Wouldn't state control of everything actually be "bigger government"?

[Lesleymo]

Ok, so I live in Texas where the politicians are proud of their super duper yee haw selves. Everything should be controlled at the state level according to Perry and Cornyn, right? Let us control health care, we're doing such a great job. Let us control education, we'll show you how it's done.

Number one, health care and education are a mess down here. And number two, if there are 50 state governments controlling all this stuff, without consistent federal standards or oversight, isn't that really MORE government control rather than less? How come state government doesn't count as government?

Just wanted to run the idea by y'all before I post it on Cornyn's facebook page, which has become one of my favorite past-times.

:patriot:

[dysfunctional press]

1. each state can decide how much government they want.

it wouldn't mean MORE government- because in their world view, the federal government wouldn't have any oversight.

[stray cat]

2. Not if you have eliminated the federal gov - states have to live within budgets

unlike the federal government

[Orrex]

3. They oppose big *federal* government

Big state gubmint is okay, as long as they're the ones running it.


Curiously, though, they never seem to object to a hugely increased military, which is also part of the fed...

[Moochy]

4. local big government has a lower price tag

when it comes to bribes and influence of state lobbyists. It is more reactive to demands of the local owner classes.

[Xenotime]

5. The fear of "big government" is a scare tactic used by the reight.