Texas "draws the line" against "tyrants" in Washington

[bascule]

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12227/

 

With Democrats in power for a little over 11 weeks, and apparently irate over the "federal budget mess and other problems", Texas has decided it's time to "draw the line against the sand" against those tyrants in Washington.

 

I'm a bit confused as to what exactly they're so angry about. They're asserting tenth amendment rights, but against what? The fact that the President is no longer a Republican?

 

It practically sounds as if they're threatening secession...

 

I believe the federal government has become oppressive. It’s become oppressive in its size, its intrusion in the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.

 

Texans need to ask themselves a question. Do they side with those in Washington who are pursuing this unprecedented expansion of power, or do they believe in individual rights and responsibilities laid down in our foundational documents.

 

Where’re you gonna’ stand? With an ever-growing Washington bureaucracy, or are you going to stand with the people of this state who understand the importance of state’s rights.

 

Texans need to stand up. They need to be heard, because the state of affairs that we find ourselves in cannot continue indefinitely...

 

We think it’s time to draw the line in the sand and tell Washington that no longer are we going to accept their oppressive hand in the state of Texas. That’s what this press conference, that’s what these Texans are standing up for. There is a point in time where you stand up and say enough is enough, and I think Americans, and Texans especially have reached that point.

 

Perhaps the oddest part of this all is that the "ever-growing Washington bureaucracy" was massively expanded under Bush, who also brought about an "unprecedented expansion of power" at the cost of "individual rights", but they didn't care about that, ostensibly because it was done by a Republican.

 

This could get interesting.

 

Meanwhile in Texas... a city councilman is arrested for saying something the mayor doesn't like?

Edited April 15, 2009 by bascule

[CaptainPanic]

Put a fence around Texas, and give them their independence.

Seems to solve the problem for both sides.

[padren]

Put a fence around Texas, and give them their independence.

Seems to solve the problem for both sides.

 

Only if they take their share of the national debt.

[JohnB]

I like that a "related" video is of the "Swiss Spaghetti Harvest 1957".

 

Seems rather appropriate somehow.

[CaptainPanic]

Only if they take their share of the national debt.

 

umm... no.

You privatize Texas. That means you sell it to shareholders, who will buy this investment. You pay off the national debt with the money thus generated.

 

Apologies to anyone living in Texas - I hope you have some sense of humor. Of course it should be the rest of the world that's privatized, while Texans get all the money.

[iNow]

I really hate my state sometimes. I'd laugh, except all of the perceptions tend to be true.

[ParanoiA]

I like it. I like seeing a state with the balls to call out this federal expansion. Too bad it didn't happen sooner. I hope this snowballs.

[Sisyphus]

The federal government [when not controlled by a majority of my political party] must be stopped! Freeeeeeeeedooooooom!

[Dudde]

That's pretty ridiculous - sure it's cool to call out the federal expansion, but stated above, it was a republican who did most of the expanding...one from texas?

 

In my opinion, republicans in the government are acting like children, I don't see how they stayed in power in the first place, but I'm hoping we keep them out of office long enough to fix it up a bit

[ParanoiA]

Who cares WHO started it, it's time to finish it.

 

What is the deal with you partisan worshipers?

 

If a democrat does the same stupid thing that a republican started, we're supposed to be all cool with it?

 

And you think Texas has issues?

[Sisyphus]

Put an end to what? There's no specific proposal, just a call to end "unconstituonal" actions by the federal government. But there are no unconstitutional actions, until those actions are ruled so by the Supreme Court. So what is being proposed? It's hypocritical, yes, but it's also totally empty.

[ParanoiA]

To put an end to federal expansion and spank them back to size. State's rights. A colorful American landscape of various flavors of politics and lifestyle. Where the states are where the action is and the Federal Capital is a napping room.

 

All the states are pretty much the same right now. Their differences are trivial. I can't go live in a libertarian state, or go visit a heavily socialist state or laugh at the religious states.

 

The states do have these flavors today, but they're extremely mild and almost tasteless. Instead, we've taken standardization and applied to concept to governing. We're all going to be the intolerant, boring, non-unique conglomeration of sameness....how incredibly shallow.

 

Yeah, I don't know the "proposal" either, and once I do I may jump ship. Right now, I just like seeing the resistance. Even if it's not to the same degree that I'd like.

[Sisyphus]

No, I mean there's literally nothing being proposed.

 

The text:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm

 

I mean, it's all well and good to say that, but what is anyone suggesting actually be done? What is the federal government supposed to do? "Don't violate the Constitution." Um, ok. We'll try. Is it implying a legal argument? What argument might that be? And why aren't they bringing it to the Supreme Court? Because, it seems to me, they don't have anything substantial to say, and because this isn't really directed at the federal government, it's directed at their constituents, to take advantage of vague popular unrest.

[ParanoiA]

Well they resolved 4 flippin' things man, didn't you see?

 

Yeah, there's no meat here at all. It looks like a recount of promises, followed by a reaffirmed demand to keep them. The first step in any conflict really. I doubt an "or else" would be appropriate upon initial contact.

 

But I doubt it goes further than this, other than just making a scene - an investment in future campaigns by exploiting unrest.

 

But I'll enjoy the whole thing, however far it goes or doesn't.

[bascule]

I'm unclear on what they mean by expanding national government... do they mean the bailout? Where exactly is this growth occurring? Bush added a whole new federal department which seems to be largely useless and you didn't see them threatening secession then. The government is spending a lot of money, sure, and it has seized financial institutions and now controls them. Does that really count as government expansion? It certainly isn't expansion for expansion's sake... it was "expansion" to prevent the financial sector from collapsing. Even then, it's not as if AIG has become a government entity... the government itself didn't get larger as a result.

