What's so bad about federal tax cuts . .

[msmcghee]

. . . and reducing the size of the federal government? For decades liberals have tried to use the federal government to provide freedom, civil rights and educational equity for minorities, especially in the southern states.

The repukes have been winning elections by using false frames for that effort such as "telling everyone how to live their lives", "letting Washington bureaucrats control us", creating "special rights for minorities", etc. Apparently many Americans agree with that frame.

Take a look at the red/blue state map. What's to prevent us from calling their bluff? Let's let them make those tax cuts for the rich permanent. It could be the way for us to decisively to win this conservative / liberal war. What's to prevent the blue states from then forming regional coalitions to set up our own single payer health car systems, our own ways to finance education, our own marriage rules (assuming they'll never be able to pass a federal same sex amendment), fighting them to make our own drug laws, etc.

We can then tax ourselves as we wish - and by cooperating with other states, form our own coalitions under the federal constitution to create the kind of world we'd like our kids to grow up in. I personally don't care who I pay my taxes to as long as I can live in a tolerant, enlightened society.

Conservatives who don't like so much tolerance for minorities, so much separation of church and state, such well funded arts and education, etc. would be welcome to move to some red state where I'm sure they'll find taxes and state policies much more in line with their way of thinking - where minorities (who don't leave) will know their place, where schools teach the four R's and no more (add religion to the other three).

The big difference is we'd no longer have to finance so much of their intolerance with our taxes.

After a few years of that, let's see which states have the most social problems like divorce, crime and homelessness - let's see which states' citizens die younger and which states have the highest abortion rate - and let's see which states prosper the most economically.

Any constitutional scholars care to comment?

[Warpy]

1. Well, your first problem is in assuming there are red states.

States in this country range from violet to magenta. You'd be trapping a lot of good people in your quarantined "red" states.

Even the moron corridor consisting of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas contain at least 30% good people.

We already know that "red" states (the ones tending to magenta) already have higher levels of divorce, out of wedlock pregnancy, teenage pregnancy, abortion, homicide, suicide, and poverty. We aready know they also have the fewest social support programs.

Your experiment in human misery is already an ongoing one, you see, and adding any other voluntary component to it would be highly unethical.

[BOSSHOG]

4. "Fewest social support programs"

"Red" States (those that voted for bush, those with high rates of divorce, incest, teen pregnancy etc, RED STATES and I live in one and I have no need for a social support program) should be provided what they voted for. You call it human misery. I call it trickle down economics - higher state and local taxes. Those of us non conservatives who live in RED STATES can fend for ourselves. I'm often amused by those who choose to alter the color of a state. RED means the state went for bush, therefore bush's policies should effect those residents the most. I'd like for blue state residents to have an easing of their burden of providing "social support programs" in the form of federal taxation to red states. Let the GOP governors of red states wrestle with the wants and needs and desires of those who can't fend for themselves and yet voted straight party ticket. And when the Governors don't come through, then the pitchfork crowd can descend upon city hall. Let them strive to overcome any "voluntary components" at the local level. Let the locals feel the flames and wonder where they came from.

[wtmusic]

2. No

You want the next generation to foot your bill. Sorry -- pay as you go. Raise taxes, for everyone.

[forgethell]

3. How does this differ from

"state's rights". This is a conservative meme. On eidt: Not calling you out, I'm just saying few conservatives that I know, and I know plenty, would object.

[msmcghee]

11. The conservatives have been using our . .

. . ideology against us by re-framing it.

I'm suggesting we allow them to reap the benefits of that - in the red states only - by calling their bluff.


If your reason for disagreeing is because conservatives might go along with it - that proves how easily this approach could be used to prove the efficacy of our liberal view of government.

It would be a shame if we passed up an opportunity to do that because not enough conservatives fought us.

[forgethell]

16. OK, I'm with you.

Let's try it and see if it works.

