Over the years, the demand for policy to be implemented on a one-size-fits-all, national scale has grown at an alarming rate. There seems to be no problem too small that we would not like the Federal government, rather than state and local governments, to fix. Would it not be much more efficacious and innovative to have 50 separate laboratories for public-policy experiments?

Per the article below from today's Wall Street Journal, devolving power back to the states would allow us to better determine what actually works.

Quote :

"Despite the federal government's growing economic dominance, individual states still exercise substantial freedom in pursuing their own economic fortune -- or misfortune. As a result, the states provide a laboratory for testing various policies. In this election year, the experience of the states gives us some ability to look at the economic policies of the two presidential candidates in action. If a program is not playing in Peoria, it probably won't work elsewhere. Americans have voted with their feet by moving to states with greater opportunities, but federal adoption of failed state programs would take away our ability to walk away from bad government. Growth in jobs, income and population are proof that a state is prospering. But figuring out why one state does well while another struggles requires in-depth analysis. In an effort to explain differences in performance, think tanks have generated state-based economic freedom indices modeled on the World Economic Freedom Index published by The Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation. The Competitiveness Index created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) identifies "16 policy variables that have a proven impact on the migration of capital -- both investment capital and human capital -- into and out of states." Its analysis shows that "generally speaking, states that spend less, especially on income transfer programs, and states that tax less, particularly on productive activities such as working or investing, experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more." Ranking states by domestic migration, per-capita income growth and employment growth, ALEC found that from 1996 through 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona were the three most successful states. Illinois, Ohio and Michigan were the three least successful. The rewards for success were huge. Texas gained 1.7 million net new jobs, Florida gained 1.4 million and Arizona gained 600,000. While the U.S. average job growth percentage was 9.9%, Texas, Florida and Arizona had job growth of 18.5%, 21.4% and 28.9%, respectively. Remarkably, a third of all the jobs in the U.S. in the last 10 years were created in these three states. While the population of the three highest-performing states grew twice as fast as the national average, per-capita real income still grew by $6,563 or 21.4% in Texas, Florida and Arizona. That's a $26,252 increase for a typical family of four. By comparison, Illinois gained only 122,000 jobs, Ohio lost 62,900 and Michigan lost 318,000. Population growth in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois was only 4.2%, a third the national average, and real income per capita rose by only $3,466, just 58% of the national average. Workers in the three least successful states had to contend with a quarter-million fewer jobs rather than taking their pick of the 3.7 million new jobs that were available in the three fastest-growing states. In Michigan, the average family of four had to make ends meet without an extra $8,672 had their state matched the real income growth of the three most successful states. Families in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois struggled not because they didn't work hard enough, long enough or smart enough. They struggled because too many of their elected leaders represented special interests rather than their interests. What explains this relative performance over the last 10 years? The simple answer is that governance, taxes and regulatory policy matter. The playing field among the states was not flat. Business conditions were better in the successful states than in the lagging ones. Capital and labor gravitated to where the burdens were smaller and the opportunities greater. It costs state taxpayers far less to succeed than to fail. In the three most successful states, state spending averaged $5,519 per capita. In the three least successful states, state spending averaged $6,484 per capita. Per capita taxes were $7,063 versus $8,342. There also appears to be a clear difference between union interests and the worker interests. Texas, Florida and Arizona are right-to-work states, while Michigan, Ohio and Illinois are not. Michigan, Ohio and Illinois impose significantly higher minimum wages than Texas, Florida and Arizona. Yet with all the proclaimed benefits of unionism and higher minimum wages, Texas, Florida and Arizona workers saw their real income grow more than twice as fast as workers in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. Incredibly, the business climate in Michigan is now so unfavorable that it has overwhelmed the considerable comparative advantage in auto production that Michigan spent a century building up. No one should let Michigan politicians blame their problems solely on the decline of the U.S. auto industry. Yes, Michigan lost 83,000 auto manufacturing jobs during the past decade and a half, but more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs sprung up in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas. So what do the state laboratories tell us about the potential success of the economic programs presented by Barack Obama and John McCain? Mr. McCain will lower taxes. Mr. Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses. To understand why, you need to know something about the "infamous" top 1% of income tax filers: In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations. When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn't the Rockefellers they're talking about; it's the companies where most Americans work. Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses. In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America. Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs. Mr. Obama would spend all the savings from walking out of Iraq to expand the government. Mr. McCain would reserve all the savings from our success in Iraq to shrink the deficit, as part of a credible and internally consistent program to balance the budget by the end of his first term. Mr. Obama's program offers no hope, or even a promise, of ever achieving a balanced budget. Mr. Obama would stimulate the economy by increasing federal spending. Mr. McCain would stimulate the economy by cutting the corporate tax rate. Mr. Obama would expand unionism by denying workers the right to a secret ballot on the decision to form a union, and would dramatically increase the minimum wage. Mr. Obama would also expand the role of government in the economy, and stop reforms in areas like tort abuse. The states have already tested the McCain and Obama programs, and the results are clear. We now face a national choice to determine if everything that has failed the families of Michigan, Ohio and Illinois will be imposed on a grander scale across the nation. In an appropriate twist of fate, Michigan and Ohio, the two states that have suffered the most from the policies that Mr. Obama proposes, have it within their power not only to reverse their own misfortunes but to spare the nation from a similar fate. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126282034130461.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[Edited on September 13, 2008 at 7:16 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2008 7:15:24 PM

