Tuesday, May 20, 2008

states' rights vs federalism

so, i've been perusing the positions of the republican candidate. as a registered democrat, i didn't have to previously because i couldn't vote for/against the candidate until the general election. please know that i tried to be as open to his ideas as i could as i read his site and constructed this post. it didn't finish out that way.

as i bumped around john mccain's site, i kept finding it interesting that some issues should be left to the states, but other's needed to be federal decisions.

in looking @ his "values" section, i learned that mr. mccain feels:
-roe v wade should be overturned and control given back to the states. but, the states already can place limits on abortion, with the exception of completely outlawing it. will mr mccain be alright if all 50 states decide to allow all abortions?
-marriage should be left at the state law, although it should stay man & woman. but, this is where it's currently at. will mr. mccain be alright if all 50 states decide to allow for equal treatment of all it's citizens in the area legal contract of marriage?
-the federal government should fund stem cell research, as long as it doesn't create human embryos. huh? the gov't shouldn't make decisions, but it should fund research? (nevermind the question of where the funding will come from w/all of mccain's proposed tax cuts.)
-the federal gov't should restrict internet access in public places (libraries, schools) to protect kids from porn. why shouldn't this decision be in the control of the state or counties? after all, they're the ones that run these libraries.

health insurance is not a duty of either the state or the federal government. well, except he wants to give you back more tax money to pay for your own health care.

federal money for schools should go directly to parents. aren't schools mostly funded by the states?

what else should the federal gov't do:
-lower gas prices. mainly by cutting the federal gas tax. does anyone really think the companies won't just jump their prices 18 cents knowing we'll pay it?
-eat up bad home loans - if you have a craptastic home loan, the gov't will refinance it for you. apparently the federal gov't has a ton of money sitting around and can just absorb this problem, or at least make it disappear.

finally, the federal government should invade other countries and then occupy them indefinitely to make sure that they do not become a foothold for terrorism or a puppet for another country. that is, a country other than us.

i also noticed throughout the website every word in the first sentence of each paragraph is capitalized. that's odd.


Anonymous said...

roe v. wade
this case said states could not pass a law outlawing abortions.
overturning it would allow the states to decide for themselves whether to outlaw abortions.
gay marriage
marriage is currently and i'm sure will continue to be regulated by the states.
federal government funding
the federal government provides money for medical research. someone has to decide where that money should be spent.
public internet access
the federal government has jurisdiction over the internet by way of the commerce clause in the us constitution. The internet is by its nature interstate commerce and its use may be regulated by the us government.
i don't believe the positions mccain has taken are inconsistent. wrong perhaps. but not inconsistent.

edluv said...

thanks for the comment. (on a side note, are you assocaited w/milano's?) i don't think mccain's policies are necessarily contradictory, but as i looked at them i thought it was interesting how he seemed to jog back and forth from states' rights to federal role, and it didn't always seem to make sense to me why one, or the other (other than perhaps the party politics of it).

-the federal gov't provides some funding for stem cells research. mccain's position actually seems to increase the availability from the current position. this surprises me because the majority of mccain's positions is to posit more control in the hands of private industry, rather than the gov't.
-mccain's position on the internet is basically that we should legislate what can or can't be looked @ in libraries, etc that receive federal funding. but, most libraries are mainly supported by municipalities (or universities) not the federal gov't. so here, it seems like mccain is just putting forth what sounds like a good position that really is little more than hot air.
-which brings us to mccain's position on marriage. you're correct in pointing out that marriage currently lies in the state's hands. but, his position is that marriage should be defined as man + woman and stay in state hands. my question is, would he still be pushing for the state control if they choose otherwise? same w/abortion, if returned to state control?

then mix in health care, something that we have a mix of state, federal and private control of. here it seems that mccain is pushing for more rules for the corporations, but less governmental role in actually providing any health care. instead, mccain wants to give you more money with the hope you'll spend it on health care. will that happen in times of recession when people are having to decide if they will eat, drive, pay rent/mortgage, and so on?

finally, mix in his position on the current mortgage crisis. mccain wants the federal government to here step in and eat up billions in debt. how? perhaps i don't understand the complexities of his plan, but it seems like it's "we'll just gobble it up." but why should the fed be involved @ all? in mccain's america they aren't involved in: abortion, marriage, health care, or education.