In the early 80s, the Federal govt told the states to raise their drinking age to 21 or...

[Yavin4]

risk losing their highway funds.

On July 17, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, a law that required states to raise the drinking age to 21 or face a 10 percent cut to their federal highway funding. All states complied and adopted the higher drinking age.

https://www.boston.com/culture/health/2014/07/17/why-21-a-look-at-our-nations-drinking-age#:~:text=On%20July%2017%2C%201984%2C%20President,adopted%20the%20higher%20drinking%20age.

Yes. That Ronald Reagan. I don't recall people crying about losing their "freedumbs" back then. Nor calling Reagan a dictator.

So, why can't the Federal govt do the same here. Tell the states to mandate wearing masks or lose federal funds.

[beachbumbob]

1. lets expand on this, after Biden wins he tells ALL states they must offer

- mail in voting for all elections
- have a min of x polling machines per polling place AND x number of polling places based on population and area
- automatic voter registration
- no voter roll purges WITHOUT notifications sent out

any state that does not abide forfeits ALL federal monies including disaster relief. A price should be paid by those states that want their "freedoms" and place the responsibility on the voters on who they elect. Time for niceties is over

[jmowreader]

13. One more needs to be added

De-gerrymander your Congressional districts.

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. This is what we're up against, folks.

Fascism, by contrast, was a new invention created afresh for the era of mass politics. It sought to appeal mainly to the emotions by use of ritual, carefully stage-managed ceremonies, and intensely charged rhetoric. The role programs and doctrine play in it is, on closer inspection, fundamentally unlike the role they play in conservatism, liberalism, and socialism. Fascism does not rest explicitly on an elaborated philosophical system, but rather upon popular feelings about master races, unjust lot, and their rightful predominance over inferior peoples. It has not been given intellectual underpinnings by any system builder, like Marx, or by any major critical intelligence, like Mill, Burke, or Tocqueville.

-- Robert O. Paxton, "Anatomy of Fascism"



There will never be a statement too dumb or a hypocrisy too plain that will make the Republican reconsider his position because his positions are not contingent upon the truth.

[Yavin4]

4. I've always believed that Fascism is a political system not an economic one.

Fascism is rule by the "in-group" who are then allowed to subjugate the "out-group" into forced labor. See the slave economy of the U.S. south prior to 1865. Or Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Or Apartheid South Africa.

Some of these states were capitalist, but you can even have Fascist Communist countries like North Korea. China is a Fascist, Authoritarian, mixed communist/capitalist state.

The Republican party in the U.S. is rapidly becoming Fascist if they're not already there. The party's popularity is largely built on a mythical past where White, Christian, males reaped all of the benefits and subjugated women and non-Whites into serving them.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Paxton would agree.

Fascism is primarily defined by its presentation of a "chosen people", and their continued struggle to reclaim what is "theirs".

I don't know that fascism is necessarily tied to capitalism, but there is a strong association between the two. Fascists don't like "weak" people and see capitalism as a means to cull them from society.

[Yavin4]

7. Fascism works best with a slave economy or completely subjugated working class with no rights.

Forced labor with no recourse other than escape.

Capitalism works best with Authoritarian government. Pay off the one guy and reap the whirlwind. U.S. oil companies in Africa would much rather work with one ruler than deal with a group.

Socialism works best with robust democratic states. In fact, it can only work with robust democratic states.

[lark]

3. That's assuming he wants us to survive the pandemic - he doesn't.

He wants maximum chaos and death at election time so people will be afraid to go out and vote against him. He wants to make it so the only way lots of people can vote is in-person and he wants it to be life threatening in blue areas. His mob can more easily cause violence if people are waiting in line for many hours in the hot sun, rain, etc. He won't spend the money to keep us safe- because he doesn't want us safe and will only spend $$ for the rich/himself.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. Mothers Against Drunk Driving laid the groundwork.

[artemisia1]

8. The threatened proposed cut in Federal highway funds was a direct result of 18-20

The threatened proposed cut in Federal highway funds was a direct result of 18-20 year olds who legally purchased alcohol and then caused a relatively high proportion of the fatalities, damages, and costs to those very same highways.

Yes, people should wear masks. Maybe even some Federal health money could be tied to taking sound precautions such as this. Federal highways, imho, no. There is no correlation. We hate Republican non-sequitur power grabs, so let's not do our own.

[Yavin4]

9. How exactly is this a non-sequitur power grab?

As you state and I posted, the law was in response to a health/life crisis on our highways. It was enacted to get states to change the behavior of the citizenry in order to protect lives.

Mandated mask laws are also in response to a health/life crisis. If enacted, it makes the states enact laws to change the behavior of its citizens in order to protect lives.


I am at a loss to understand why this is a non-sequitur power grab?

[artemisia1]

14. Try re-reading the post

The drinking age directly affected the safety and cost of the Federal highway system. It followed that states could (should) be required to clean up their acts in the area in which their behavior impacted Federal funds.

Masks or no masks do not directly, or indirectly, effect the Federal highway system so it "does not follow" (non-sequitur) to withhold HIGHWAY funds for such. Perhaps health funding which directly relates to it, perhaps yes. Understand now?

[Yavin4]

15. Understand this.

The drinking age directly affected the safety and cost of the Federal highway system. It followed that states could (should) be required to clean up their acts in the area in which their behavior impacted Federal funds.

States that do not mandate wearing a mask directly affects the safety, health, and cost of Federal employees whose healthcare is paid for by the Federal govt. For example, in FLA, there are several military bases in that state. If the state's community spread hits key military personnel, that's a threat to our national secuirty.

Masks or no masks do not directly, or indirectly, effect the Federal highway system so it "does not follow" (non-sequitur) to withhold HIGHWAY funds for such. Perhaps health funding which directly relates to it, perhaps yes.

A no mask policy makes all Federal employees -- which incldues military personnel -- vulnerable to the virus. As such, in order to maintain the continuation of services and national security concerns, the Federal government has the right to withhold federal funds from states that put its employees and contractors at risk.

[Totally Tunsie]

10. Biden today has called for a mandatory mask provision.

I just caught a teaser about this info, and haven't heard all the particulars as yet, bit I'm sure it will be discussed on tonight's cable shows.

[mudge]

12. This will make the rounds

Tonight's cable shows and tomorrow morning news segments will be all ovcer this.

[sl8]

11. More examples, background:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/
(note that article is from 2014)

Four Times the Government Held Highway Funding Hostage

If Congress were to lose the Highway Trust Fund, it would also lose a powerful tool to keep states in line.

BRIAN RESNICK
EMMA ROLLER
NATIONAL JOURNAL
JULY 16, 2014

The federal government can't force states to comply with all of its whims. But it certainly has the means to put the pressure on.

Congress is debating how to extend funding for the Highway Trust Fund, the money that has in the past acted as the federal government's muscle in enforcing laws at the state level. The House voted to patch the fund on Tuesday, two weeks before the trust ran out of money to maintain the nation's roads.


[...]

In the past, the government has used federal highway funding as a way to leverage states to comply with driving-related laws — establishing a speed limit in Montana, for example — as well as more tangentially related laws. Under the 10th Amendment, powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states. But under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, Congress can threaten to withhold essential federal funding for highway infrastructure if states do not comply.

The precedent for the federal government holding its highway funding hostage goes back to a 1987 Supreme Court case. The case, South Dakota v. Dole, dealt with the national drinking age, and found one of the Constitution's articles butting up against one of its amendments. The Court found that, under the spending clause of the Constitution, the federal government could withhold highway funds, thereby exerting its control over the states.

[...]