Anybody else here agree with Governor Perry?

[hfojvt]

The Perry story seems symptomatic of a problem with the left blogosphere. Here we seem to be fed half a story, a half truth. "Perry and Texas Republicans want to leave the Union (again)". Where do we get these stories? From Drudge and Matthews (Tweety).

Here's how Somerby analyzed it on Friday

"Matthews never seems to do any research on any topic, of course. In this instance, he plainly had no idea how the topic of “sovereignty” had arisen. But then again, this is hardly surprising. Before the “sovereignty” flap-doodle reached the mainstream, it got itself filtered through Drudge.

What was up with the “sovereignty” deal? The story emerged this week, through Drudge’s edit pen—but it dates to April 9. On that day, Perry endorsed Texas House Concurrent Resolution 50—a resolution which continues to draw little attention in Texas newspapers. But this is how the helpful word “sovereignty” got into the mix.

Here’s part of Perry’s statement from April 9. At no point in last night’s program did Matthews show any sign of knowing about this resolution—let alone about what it says:

PERRY (4/9/09): I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal governments constitutionally designated powers and impede the states right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh041709.shtml

One of the things Perry was complaining about, I strongly agree with. It seems to be part of the recent stimulus bill to extort all 50 states to pass a "primary seatbelt law". I am strongly against such laws. They give the police the right to pull over a driver simply because the driver is not wearing a seatbelt. Kansas stands to lose $10 million in highway funds for not passing such a law.

I am also against that type of Federal extortion, and I am not sure what the source of it is either. Is this coming from the Obama administration? From Congressional Democrats? From insurance company lobbyists?

Whoever it is, insofar as Perry is complaining about that type of thing, I am in full agreement with him.

[CreekDog]

1. Using Somerby as a source is a lot like asking an umbrella maker for the weather forecast

:eyes:

[hfojvt]

5. huh? Because he's always negative?

Do you have better information then to show he's wrong, because he seems to have quoted Perry.

[CreekDog]

29. the elastic clause of the constitution

how's that?

[WeDidIt]

2. States have NO rights

States have powers not rights.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Other amendments lay out the rights of people, but nowhere in the consitution do the states have rights.

[hfojvt]

6. that's kinda beside the point.

It's in the bill of rights. Should states have the power to make their own traffic laws or not?

[WeDidIt]

10. States have no right to make traffic laws

States have the power to make traffic laws because it is a power not explicitly spelled out for the federal government in the constitution.

The Federal government does have the power to levy taxes and distribute moneys to the several states. Because these funds come from teh federal government's tax levies, the federal government has the power to attach whatever conditions it deems appropriate to acceptance of those funds by the several states. Thus, in exchange for federal funds appropriated for transportation, the federal government can attach any condition to the acceptance of those funds it deems appropriate, such as requiring a speed limit of 55 MPH or forcing the drinking age to be 21 years old or whatever condition teh federal governmetn so chooses.

This is settled law.

[hfojvt]

15. that still leaves me apparently wanting to vote against Democrats

for putting bullsh*t restrictions on my state.

And settled or not, I still think it's bullsh*t. My state representatives are supposed to represent me (and my neighbors). When they are extorted by the Federal government, suddenly they cannot. Those federal dollars are taxes that I paid. I did not pay them so my elected representatives could be extorted by them.

[WeDidIt]

17. If you don't want the law, lobby your representatives to refuse the funds

You don't have to take the money.

It's that simple.

[hfojvt]

24. it's not that simple

Suddenly my state is out $10 million dollars. Apparently because of the President that I voted for and a Democratic Party that I supported with my money. How many Kansas and South Dakota democrats should feel buyers remorse about this? Of course I know that much of DU does not care for red states like SoDak and Kansas anyway, but we might have elected two Democratic Senators in 2010.

And why is the Democratic Party so concerned with empowering the police state?

[WeDidIt]

Ahhhh, I get it. You think your state is ENTITLED to a free ride

it doesn't work that way.

The money comes with conditions attached, which is part of why the money is there in the first place. Don't like the conditions, don't take the money.

It IS THAT SIMPLE!

