US States should be laboratories of government policy

[Armenum]

This was an interesting article I read about some of the things that Rick Perry, the Governor of US state of Texas, talking about what changes he thought should be brought to the US federal government. In essence, he says that Federal Government should be stripped of a lot of its powers, and that power to be transferred to the states, in which states with more liberal agendas can pursue that and vice versa. So a state could have its own social policies, healthcare, size of government, etc. The trade-off of course is that it makes the US a bit weaker, but in return you minimize the heavy divisions between the republicans and democrats as now the states are more important. Could this be done?

November 4, 2010
Re-elected Texas Governor Sounding Like a Candidate

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

AUSTIN, Tex. — Gov. Rick Perry says he has no interest in running for president, but one would never know it by watching him this week.
The day after his resounding re-election in Texas, the Republican governor released a book that reads like a Tea Party manifesto, laying out the conservative case for dismantling much of the federal government and returning power to the states.
Then he flew to New York to begin a book tour, making appearances Thursday on the “Today” show, “Fox and Friends,” NPR and Glenn Beck’s radio program. An appearance on “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart is planned, his aides said.
Mr. Perry offers a vision of a future America with a much-weakened federal government, with states handling most social problems. He even bashes former President George W. Bush, whom he replaced as governor, for expanding federal spending. (He is now competing for book sales with Mr. Bush, who just published a memoir, “Decision Points.”)
Mr. Perry’s decision to keep up his attacks on the Obama administration, right after a grueling re-election campaign and with a book tour to give him a national platform, has fueled speculation that he is testing the waters for a presidential run in 2012.
Those whispers grew louder in Texas last weekend when he declined to commit to serving out his four-year term.
But the governor insisted his only goal was to spur “a national conversation” over whether the federal government has become too powerful, too expensive and too intrusive in people’s lives.
“This country needs to cowboy up, as I said in the book, and have this conversation,” he said in an interview. “That’s what I’m interested in doing.”
He added: “Very clearly, I have no interest in going to Washington, D.C., in any form or fashion. Anyone who says different either has a political agenda or is not very well informed.”
Some political strategists say Mr. Perry’s actions speak louder than his words. Throughout the campaign, he largely ignored his opponent and talked about national issues. His stump speech often ended with a call to tell Washington to leave Texas alone.
“The only surprise is that he didn’t give his victory speech in Iowa,” said Glenn Smith, a Democratic consultant and writer. “Perry and his team really think he could be president.”
Mr. Perry’s book — “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington” (Little, Brown) — certainly reads like a candidate’s platform. Much of it echoes the ideas of conservative talk show hosts like Mr. Beck and many Tea Party activists.
He proposes to rein in federal power on every front, leaving most questions outside of national defense up to the states.
“We are fed up with being overtaxed and overregulated,” he writes. “We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food, what windows we can buy for our house, what kinds of cars we can drive, what kinds of guns we can own, what kinds of prayers we are allowed to say and where we can say them, what political speech we are allowed to use to elect candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what kind of food we can grow, what doctor we can see, and countless other restrictions on our right to live as we see fit.”
Mr. Perry takes on several sacred cows. He says the constitutional amendments establishing the federal income tax and allowing the popular election of Senators were mistakes. The Social Security system, he writes, is essentially a “Ponzi scheme.”
The tendency of people to “vote with their feet” is the surest guarantee of personal liberty, Mr. Perry concludes. States should be laboratories of government policy, he says.
“If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas,” he writes. “If you don’t like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don’t move to California.”
There are touches of humor. The son of a rancher, the governor expresses irritation at those who dismiss statements about America’s greatness as “the kind of things said by cowboys, as if it is a bad thing to be a cowboy.”
And in defending states’ rights, he writes: “Texans, on the other hand, elect folks like me. You know the type, the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning, packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights and loaded with hollow-point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter’s dog.”
That is not a metaphor. The anecdote is true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/us...s/05perry.html

[Mr. Scott]

I'm for decentralization. Since Lincoln we've been becoming more and more centralized. Especially during FDR and on.
We're supposed to be decentralized (its in the name) and it wouldn't necessarily weaken the US. I mean relative to the other major powers of the world the US is already very decentralized.
The US interests are very different region to region so decentralization would better meet the needs of the people.
The United States is too big and diverse to be as centralized as we are. And because of the stability of our nation and absence of rebellions then there is much to gain from decentralization.
California's interests vary greatly from Georgia's.

[Armenum]

I'm for decentralization. Since Lincoln we've been becoming more and more centralized. Especially during FDR and on.
We're supposed to be decentralized (its in the name) and it wouldn't necessarily weaken the US. I mean relative to the other major powers of the world the US is already very decentralized.
The US interests are very different region to region so decentralization would better meet the needs of the people.
The United States is too big and diverse to be as centralized as we are. And because of the stability of our nation and absence of rebellions then there is much to gain from decentralization.
California's interests vary greatly from Georgia's.

Yeah, and maybe states could even (to an extent) conduct their own foreign policy (though would be mostly economical). Why do people insist at having everything at the national level let it be conservative or liberal policies?

[jman47]

I too agree with these points, however one major issue is taxation.

While the states would obviously have the right to tax as they need, what rights would the federal government keep to tax citizens countrywide.

since taxes run our nations military this is an important detail that would need to be hammered out.

Remember our nation was largely decentralized before the constitution under the federalist papers, and one of the major weaknesses was the inability of the federal government to have any sort of tax.