the role of the federal government versus the provincial. In America, I get the impression that people believe that legitimate authority should involve the states exclusively, and the federal government should be implicated only in external matters.

The issues in Canada are very different. Quebec is a decades-long conflict over whether or not they are a unique society, and what exactly that entitles them to. They speak a different language, have a different legal system (civil law, instead of common law) and all things considered are one of the biggest entitlement programs in the federal government. Quebec wants less federal legistlation over Quebec so they can be quintessentially french (including occasionally pushing for unconstitutional language legislation), but they most certainly want federal tax dollars flowing into the province. Quebec has highly subsidized education for their own citizens, highly subsidized insurance, all of which come from equalization payments that are made not only on the basis of have/have-not provinces but also along protecting Quebec's francophone culture. To put it bluntly, Quebec wants an incredibly unequal arrangement with the rest of Canada; it's partly why they didn't ratify the Charter.

Alberta's primary issue is that the federal government has been too focused on central Canada (Quebec/Ontario). Alberta wants less federal regulation on things like nautral resources, but their issue is not so much "state rights" as it is a perception of unfair treatment. They see Quebec as a massive entitlemnt program that syphons wealth from Alberta, and are against equalization payments between provinces along those same lines. It is not so much that they are against the federal government as they feel that the federal government is against them. Western Canada wants less federal power not because of a philosophical commitment so much as they think Quebec and Eastern Canada is screwing them and see an even more deregulated federal government as the only solution.

The thing is, our federalism is pretty decentralized. For example, education is almost exclusively provincial. This is why you have pronvinces with provincially-funded religious schools. We also have really fun things like a technically broader equivalent to the commerce clause that is actually far more narrowly interpreted.

The difference with the US is that there isn't, and has never been, this idea that the provinces were ever distinct state-like entities or should ever be seen or governed as such. This is the best way I can put it. Alberta's beef is mainly Quebec, and Quebec's beef is that they deserve special treatment. They want the federal government structured so to best achieve that.

The federalism argument in the U.S., in terms of policy not constitutionally, is really just a surrogate for less v. more government in general. Theoretically, the argument is that the states should be able to take over for a lot of the stuff the feds do. But as a practical matter, I think many people who espouse federalism would oppose that stuff even if states were to take it over. They just want less government/taxation period, and the most logical place to start is with the level of government that currently plays the largest role.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

I'm relying upon Michael Pollan's account of Polyface Farm's attempt to process beef and hogs plus his account of a friend of the owner of Polyface Farm who is attempting to open a slaughterhouse specializing in small farm grass raised beef that had its inspector pulled shortly after opening because they weren't killing enough cattle (which was sort of the point). Mr. Pollan makes no citation to regulations in his book The Omnivore's Delimma. But given the author's reputation I don't have any reason to question his account of these events. Are you suggesting Mr. Pollan is lieing or being lied to?

[The Progressive]

Lev,

I'm relying upon Michael Pollan's account of Polyface Farm's attempt to process beef and hogs plus his account of a friend of the owner of Polyface Farm who is attempting to open a slaughterhouse specializing in small farm grass raised beef that had its inspector pulled shortly after opening because they weren't killing enough cattle (which was sort of the point). Mr. Pollan makes no citation to regulations in his book The Omnivore's Delimma. But given the author's reputation I don't have any reason to question his account of these events. Are you suggesting Mr. Pollan is lieing or being lied to?

If Mr. Pollan isn't lying, then he's a dupe for giving too much credibility to "friend of the owner of Polyface Farm" because "under the HACCP system, each processor identifies the points in its operation at which health risks might occur, then takes steps to monitor and contain those risks". The number of animals slaughered is irrelevant. In fact, "Karlease Kelly, head of the Office of Outreach, Education and Employee Training at FSIS, says her agency does not mandate specific controls or methods for inclusion in HACCP plans. Instead, plants develop plans that fit their business model. She says, “One of the primary strengths of the HACCP approach is that it allows the industry to find innovative ways to approach food safety, making plants responsible for their own systems.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599784/

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Republicans (and a few centrist Democrats) just voted down extending unemployment benefits during the greatest period of unemployment in most people's lifetimes. This would have cost money, to be sure. An utterly inconsequentially small amount of money.

If it was so inconsequential, it should have been easy for Dems to finance it by cutting some spending elsewhere, which is the only demand the GOP made in exchange for supporting it. Apparently, though, the Administration was unwilling to cut an inconsequential amount of money from its budget, and would rather have people go without unemployment instead.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

I think you and I both know that what should happen under regulatory schemes and what does happen are a curves people try to bring as close as possible but that rarely meet. Mr. Salitin's friend could be telling truth and just fighting his way through the bureacratic morasse to get the FDA to do what it should have done to begin with. This is another reason why heavy regulation favors large businesses. Large businesses have the time and capital to fight when bureacrats refuse to do their jobs. Whereas most small businesses simply don't have those means and when they run into the cog (bureacrat)that refuses to turn they are shit out of luck.