Downsizing the Federal Government, State's Rights and National Security.

[The Backlash Cometh]

Does anyone else notice a potentially dangerous exposure developing as the Federal government continues to cut back on its aid to the States? Because the Federal government is not providing the assistance that the States need, State representatives are increasingly going abroad for help. That means, that politicians are going directly to countries which may have questionable alliances with the U.S. They're making contacts and developing relationships with people and organizations which may present problems for us in the future, especially if those politician's careers ascend to the Federal level. <Take Bush and the Saudi royalties for example.>

In just three weeks I've read the following:

(1) In yesterday's Orlando Sentinel it was reported that several Florida representatives were making contacts with foreign business interests. The caption was: "In wake of scandal, lawmakers defend travel" It talks about Tom Feeney's contact with China, and another Florida representative who took a trip to Israel paid by A.I.P.A.C. The rationale was that accepting these private jaunts, they got a perspective different than what the Pentagon would provide them. <No kidding?>

Or:

(2) In today's paper, Louisiana's Nagin reported he's going abroad for help:
NEW ORLEANS, Feb 6 (Reuters) - Shortcomings in aid from the U.S. government are making New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin look to other nations for help in rebuilding his hurricane-damaged city.

Jordan's King Abdullah also visited New Orleans on Friday and Nagin said he would encourage foreign interests to help redevelop some of the areas hardest hit by the storm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2090053

Or

(3)New Haven Connecticut is accepting oil from Chavez, which is someone that no one can really predict where he'll be ten years from now.

Bottom line: Knowing what we know now about how our politicians are getting corrupted by lobbying interests, is cutting back on big government worth exposing ourselves to unscrupulous people like Tom Feeney who are able to operate at the state level without national oversight?

I leave you with these clips from the Orlando Sentinel:

"Feeney's China trip was paid for by the National Committee on United States-China Relations, a private group backed by 100 businesses. The group's board of directors includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

"The relationship between the U.S. and the Chinese will in large part write the history of the 21st century," Feeney said"

[izzie]

1. I am not shocked as this is what it was more like as I grew up

Maybe the states did not go over seas but they did not count on the federal govt. like they do now. In other words poor white people in Maine were helped a lot more than poor black people in say Miss, by their own states. Every one knew this. Even the laws were different for the people in the South. It was just a fact we all knew. Feds sort of took over and fixed it. The country seemed to be a lot better off as I saw it when the feds came in. I would say we are moving back to the states now. In those years up to now the 'have' states just poured money into the 'have not' states so I do not know how that will work out with the swing in pop. Also so many of the jobs that the 'have' states had are gone over seas. They, the jobs, seemed to first move to wards the 'have not' states and now these jobs are just gone. It is a good sociology study if I ever saw one.