1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Arizona eyes punishment for local progressive policies

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by mdrowe00, Mar 22, 2016.

  1. mdrowe00

    mdrowe00 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,455
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    Thought this bit of news was interesting...
    ...and why, ultimately, all politics are local...

    from MSNBC.com
    Arizona eyes punishment for local progressive policies
    03/22/16 10:00 AM
    By Steve Benen


    About a month ago, Birmingham, Alabama, decided it was time to give the city’s low-wage workers a raise. Local officials approved a minimum-wage increase, that would apply solely to Birmingham employers, to $10.10 an hour.

    Just two days later, Alabama’s Republican governor and GOP-led legislature decided to undo what Birmingham had done. The state passed a law, which applied retroactively, prohibiting cities from raising their own minimum wages, even if they want to. In all, 17 Republican-led states have approved measures to block local control in this area.

    As it turns out, this goes beyond the minimum wage. Bloomberg News reported the other day on an effort among local officials in Tempe, Arizona, to create paid sick-leave for the city’s workers. The initiative is facing some fairly intense resistance from officials in Phoenix.

    [Tempe City Council member Lauren Kuby] and her colleagues heard that Arizona’s Republican-controlled state legislature was considering punishing cities that tried to set their own codes for worker benefits. Arizona’s House passed a bill on March 1 specifying that cities aren’t allowed to require private employers to provide paid sick leave or vacation.

    The state Senate has passed companion legislation that would cut state funds, used to pay for services like police and firefighting, for cities that try to supersede state laws. “They actually decided to dissolve our study group because they were so chilled by the state threat,” says Kuby.

    The move to punish communities that try to approve their own progressive policies was initiated by Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), who, after one year on the job, said he would change “the distribution of state-shared revenue,” cutting off communities who pursued employment laws he considers “ill-advised.”

    Arizona Senate President Andy Biggs (R) told Bloomberg that arresting a municipality isn’t an option, but GOP state policymakers are nevertheless eager to “provide a deterrent effect.”

    Responses like these to local control continue to amaze. As we talked about a month ago, contemporary conservatism is generally committed to the idea that the government that’s closest to the people – literally, geographically – is best able to respond to the public’s needs. As much as possible, officials should try to shift power and resources away to local authorities.

    Except, that is, when communities consider progressive measures Republicans don’t like, at which point those principles are quickly thrown out the window.

    So, let this be a lesson to everyone: when officials in Washington tell states what to do, it’s an outrageous abuse and clear evidence of government overreach. When states tell cities what to do, it’s protecting conservative principles.
     
  2. leroy

    leroy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Messages:
    25,062
    Likes Received:
    7,407
    Can someone from the right please help me understand why this is ok? I'm asking honestly and not trying to start a fight. It makes no sense to me.
     
  3. SamFisher

    SamFisher Virtuous

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    53,716
    Likes Received:
    28,410
    This always has been a huge flaw in the "get the federal government out/devolve power upon the states" Federalism philosophy in practice - many states have a higher chance than the federal government of being run by vindictive, incompetent, intrusive buffoons and have fewer safeguards and less transparency than federal authorities do.
     
  4. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    41,498
    Likes Received:
    36,527
    Flow chart for determining whether political action is ok?

    What is the party affiliation of the people responsible?
    If it matches my party affiliation, justify it. If it is opposite of my party affiliation, condemn it.
     
  5. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    32,569
    Likes Received:
    10,765
    I'm not from the right, but I do think the states asserting their authority is a sensible thing to do. When companies are looking for a location (where they will pay salaries and taxes) they want to be able to understand how much it's going to cost them and what return to expect from their business. If companies start to worry that the regulatory environment is at the mercy of a hundred city councils across the state, it will have a chilling effect on the attractiveness of the whole state. Even if you locate your headquarters outside of city limits, what will stop some mayor and city council from expanding city limits to include you in the tax base, then hit you with local ordinances about minimum wage and sick leave, and then tell you you can't do x, y, or z inside the city? Every company will prefer a state that withholds that power from municipal governments. Cities should still be empowered to make rules, but the state should supersede where there is a legitimate state concern.

    You could go on to argue that pushing that power further up to the federal government does not follow the same logic. Maybe some businesses would prefer countries with a uniform regulation regimen, instead of contending with 50 sets of rules. But, in reality, nobody is going to pass on doing business in the US just because states can set their own rules. That said, there are still some subjects where uniform federal rules make more sense and others where state rules make more sense. Having maxims of states' rights in every case or devolving power to the most local body are too blunt to be optimal.

    On the punishment thing, that makes no sense. If the state doesn't want a city to have the right to pass a certain ordinance, they can pass their own law to say so. I don't see why deterrence is needed at all.
     
  6. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,469
    Likes Received:
    2,361
    This happened in Texas as well. Denton residents voted to ban fracking in city limits. And more cities started to consider fracking bans as well and sure enough the legislature banned localities from local energy rules like the ban in Denton.
     