Quote :

"In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America. Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs."

Say hello to rich ghettos.

Say goodbye to a LOT of jobs.

9/13/2008 9:11:05 PM

We can blame the 16th amendment for this.

9/13/2008 9:23:49 PM

The original argument would hold water if the Republicans were going to follow up on their promises of reduced spending.

That of course is not going to happen.

9/13/2008 9:29:15 PM

Quote :

"Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs."

It's fairly naive to attribute the rust belt's problems to mainly or solely taxes. That's like saying because the economy is in the crapper now and unemployment is so high, it must be because of Bush's tax cuts, and McCain's are just going to make this worse, right?

9/13/2008 10:15:07 PM

Oh I am sure when McBush keels over and Petrobucks Palin gets her caribou slaying hands on the button she will do a ton of spending cuts. Such as eliminating the ever so pesky spending on environmental protection, spending on sex education and of course science. I am sure that will free up plenty of money to prove how much of a "true conservative" she really is. . . but then again that may be washed out by all of the corporate welfare handouts she will give to big oil and wal-mart.

9/13/2008 10:17:52 PM

^lord willing

9/13/2008 10:34:15 PM

Bush has done a great job of intimidating Russia, Pakistan, and Iran from strengthening their military too, right? Not to mention China's submarine maneuvers a few months back. The Bush doctrine of foreign policy is obviously a failure that neither McCain or Palin seem to have any intention of reversing.

9/13/2008 10:37:20 PM

I just wonder how strong those nations would be if bush was a nancy boy like you guys want him to be....i think we are alot better off for taking a strong stance....can you imagine how many nukes north korea would have by now?...scary...

9/13/2008 10:38:56 PM

^ Imagining is what you guys do best, just like with the Iraqi WMDs.

It also seems like you feel humanity is doomed to live in a constant state of war. You must live in a constant state of fear and sadness.

[Edited on September 13, 2008 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2008 10:40:57 PM

^so you admit that i am right?

nah man...im actually constantly optomistic because i believe that some americans have balls and will one day soon defeat the people who want to kill us so we can live in peace....not that your bleeding heart would ever understand that concept...i know its complicated



[Edited on September 13, 2008 at 10:46 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/13/2008 10:41:45 PM

Only a Republican could think they are right, when they are so obviously wrong.

Quote :

" soon defeat the people who want to kill us "

A list of people that's been growing since Bush took office. I guess that kind of explains your beliefs though, the only way your side can stay in power is by making enemies so we can then later kill them.

[Edited on September 13, 2008 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2008 10:45:41 PM

^so again...you have nothigng to say....aaaaand i win....good work, son

9/13/2008 10:46:11 PM

^ Hmmm... declaring victory with no sign of it? Sounds familiar...

9/13/2008 10:48:16 PM

lol trikk just pwned a moron. lol

and the war was won in days. it was the occupation brought on by your pussified ways about rules of engagement that got us in the rut.

now that we're out of that rut, you can't talk much now. lol

[Edited on September 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM. Reason : a]

9/13/2008 10:48:52 PM

Quote :

"A list of people that's been growing since Bush took office. I guess that kind of explains your beliefs though, the only way your side can stay in power is by making enemies so we can then later kill them."

oh thats right....everyone loved us before bush....forgot about that....i love how those arabs planned 9/11 in the 7 months after bush took office...and how iraq managed to ignore 15 or so UN resolutions in the two years after bush took office...

brilliant dude...brilliant

^^again with nothing to say....idiot

[Edited on September 13, 2008 at 10:50 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/13/2008 10:49:59 PM

^ haha, so you still think Iraq was related to 9/11?

