MNGunner wrote:If you think local government is so superior to federal, you haven't spent any time in Detroit, D.C, Chicago or the entire bankrupt state of Illinois.
I don't think they are superior at all. I think they are just as likely to be a disaster. When local government is a disaster, the disaster is limited in scope and magnitude. No way in hell am I living inside the city limits of Detroit, D.C., or Chicago. I do live in Illinois and trust me, I am not committed to stay and could at any time simply move if it gets too bad.
It's the old adage, don't put all your eggs in one basket
Local governments are not superior. In some ways they are and others they are not, but when you get a bunch of morons in charge at the state or local level, one solution that millions have taken in those cities you list and that is
One reason local governments are better is just that. They do not have an effective monopoly. You can easily leave their jurisdiction. Leaving the jurisdiction of the federal government on the other hand is much more difficult for most people.
Do everything at the lowest level possible? Let the people decide when they are capable. If that is not possible, then let the local government decide since they are closest to the people, but don't give them too much power (see all your examples and a lot more). If the local government can't handle it, then raise it to the state level. And only when it is not possible, doesn't mean they won't
it up sometimes (see your example of Illinois and many others), then the central government has to step in such as wars, etc. The list in the Constitution is pretty good to stick to and interpret in the most constraining way possible on the government. Of course, the central government will
it up and while Chicago, Detroit, and DC are bad, look what happened when the German government
it up, or the Japanese, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Zimbabwean, or the Venezuelan, or the Cuban, or the ...
All level of government is but a necessary evil. We just need to constrain them to what is absolutely necessary. It is not even close to absolutely necessary for the federal government to own all that land. It is not even close to absolutely necessary for the state government to own all of that land. It is not even close to absolutely necessary for the local government to own all of that land. So the people should be the ones to own all of that land and the local, state, and federal government regulate its use when it is absolutely necessary. What is absolutely necessary is subjective and I am much looser with my definition at lower levels? Parks, recreation, etc. fit into that in a limited scope. Yellowstone is a unique national treasure, so it fits. Vast tracts of forest, scrub land, etc. obviously do not.
Where's Spinner now?
That's exactly where I am. Same place as I have always been.
BTW, where is the Republican disaster in that list? They are all Democrat strongholds. One of them is where Obama learned his craft. What do you think he learned? How to do it right?
part of the reason why so much western land is BLM, Forest Service, or Bureau of Reclamation is no one wants to pay taxes on the pretty much worthless property. Believe me, most of good spots (where there's reliable year round water and forage) are already in private hands. The settlers were smart that way when they picked out their homesteads.
I don't know how they tax out there, but that is easy to fix.
If the tax rate is proportional to the property value, the total tax on worthless land is exactly $0.00. That of course, gives lie to the argument that this land has significant value as a hunting and recreational asset. If it is valuable for that, the land will have some value and you package that with the limited grazing or whatever other uses are possible, you come up with the fair market value. Granted that may only be $5/acre and not the $200,000 per acre or whatever land goes for around here, but it is what it is.
The tax on $5/acre is still more than no tax at all is it not
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.