It's a bit simplistic (sort of a plug for his book), but I think this helps illustrate why state-only solutions don't work on national problems... http://www.newsday.com/coverage/current/editorial/wednesday/nd194.htm By Richard McGowan. Richard McGowan is an economics professor at Boston College and the author of "Business, Politics and Cigarettes: Multiple Levels, Multiple Agendas." THE GEORGE W. BUSH administration's decision to negotiate a settlement of the federal multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the tobacco industry is another example of this administration's belief that public policy disputes are better solved at the state level of government rather than the federal level. Conservatives have long argued that states are "closer" to the needs and wants of their citizens. Hence, it is this level of government that supposedly ought to decide public policy even toward such controversial industries as tobacco, alcohol and gambling. But this devolution of power often allows these "sin" industries to utilize divide-and-conquer strategy in their dealings with state governments. Critics of the Bush administration worry that it is merely letting the tobacco industry off the hook. But one can easily view this decision as one of many that have empowered the states to be the focal point of public policy. The recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which threw out the ruling that Microsoft be broken up, adds to the role of the state as chief public policy enforcer. The court left open the possibility that the state attorneys general could still sue Microsoft because of its monopoly power, particularly as Microsoft attempts to launch Windows XP. While conservatives have long placed an abiding trust in the abilities of state governments to solve social problems, the ability of states to be the chief formulators and implementers of public policy does have some interesting economic and ethical consequences. States compete with one another for economic resources, especially in their never-ending search for additional sources of revenue. The cigarette excise tax is the classic example of a public policy measure where this state level of competition can have less than desirable results. A demonstration of this is the relationship between Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Currently, New Hampshire's excise tax on cigarettes is 52 cents a pack, while Massachusetts' excise tax is 76 cents a pack. In addition, since there is no sales tax in New Hampshire, a Massachusetts cigarette smoker could save more than $5 on a carton of cigarettes by buying that carton in New Hampshire. Since the same holds true for purchase of alcoholic beverages (which are sold directly by the state government of New Hampshire), many residents of Massachusetts make the journey to their northern neighboring state in order to purchase their "sin" products. It would appear that New Hampshire has adopted a "business" strategy of lowering its price in order to gain market share, while Massachusetts is attempting to milk all of the revenue it can obtain from its remaining cigarette smokers. While the states have remained free to enact public policy in a fashion they deem acceptable, one must wonder whether a more consistent and coherent public policy towards the cigarette-smoking issue would not benefit the common good. Every state claims to have as one of its goals decreasing cigarette sales. Yet, the actions of many states make it plain that they are more interested in increasing cigarette sales while shifting health costs to neighboring states. The same could also be said for issues such as alcohol, gambling, the Internet and environmental concerns. This lack of concern over the common good is the troubling aspect of the tendency to push public policy concerns to the states. Americans typically bristle at the thought that Big Brother in Washington is making regulations that have shown little or no concern for local interests. Yet, there are issues about which a national consensus must be achieved, and then the federal government needs to act. Currently, the thorniest issue facing the European Union is achieving uniformity over a variety of issues. Many members of the EU still insist that they have the right to determine public policy over taxation, working conditions and environmental standards. Supporters of a stronger EU try to use the United States as an example of a country that has overcome regional differences in order to have uniform policies. It is somewhat ironic that as the Europeans are trying to obtain some sort of coherent public policy infrastructure, public policy makers in the United States are willing to transfer power to the states. In order to avoid the debate over whether the freedom of the individual takes precedence over the common good, our national officials are seemingly passing on to the states (without any additional revenue) a multitude of public policy controversies. In many cases, the states are not equipped to handle policy issues such as tobacco, alcohol and gambling in the best interest of the country as a whole. ------------------ Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news. [This message has been edited by haven (edited July 19, 2001).]
Let me see if I understand this. There isn't a consensus regarding the "common good". But there should be, because there are some issues that author feels the federal government has to act upon. Based on the need for action, if there isn't a consensus, there should be. If there isn't a consensus, how can he advocate federal intervention on the grounds that there ought to be a consensus? If there's no consensus of opinion on an issue, no mandate for action, how can the federal government propose a uniform solution to it? If the people of the West tend to feel one way about an issue, and the people of the East feel the opposite way, doesn't that indicate that the federal government ought not to act, since its populace is divided along geographic lines? The only solution there seems to be a "forced consensus". Because, after all, a consensus is required on some issues. So, if we can't arrive at one naturally-- if we're, as a populace, bereft of the insight that this professor believes he has-- then we're just going to have to come to an agreement artifically. I agree that there are consequences to be dealt with in transferring power to the states, but I don't believe that's an excuse for unconstitutional federal action. ------------------ "It's a funny thing, 'friends' You got beginnings and you got ends I guess I'll see you when we're ashes again-- Chris Robinson [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited July 19, 2001).]
BrianKagy: Uhhh... unconsititutional federal action wasn't being suggested anywhere in that article. The federal government has absolutely clear jurisdiction here due to the Interstate Commerce Clause. I think the core of the article deals with whether or not Washington should act more on issues that are under shared jurisdiction between the states and the federal branch if the states are behaving irresponsibly. The problem with New Hampshire and Massachussetts is very real. NH maintains a low cigarrette tax pretty much explicitly to attract out-of-state buyers. Since MA uses the cigarrette tax to provide health services for smokers, NH is undermining MA's autonomy, economy, and health services. Problems like that can only by resolved at the federal level... which is why they were granted jurisdiction in the first place. ------------------ Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.
Uhhhh... the 10th Amendment states that those powers not expressly allocated to the federal government are reserved to the states. When people actually pay attention to this amendment, a lot of the actions of our federal government appear unconstitutional. I don't think the issue of states' rights can be approached without considering the 10th Amendment, the author's wishful thinking to the contrary not withstanding. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited July 20, 2001).]
BrianKagy: Have you never read the Interstate Commerce Clause or decisions of the Supreme Court regarding it? Even in a conservative court, it's completely without question that the feds would have the power to do stuff about this. Anything related to inter-state economics is federal jurisdiction. I promise you this. You're usually well-informed... but this one's not even a matter of debate. If youd on't believe me, go read any decision since 1936 or so, even those written by Rehnquist or Thomas on the issue. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been expanded... and that expansion has held up even in recent years. But something like this fits even under the pre-Roosevelt days. This is scary. Kagy, you're a very smart guy... a conservative who I respect. And if you are mistaken about something this cut-and-dry... then maybe the Constitution is less well-known than I thought, no matter how much it's bandied about. ------------------ Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news. [This message has been edited by haven (edited July 20, 2001).]