[hfojvt]

27. uhm, the money is supposedly coming to stimulate the economy

attaching strings makes it seem like stimulating the economy is not the primary purpose. Nah, let's change some state policies while we are at it.

Why don't you just admit that you love primary seatbelt laws?

[WeDidIt]

28. If you don't like teh conditions, refuse the money

It's the law.

And why don't you admit that you're under the mistaken impression that there is some kind of a guaranteed right to drive?

[CreekDog]

34. how can you call it extortion when you don't know what "extortion" means

Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. (source: Wikipedia)

=================

your example does not meet this standard.

[hfojvt]

36. yes it does "services through coercion". n/t

[CreekDog]

37. "illegal" ?

:eyes:

otherwise threatening to put you in jail for not paying your taxes falls into extortion. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

43. just because the extortion is declared legal by the extorter

does not make it less extortion. Otherwise, torture is okay if the government (torturing authority) defines "gouging out somebody's eyeball" to be "not torture".

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: right back atcha.

[CreekDog]

44. Your argument: ANY monetary transation is extortion unless it is a gift

do you even understand your own arguments?

[hfojvt]

46. look, I will pay you $100 to stop being such an a$$hat.

Wait, I suppose that is bribery. For extortion, I need to take $100 out of your paycheck if you wont quit being such an a$$hat.

Do I even undestand what an a$$hat is?

[CreekDog]

49. LOL

:rofl:

look, i have lots of experience looking stupid around here, so listen to me when i say: stop defending an argument that is so flawed that you look more silly and more obtuse each time you are confronted on it.

the "extortion" part of your argument was the weak link, you used it so broadly that it's lost its meaning.

if you take away "extortion" then you are simply arguing that the feds not require anything of the states when handing out money, or perhaps certain types of monies --but this is far from illegal --in fact, it's how programs like Medicaid are funded, how the country established the under 21 drinking prohibitions, and other programs.

[hfojvt]

52. I don't see that as a weak link at all

If somebody says "do this, or I withhold $10 million" that is pretty clearly distortion (er, I mean extortion, but I typed distortion first, and decided to leave it there, because it's funny). Dragging medicaid into it is beside the point. That's muddying the waters. There are conditions such as "use this for highway repair/building" and there are conditions such as "pass a primary seatbelt law". The two seem pretty fundamentally different to me. You seemed to already agree that the only thing that made it different from extortion was that it was legal. Isn't legal extortion still extortion?

[damntexdem]

62. It's not our fault if you oppose sanity.

Seatbelts are a public health concern -- that's PUBLIC health, not just individual health. For one thing, seatbelt laws are aimed at inducing adults to protect children in vehicles; but it protects everyone in a car to not have another occupant become a ballistic missile. And the effects of lack of seatbelts are not just felt by those in a car in a crash. Wait until you are sued for a traffic accident in which the occupants of the other car were not wearing seatbelts -- you'll find that you are put at greater financial risk because of the failure of others to protect themselves and others in that vehicle. On top of that, we all pay for hospitalization when uninsured persons do not protect themselves via seatbelts.

[spanone]

3. no

[hfojvt]

8. no to which part? And why?

Do you think that states should be extorted to pass certain laws? Is that okay even if Republicans are in charge of the Federal Government? For example, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion would still be legal in most blue states. However a Bush administration could extort those blue states to outlaw abortion.

Or are you just such a big supporter of primary seatbelt laws that you don't care how they are passed?

Or did you just not read past the title?

[Ezlivin]

4. Since I live in Texas I can positively say

no.

Like Molly Ivins, I have no use for Governor Good Hair.

[hfojvt]

11. well how do you feel about

a) primary seatbelt laws

and

b) states being extorted by the Federal Government to pass certain laws

[unpossibles]

39. is wearing your seatbelt really that awful?

Jeez. What if I am driving, and hit you through no fault of my own, and you die because you aren't wearing your belt? I don't think I'd like to live with that, even if it were not my fault one bit.

Ever flip a car? I have. It sucked. I was not wearing my belt, but I walked away cause I was lucky and now ALWAYS wear it. Most people would not have that second chance. Same with helmet laws: as a motorcycle rider, I think people who choose to argue against wearing a helmet are fools and idiots.