7 years and you still have no grasp of reality.

9/13/2008 10:58:52 PM

^haha....straw man.....

well done dude....well friggin done.....im out

you really an idiot

[Edited on September 13, 2008 at 11:04 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/13/2008 11:03:29 PM

Well we are fighting al queda in iraq, you cannot dispute that. You can argue if they were their before we got there though, but whats the point.

And your "bush doctrine", funny how everyone is using that phrase now to mean anything, has actually stopped over 20 terrorist attacks on us soil since 9/11. I think its just over 20..maybe 22. Im not concrete on the exact number.

Protecting citizens from attacks... YES.. the govts job. Nice work

Providing viagra to its citizens... NOPE... not the feds job.

9/13/2008 11:03:55 PM

Quote :

"You can argue if they were their before we got there though, but whats the point."

How much ground have you gained by destroying something you created? What's the point of hoo-rahing about pyrrhic victories?

Quote :

"And your "bush doctrine", funny how everyone is using that phrase now to mean anything, has actually stopped over 20 terrorist attacks on us soil since 9/11. I think its just over 20..maybe 22. Im not concrete on the exact number. "

Ha, so what are you implying? That we our law enforcement agencies didn't stop attacks prior to 9/11? And since 9/11 there were 2 successful terrorist attacks on our soil that were unprecedented; and world-wide, terror attacks have increased, which intelligence agencies attribute to the "war on terror."

9/13/2008 11:12:53 PM

Quote :

"The original argument would hold water if the Republicans were going to follow up on their promises of reduced spending."

I think McCain's record has been proof enough that he will not hesitate to cut spending. Bush on the other hand was unapologetic about spending. When it comes to fiscal conservatism, Bush might as well have been a democrat. If you were to use past voting records as a guide, McCain would no doubt be tighter on the fiscal reigns than Obama.

9/14/2008 12:00:59 AM

Quote :

"It's fairly naive to attribute the rust belt's problems to mainly or solely taxes"

It wasn't just taxes. "The Competitiveness Index created by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) identifies "16 policy variables that have a proven impact on the migration of capital -- both investment capital and human capital -- into and out of states.""

9/14/2008 12:12:50 AM

moron, what two terrorist attacks? Im drawing a blank

9/14/2008 12:14:43 AM

2004: Bush re-elected
2006: Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House

9/14/2008 12:15:50 AM

^^ anthrax, DC sniper

9/14/2008 12:19:14 AM

DC sniper? DC SNIPER? calling that a "terrorist attack" is, to say the least, specious.

9/14/2008 12:26:17 AM

ah, thanks. I guess you should include school/mall shootings

9/14/2008 12:26:40 AM

^^^not quite on the same level as 911.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:27 AM. Reason : ^]

9/14/2008 12:27:10 AM

The school shootings are more a social issue than a terrorist attack.

9/14/2008 12:29:29 AM

and the DC sniper shootings weren't?

9/14/2008 12:30:15 AM

No. That was a serial killer (along the lines of Manson killings.)

9/14/2008 12:32:10 AM

Haha, so an attack is only terrorist if it kills LOTS of people? Nice.

Was the unabomber not a terrorist? What Obama's "friend" Ayers not a terrorist?

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:35 AM. Reason : wow]

9/14/2008 12:33:44 AM

dude. those guys fit the profile of serial killers far better than they fit the profile of terrorists. They claim they did it "for Allah" only because they were deranged, which is what serial killers usually are.

9/14/2008 12:36:12 AM

^ they all had the effect on inciting terror. Do you not remember what the media atmosphere was around the time of those incidents? People were crying terror left and right, which incidentally, is what defines terrorism.

Serial killers don't cause mass public terror like those incidents did, and were designed to do.

I am a little shocked (but I guess I shouldn't be) that you all are now re-writing the definition of terror to fit the delusions of your world.

Quote :

"terrorism |'ter??riz?m| noun the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

What political aims to serial killers usually state as their reason for killing?

9/14/2008 12:40:12 AM

BTK Killer, Green River Killer, Manson, DC killer, killed lots of people but not all at the same time. They were not terrorists like Bin Laden. I feel the DC Sniper falls into the serial killer catorgory.

Unabomber was a terrorist, so was Timothy James McVeigh.