 

I'm also completely unclear on how they feel their tenth amendment rights are being violated. California has legalized medical marijuana, and as a result Bush stepped up DEA raids of medical marijuana clubs. For something like that, I could see how a state could feel its 10th amendment rights are being violated. Is anything like that going in in Texas? I'm not sure what, specifically, the Texans are referring to.

 

I just can't help but interpret this as "we don't like what's going on in Washington so we're going to assert our own soverignty"

[SH3RL0CK]

I just can't help but interpret this as "we don't like what's going on in Washington so we're going to assert our own soverignty"

 

Do you have a fundamental problem with this?

[bascule]

Do you have a fundamental problem with this?

 

Not so long as they ultimately respect that they are a member of the United States of America and bound by the Constitution and federal law. In that regard, they aren't sovereign... they are a member state of a sovereign nation. This isn't the Articles of Confederation, after all.

[Dudde]

Do you have a fundamental problem with this?

 

They didn't see any problem with crying to the government when they ran out of money, I think it's the responsibility of those handing out the cash to help regulate so they don't have to give out so much again?

 

don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily want the government controlling everything, but I think a certain degree of overhead is necessary at this certain point in time...

[Mokele]

Do you have a fundamental problem with this?

 

Well, there have to be limits to state's rights. The Articles of Confederation failed for precisely this reason - the states had too much independence.

 

All the states are pretty much the same right now. Their differences are trivial. I can't go live in a libertarian state, or go visit a heavily socialist state or laugh at the religious states.

 

Nothing will change that, though. The differences in viewpoint in the US often fall along urban vs rural, with state-to-state differences most reflecting the relative proportion of each population.

 

200 years ago, yes, you could get huge cultural differences. Now, with instant global communications and incredibly rapid transport (we can fly in 8 hours what would take pioneers 8 years), even if you *did* allow boundaries, they wouldn't change anything.

 

 

In a sense, I do agree with you - I wish there was a sort of "testing area" where people with a committed social vision (libertarianism, communism, theocracy, etc.) could try to build their own society and see how it works. Unfortunately, the planet's kinda, well, *full*. (Granted it was full before, but back then we'd just empty it by killing anyone with darker skin than us.)

[Pangloss]

I'm unclear on what they mean by expanding national government... do they mean the bailout? Where exactly is this growth occurring?

 

The actual budget shows only minor changes in discretionary spending, but when you factor in the economic recovery bill then some of those departments have had massive increases. The Department of Education, for example, had its budget effectively doubled. Arlen Specter, immediately after the bill was passed, began speaking about the DoE budget as being effectively "at that level" and promising to work to keep it at that level in future budgets.

 

So there is real danger here in the sense that this will be seen as massive growth in discretionary spending rather than one-time emergency expenditure, both by politicians and by the public. I'm just waiting to hear stories about how Jane Doe, a single mother of three, is having trouble making ends meet on her $9/hr hairdresser salary just because the Department of Single Working Moms has had its budget "effectively cut by 50%".

[bascule]

Something tells me when they're talking about the "ever-growing Washington bureaucracy" and an "unprecedented expansion of power" they're not talking about the Department of Education...

[Dudde]

I don't really see the expansion of education to be something bad, nor is it really expanding, just finally catching up to where it should have been in the first place.

[Pangloss]

Something tells me when they're talking about the "ever-growing Washington bureaucracy" and an "unprecedented expansion of power" they're not talking about the Department of Education...

 

I don't really see the expansion of education to be something bad, nor is it really expanding, just finally catching up to where it should have been in the first place.

 

And you two have just perfectly demonstrated my point. Yes, we need to cut spending, but oh no, not that spending, why that's just a logical expansion of spending that should have been there in the first place!

 

Which of course is exactly how it will go for the rest of discretionary spending as well. There is no portion of it that doesn't enjoy support in some large segment of the general population. Not one bit of it. That's why it's there in the first place.

 

Like I said, it's probably the toughest fight the administration will face.

[Dudde]

And you two have just perfectly demonstrated my point. Yes, we need to cut spending, but oh no, not that spending, why that's just a logical expansion of spending that should have been there in the first place!

 

I didn't say we should cut anything - do you really think it's acceptable for us to be, quite literally, a 'stupid' country? I can't find 10 teenagers in walking distance of me who can hold a conversation to save their lives - it's disgusting. I find out level of education unacceptable to the highest degree

 

I'm also not one of the whiney "oh I refuse to pay taxes this is stupid" - I've already expressed my opinion that I'd be willing to pay greater tax percentages to have more money going to the causes I believe in - but me alone with my measley 5K a year in taxes isn't going to ding the necessary funding

[ParanoiA]

I didn't say we should cut anything - do you really think it's acceptable for us to be, quite literally, a 'stupid' country? I can't find 10 teenagers in walking distance of me who can hold a conversation to save their lives - it's disgusting. I find out level of education unacceptable to the highest degree.

 

No, you're missing his point. He's saying that everything we spend money on has a good reason for it, to somebody. And the problem Obama is going to have is that we have to cut spending, which means, we're going to have to cut funding on things in which there's a good reason for it, to somebody.

 

Thing is, nobody wants to sacrifice their particular thing. And that's the problem with tough decisions on cutting. They aren't tough because the pens used to write the budget are heavy and awkward, they're tough because all of it is stuff some segment of the population has justified as good spending.

 

So everything proposed to cut is going to earn a backlash of some kind, from somebody. Everybody talks the talk, but nobody wants to walk the walk. We need to cut spending, so that means we're going to have to cut things that are otherwise a great idea, to somebody.

 

The argument you're making above can be applied to ANYTHING Obama decides on cutting. Name it. There will be an ideological argument on how wrong it is to cut it.

 

 

 

"Yeah, I think nuclear power plants are awesome...Oh no, but not by MY neighborhood..."