[Johonny]

5. I agree

Why liberals have not framed issues in this way I have no idea. Most likely because while people claim to be for these issues they constantly vote against themselves. Which is why conservatives can talk about "state" rights and keeping the government out of your personal business and then go ahead and push gay marriage, the patriot act, state sponsored religion... As todays poll on kids views of freedom of the press show, people talk a big game about freedom, but generally vote against it. It's hard to imagine todays American wants less freedom and less rights and yet they do? Scary.

[BillZBubb]

6. It would be unconstitutional to set up state coalitions.

If they in any way effected commerce. The Federal government has the sole power to regulate interstate commerce under the constitution. Therefore, any group of states joining together to, say, share a health care system, would be sued by the AMA, the drug companies, the insurance companies, etc, etc, etc. It would would be really tough to set up any kind of good system that could pass this hurdle.

Each state could act on its own, but that would really limit their plan.

[msmcghee]

7. Is that right?

People would not be crossing state lines to get health care. Nor would states be trying to set up separate regulations. They would simply try to cooperate and negotiate with providers to better take care of their own citizens' health care.

The result would be a bigger pool and citizens in Washington, Oregon and California and Montana, for example would have the same system in effect.

What you say me be true. But right now regional providers like Blue Cross / Blue Shield provide services to many states under separate state laws, I assume.

States simply volunteering to work under the same set of rules hardly seems like usurping federal laws for interstate commerce.

[K-W]

8. It would take less work to win back congress. EOM

[Swamp Rat]

9. "... repukes have been winning elections by using false frames"

Like the construct: "red/blue state map."

"Red States" and "Blue States" do not exist.

[tinonedown]

10. Code speech for

Screw minorities and non-white males to the wall. Don't let it germinate here at DU, of all places.

[msmcghee]

12. With the present government we have . .

. . that is exactly what is happening (screwing minorities and non-whites to the wall).

I'm suggesting a way to save any of them who live in blue states (or any who want to relocate). I'm suggesting a way to help the red states secede from the union - as they have so often wished for in the voting booth.

The way we're going now - all liberals are screwed - and we're financing that screwing with our taxes that go disproportionately from the blue to the red states.

[msmcghee]

13. I have often believed that . .

. . reality has a way to make its effects known. Sometimes the best way for that to happen is to allow those who deny reality to have their way.

When I was young I had a job and I thought I was smarter than my boss (I was in some ways but dumber in others).

An older friend took me aside one day and told me the story of a guy who was walking down the street reading a paper. A kid saw that he was about to fall through an open manhole cover. He ran up and stopped the guy just before he would have fallen in. To his surprise the guy started yelling at him and said,"You stupid asshole, do you think I'm really dumb enough to fall into a manhole?"

Dumbfounded the kid sat there and after a while another guy came along reading a paper. This time the kid said nothing and let him fall into the manhole. He then went over and helped him climb out and dust himself off and even called the ambulance for him. For this the guy was ever-grateful and after he recovered he sent the kid a check for $500 for being such a nice guy - and became his friend for life.

[Tactical Progressive]

14. Simply referring to them as 'the welfare states'

instead of 'the red states' is probably a good rhetorical way to start making the point.

[Eric J in MN]

15. It would be fine to to do more locally, except

we have a huge federal debt which we're paying interest on.

Let's talk more about this when the national debt is zero.

[HootieMcBoob]

17. That's what I was saying right after the election

I don't know how it would work but it was my first reaction after "the incident" in November.

Let's cut federal taxes completely. Totally call their bluff. No federal taxes whatsoever. Then each state can tax themselves in the manner they see fit. We can have our own universal health-care systems, etc. I'd like to see Alabama fend for its self with no blue state tax money going their way. They're already the bottom of the barrel in practically every category there is. Rather than let them drag the rest of us down with them lets cut the umbilical cord and let them fend for themselves. We here in New York could get along just fine if instead of sending our federal tax dollars to other states we kept it in New York State.

Like I said this was jut a gut reaction to all the bs that was being tossed around.