Give Up Blog

Friday, May 12, 2006

EJ Dionne says Give Up

EJ Dionne might be reading Give Up blog, he's talking about liberals looking to the states to make up for gaps in federal regulation.

The new states' rights means enhancing the ability of states to solve problems that our current federal government won't confront. These days the real opponents of allowing our 50 laboratories of democracy to step up are conservatives who fear the power grass-roots progressives can wield at the state level.

Contrast this week in our nation's capital with the week in Boston, capital of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Congress was solving the enormously important problem of making sure that wealthy Americans can continue to pay low taxes on their dividends and capital gains.

In Boston, legislators were completing work on a remarkable law that -- if it works -- will provide health coverage for almost all of the state's residents. The bill passed overwhelmingly last month in the Democratic-controlled legislature and was signed into law by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. This week the legislature was dealing with Romney's vetoes of a few of the bill's provisions.

Looks like some more mainstream pundits are starting to see the beauty of the blue state. It's also interesting because he covers the positives and negatives of the state-based regulation strategy. Namely, asshats like Enzi may decide to shill for insurance companies everywhere and knock down your cool state laws.

Massachusetts has an advantage over other states, McDonough said, because it has a comparatively low number of poor people who are uninsured. But imagine if the federal government provided coverage for all poor and working-class Americans and then encouraged states to find their own market innovations to allow the rest to afford insurance.

Instead, the Senate is considering a bill this week by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) that would sweep away state insurance regulations. Killing some of these -- notably, limits on the premiums insurance companies can impose on older and sicker people -- could destroy the Massachusetts plan by making insurance unaffordable for many. What Boston giveth, Washington could take away.

This is a backward form of federalism. The federal government should solve problems or, failing that, give states the room, the incentives and the opportunities to solve problems for themselves. It's amazing what local politicians can accomplish when good ideas and skilled agitators come together.

Well, we all agree that the federal government is a total failure, and congressional Republicans are now all asshats. Given that all they could accomplish this term is extending tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% through estate tax and dividend tax cuts, and are planning to waste more of everyone's time on flag burning and the new wehatefags.gov website, how can they possibly pretend to be governing? Where else can we look except to the blue states?

5 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Bizarre. As I understand it, it was around the time of the Great Depression/FDR that the nation’s two parties swapped their ends of the political spectrum. This small fact always gave me vertigo when the Republicans were touting themselves as “the party of Lincoln” about 8-10 years ago. Now if the GOP keeps the Congress this year we might see Democrats becoming pro-small government/state’s righters. Wow.

We should get a cool new name, like ‘Dixiecrats’ but not so Jim Crow-y.

-JE

4:06 PM, May 12, 2006

Rev. Dr. said...

Not quite Jeff,
It was actually the civil rights act of 1964 which really cemented the Democrats as the party of non-racism and the Republicans as the party of bigots. Thanks to LBJ, who would have been one of the greatest presidents of the century if he hadn't escalated the Vietnam war. Then, Nixon capitalized on this alienation of the south with the so-called "southern strategy" which has been dominant in Republican (bigoted) politics until this day.

8:11 PM, May 12, 2006

Anonymous said...

Well, I think it's fair to say that it was a process that was finally cemented by the Civil Rights movement. This snippet is from the oh-so definitive wikipedia entry on the Dems:

"Since 1896 the Democrats have been the more liberal major party. The pro-working class, activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt has shaped much of the party's agenda since 1933; his New Deal Coalition controlled the national government into the 1960s. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, championed by the northern Democratic Party, continues to inspire the party's ideas and principles."

-JE

12:27 PM, May 13, 2006

Rev. Dr. said...

In terms of pure liberalism, I guess yes, that's true. But the populism of the south was accompanied by some pretty obnoxious racism that I inextricably tie to conservative beliefs.

1964 was the breaking point of a long rebellion against liberalization of racial politics driving southern populist politicians out of the party and into the arms of the Republicans. But you're right, it was going on much earlier, for instance Strom Thurmond's presidential bid as a segregationist Dixie-crat in 48.

I don't know, I don't feel like Democrats truly became the liberal party until they eliminated the bigots from their midst.

4:16 PM, May 13, 2006

Anonymous said...

I would agree that there wasn't a modern Democratic party until 1964, but prior to '33 Dems were death on big government programs. Then they became trademark, from Social Security to midnight basketball (remember when the GOP threw a hissy fit about that?). And, now that everything the Federal gov't touches is turning to lead, it looks like we'll be going back to our roots, minus the racism.

-JE

4:55 PM, May 13, 2006