Again, is it that big of a deal? Perhaps you and your state would also save money by not having to deal with unnecessary injuries in people who are too stubborn to accept that a seatbelt is not evil.

"states rights" on a trivial issue holds no water. Sorry.

[hfojvt]

45. it is kind of a big deal

when you are driving home from a ten hour night shift and end up handcuffed by the side of the road because some city cop decided to pull you over for a seatbelt violation and search your car.


But hey, more power to the police state. At least on this thread. Where are all the cop-haters now, when I need them?

[unpossibles]

51. you still did not answer my question

Look, I am against the idea of a Police State - trust me, I am. I just fail to see how this applies.

Your decision to not wear one does affect me. It makes my insurance go up, for one thing. For another, it drastically reduces your odds to survive an accident. I assume you have no family to worry about you or mourn your poor judgement call?

[hfojvt]

54. screw my family, okay, or at least leave them out of this

For one thing, they don't get to run my life.

For another, I fail to see how your insurance goes up just because I wrap my car around a tree and put my head through a windshield (although with my head probably only the windshield would be damaged).

And all of that is only true IF I get in an accident, which seems to be a lower probability event than what actually happened - getting harrassed by the police.


edit: as far as your question goes. Of course, wearing my seatbelt is not the worst thing in the world. What is worse though is having some busybody scold me or some cop harrass me about it. Like that cop gives half a rat's a$$ about me. Yes, he only handcuffed me and fined me and wasted an hour of my day for my own good.

[unpossibles]

56. well, ok. I guess it sounds like you've made your choice

to not wear it, regardless of the consequences. Congrats. I too do things something which are not good for me, statistics be damned.

[hfojvt]

57. it's not about consequences. It's about risk

I still think the risk of driving to wal-mart or 12 miles home from work without a seatbelt is probably lower than what I just did this morning - cutting down a large tree limb with a hand saw. It's only "not good for me" IF something bad happens.

[joeybee12]

7. OMG! Making people wear seatbelts! It's like nazi germany!

Never mind the MILLIONS of dollars in health expenses that will save because some people are too stupid to wear them without being forced to.

[hfojvt]

9. nobody said anything about Nazi Germany, Mr. Godwin

I happen to be against those laws and have been harrassed by the police in Iowa for not wearing a seatbelt. "Big brother says buckle up" and since you agree with big brother, you do not feel oppressed. Personally, I think big brother can leave me alone when I am not bothering anybody else.

[WeDidIt]

12. IF Kansas does not want the seatbelt law

Kansas simply has to refuse the stimulus funds.

Problem solved.

The federal government has the power to place any condition it so chooses on any funding it transmits to the several states.

EDITED TO ADD: It's a lot more than $10 million, too. Schumer has indicated it's an all or nothing gig. A state takes all the money or the state takes none of the money.

[roguevalley]

21. its not harassment if the law says buckle up and you don't

Frankly, this is a trifle compared to real wrongs. seat belts. god almighty. and when people get their heads caved in because they wanted to be left alone, we pay the bill. Nick Nolte thought the same way until he hit the pavement during a bike ride and now he says he was a fool.

[hfojvt]

25. it is harrassment

it depends on your view of the law though. Is the law there to serve the people, or is it there to rule the people?

[WeDidIt]

26. Here's one for you. You have NO RIGHT TO DRIVE

Driving is a privelage.

Thus, there are rules and laws attached to granting you that privelage.

[hfojvt]

31. ah, of course, and I have no right to live either

who is gonna write the rules and laws for my state though. The people of Kansas, or the people of California?

Kind of a moot point, since a) I did not own a car for most of the last five years and b) my recent purchase of a 1993 Tempo includes these automatic shoulder straps.

I never said the seatbelt laws were unconstitutional. I said that I really do not like them. At all.

[WeDidIt]

32. Actually, you are guaranteed your right to live

Under the fifth amendment.

And like them or not, the federal funds are conditional upon passage of those laws.