9/14/2008 12:42:49 AM

Quote :

"Serial killers don't cause mass public terror like those incidents did"

i guess Jack the Ripper didn't scare the piss out of people. I guess the Boston Strangler didn't scare the piss out of people... Further, I've already mentioned that the snipers were deranged. Their stated claims of purpose are evidence for that. Would you really suggest that the guy who drove into the Pit at UNC was a terrorist? I'd just call him a crazy son-of-a-bitch.

Quote :

"Do you not remember what the media atmosphere was around the time of those incidents?"

Are you seriously trying to use media hype, which is designed to sell newspapers and advertisements, to argue a case for terrorism?

9/14/2008 12:44:31 AM

What political aims to serial killers usually state as their reason for killing/


Usually there are none. They kill because it feeds whatever is fucked in their heads.

9/14/2008 12:46:18 AM

^^ sigh.

What is terrorism then?

^ If you're saying burro is wrong, then I agree with you.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:47 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2008 12:46:27 AM

ummm, I think he is agreeing me, dude.

As for what defines terrorism, it usually does need to have political motives. I'll readily admit that the definition of terrorism is loose, and that's one of the reasons I don't like "the war on terror." It leads too easily to a fascist state of paranoia, as well as to using the buzzword to justify raping the rights of the people. you shouldn't be surprised by that, unless you are pegging me into a hole based on a few of my more outspoken beliefs.

9/14/2008 12:50:51 AM

No, I agree these serial killers scared folks, but to use the word terrorist is not the what they should be categorized as. They are serial killers and to compare them to a terrorist, is like comparing a pit bull to a German shepherd. Yes, they are all dogs, but not the same kind of dog.

9/14/2008 12:51:58 AM

^^ i agree with that, which is why I don't get why you don't think the anthrax incident or the DC snipers weren't terrorist.

They clearly were terrorist, and actually killed people, just not as many as 9/11 (which MOST "terrorist" attacks don't do actually).

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2008 12:53:03 AM

^^^I agree.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:54 AM. Reason : ^]

9/14/2008 12:53:59 AM

the reason I don't lump the snipers in w/ terrorism is that they are serial killers. As I've said twice now, the claims of a deranged man cannot be taken to heart, and that is why their statements of political intent are irrelevant.

The anthrax case is up in the air at this point. It may be the work of a deranged individual, or it may be the work of a genuine terrorist. We still don't really know enough to say either way, even with the recent "closing" of the case.

9/14/2008 12:55:13 AM

Terrorists attack a country to make a politcal statement. A serial Killer attacks a certain type of person or persons. Green River hated hookers so he targeted them so did Jack the Ripper.

9/14/2008 12:57:25 AM

you are about to get owned dude.

moron is going to ask you how the snipers didn't "attack America." Or, he'll ask you what the common trait was of the victims in that case...

9/14/2008 12:59:35 AM

Is Bin Laden not deranged? Is anyone who chooses to murder innocent people (ie all terrorists) not deranged?

9/14/2008 1:05:33 AM

that is a question for history to answer, my friend. We have, however, determined that the snipers were deranged. That much is certain.

9/14/2008 1:06:24 AM

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) -- Lawyers trying to save convicted sniper John Allen Muhammad from the death penalty say he was regularly whipped with hose pipes and electrical cords and beaten with hammers and sticks by family members during a brutal childhood.

The lawyers argued in a federal court petition filed this week that the jurors who sent Muhammad to death row were improperly barred from hearing most of the evidence of the harsh life Muhammad faced as a child.

Muhammad refused to be interviewed by the prosecutors' mental-health expert and as punishment, the judge barred the defense from putting on expert testimony during the penalty phase.

Muhammad and his teenage accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, were convicted in the random killing spree that left 10 people dead in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia over three weeks in 2002. Muhammad was sentenced to death and Malvo was sentenced to life in prison.

http://www.wusa9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=71067

He was mentally ill. He was feeding whatever was fucked in his head = serial killer

9/14/2008 1:10:52 AM

Yes, Bin Laden is deranged and evil. He is a terrorists. He is worse than a serial killer in my book.

9/14/2008 1:13:23 AM

Bin Laden was a strong player in the Afghanistan insurgency against the Soviets. From the perspective of Afghanistan at least, that was a full scale do-or-die war.

He wasn't just someone messed up from childhood, and as a young person, I suspect he was shockingly normal. It took decades of indoctrination and full out combat experience to create someone who could organize the 9/11 attacks, not to mention impressive funding, contacts, and active/intentional brain washing of others.

I strongly suspect that by any medical definition Bin Laden is perfectly "sane". People who are fully capable and "all there" can respond in shocking ways to their environment.

9/14/2008 9:59:12 PM