  7. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,352
    Likes Received:
    1,685
    State legislatures are voted on and subsidized locally; typically small business owners are the only group engaged and organized enough to effect change, both during the elections and when it's time to lobby legislation. This is why despite libertarians and philosophical conservatives' protestations to the contrary, "states rights" and state governments are pure garbage.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    58,858
    Likes Received:
    26,071
    The United States passes on doing business in the United States
    It is not the SELLING in the United States that is the issue
    The movement toward Exporting all the JOBS is . . ..
    and Many Corporations are doing so . . .

    Rocket River
     
  9. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    32,569
    Likes Received:
    10,765
    That's true. But, they don't export those jobs because of the regulatory uncertainty that comes from devolving power to the individual states. They do so because they have certainty that their costs would be higher if they located in any state of the United States. That would remain true whether federal, state, or municipal power made the rules.
     
  10. mdrowe00

    mdrowe00 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,455
    Likes Received:
    3,371
    ...oh.

    So this is about what all this costs (regular people and government people and business people)...

    ...as opposed to what all this is worth? To anybody in particular or groups of people or however you want to slice that cake?

    Okay.

    I guess my original thought in all this is that Republican legislatures would practice what they preached...even after considering and understanding the salient points you made on all this earlier, JuanValdez.

    See, that's the thing for me: I think the logistics would work themselves out if this were left to the "free market"...which for all intents and purposes is a global market now. And American sovereignty in regards to commerce has long since evaporated. The price point for most things is almost irrelevant, to most people at this point.

    ...if something like this were to catch on in municipal and local levels...it might be enough on its own to undo decades of trickle-down economic slight-of-hand, that has more than few states so inclined to govern thusly in some serious trouble.

    Not going after you (or anybody, really) with any of this JuanValdez.

    Just noting the irony of "...government BAD---unless I'm in charge of it..."...
     
  11. ghettocheeze

    ghettocheeze Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    7,323
    Likes Received:
    9,131
    Where are the district rights conservatives?

    State governments are too powerful and centralized. Time for a movement to return the power back to districts.

    Take back our districts!

    [​IMG]
     
  12. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,620
    Likes Received:
    7,164
    potentially an issue if local city, county employees are getting paid with state funding. Would create unbalanced state funding as the governor mentioned. Then you have the idea that two people doing the same job in different counties or cites are paid differently causing artificial financial vacuums. ie, richer cities/counties could get richer while poorer cities/counties get poorer. also, state funds from all cities/counties paying for unattainable benefits for those that are paying.

    it actually makes perfect sense when you think about it. federal or state level wage laws make the most sense.
     
  13. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,620
    Likes Received:
    7,164
    just like many cities/counties have a higher chance than the federal government of being run by vindictive, incompetent, intrusive buffoons and have fewer safeguards and less transparency than state authorities do.

    everyone has heard of what happened in Crystal City. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/22/after-almost-every-official-in-this-texas-town-was-arrested-black-water-started-coming-out-of-the-pipes/
     
  14. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    34,975
    Likes Received:
    16,182
    Cities have different needs and concerns and need to structure their laws accordingly. Should NYC and SF be able to assign a different minimum wage due to different cost of livings? They are allowed to tax differently. Why aren't they allowed to govern employment differently?

    Also companies don't look at states only when they decide where to locate - they look at the individual cities from many perspectives. I think a city should have self-determination around the way it wants to manage and attract employers - again suited to it's needs, strengths, and weaknesses.



    You sound like a socialist.
     
  15. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    12,620
    Likes Received:
    7,164
    So higher wage cities/counties get more federal funding than lower wage cities/counties? Are you prepared to cut all federal funding for local entities due to this inherent unfairness you're introducing with these types of measures? You do realize that local police, schools, public works, etc..., all get federal aid? So local police in the same state and even county could be paid differently if the city decides so. However part of the city police funding comes from federal aid. You don't see how that is a problem. If yes, how do you solve that problem?



    i'm not but who gives a **** what i sound like, my points are valid. we are a federal republic with federated states. we are not city states run by local warlord law. this is especially true when we are all taxed federally (as well as locally) and some of those tax dollars are used locally.
     
  16. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    34,975
    Likes Received:
    16,182
    Police already get paid differently based on their location. I don't understand why this is an issue based on minimum wage only - it's already happening across many cities. Do you think public sector workers in urban areas get paid the same rate as they do in rural areas???? Really? Why aren't you fighting that battle. Cops don't earn minimum wage and they don't get paid the same across city limits. Wake up.

    I don't know if you know about this, but the leader of a city is called a mayor, not a warlord.
     
  17. TheresTheDagger

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,886
    Likes Received:
    7,372
    Meh.

    The Federal government has this thing called the United States Constitution that enumerates its powers pretty specifically. Those powers NOT enumerated in it are transferred to the several States.

    State governments on the other hand do not have such restrictions when regulating business within the confines of their jurisdiction (assuming they are not violating their State constitution).

    Of course politics creates what you see as a double standard. But this is simply politics as usual. Hypocritical. Sure. But fair. If the people of the state think its unfair, their remedy is vote the bums out.
     
  18. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    34,975
    Likes Received:
    16,182

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now