If you don't want a mandatory seatbelt law, lobby your state representatives to raise the funding for highways some other way (i.e. higher local taxes), otherwise your state will ahve agreed to enact said laws.

[hfojvt]

41. look, I am not trying to argue so much about that

the other bottom lines are
1) I am pi$$ed off that there are such conditions at all (fine, having conditions is legal, but I still don't like it and neither do some other Democrats in various state legislatures)
2) I am pi$$ed off about the particular conditions

It's kinda ridiculous for you to say everything's okay since I still have the option of tilting at a windmill. Who is my state legislator gonna listen to, me, or $10 million dollars?

[WeDidIt]

42. Dude, you shoulda been pissed years ago when the GOP

raised the drinking age to 21 via this same exact methodology.

It's a tried and true practice as old as the Republic.

Too bad so sad.

Get over yourself.

[hfojvt]

48. I was pi$$ed years ago.

Who ever said I wasn't. But at the same time, I understood a desire to eliminate those bloody borders. See, the thing about a seatbelt non-wearer is that they are only gonna harm themselves. Whereas the drunk driver has the potential to slam into a sober driver's car.

What does get over myself mean? That I should have as little respect for my own opinions as you do?

Get over your own tanjed self.

[WeDidIt]

63. No, those who refuse to wear seatbelts harm EVERYBODY

because when they end up a vegetable on life support, those federal dollars that go to provide healthcare pays for their stupidity.

[CreekDog]

40. where does that law come from? Martians???

it was passed by representatives in Washington who were elected by people in your state and mine.

[Solomon]

13. I wish somebody would deliver a shipment of utter fail

and tell the op it's arrived. Perry went further and gave a speech in which he almost threatened that Texas would secede. You agree with that?

[hfojvt]

19. did my OP say that I did?

I agree with the part that I quoted on the issue of primary seatbelt laws.

[BeeBee]

14. This is nothing new...

They did the same thing to raise the drinking age to 21 and to change the speed limit to 55.

[WeDidIt]

16. It's settled constitutional law

There's no getting around it, federal money can have strings attached and the states must comply or not accept the funds.

[ceile]

18. We've had a seatbelt law in TX since the mid 90s n/t

[hfojvt]

20. many of those were probably passed by extortion too

amd Texas may even have a primary seatbelt law. But that's an issue that I do not care to see states extorted on.

[WeDidIt]

30. How is it extortion?

The states didn't raise the funds, the feds did. If teh states want condition free funds, all they ahve to do is increase their taxes to get 'em.

[hfojvt]

33. the states didn't raise the funds

Funny. The feds got the funds from people in our state. But please remember your argument if a Republican gets elected President and a Republican controlled congress starts extorting California and Illinois. Extortion is always good, right?

[WeDidIt]

35. Immaterial to the issue

More of the money I send to the feds gets spent in Kansas than in Illinois, so your argument is moot by virtue of the simple fact that there is no equal distribution fo federal funding to the several states.

The states did not raise the funds. If the states choose, they can raise enough funding to supply their own highway needs and refuse the funds from teh feds.

In the case of Kansas, they'd still come out ahead on the federal dollars in over federal dollars contributed ratio.

And it still isn't extortion.

[CreekDog]

38. you don't even know what extortion is. sheesh!

by your standard if your boss doesn't pay when you don't show up for work, then you are being extorted to work.

:banghead:

[RainDog]

22. Perry wants his cotton crop pork.

His temper tantrum is about two things:

1. Kay Bailey Hutchinson want to unseat him as the republican candidate, so he has to blow smoke up right wing ass

and

2. Cotton is the only industry, so I read, whose storage has been subsidized by the federal govt - and the current powers-that-be want to remove that porky pork.

It's all about Perry WANTING HIS WELFARE from the federal govt. what a wanker.

[depakid]

23. If a state wants to be stupid- and not take federal highway funds over a public safety law

then by all means- don't take the money.

But then- don't whinge pathetically about it, either- or try to hide behind some misguided notion about the 10th Amendment.

[WI_DEM]

47. I think there should be mandatory seat belt laws and laws about using a cell phone while driving.

[hfojvt]

50. this isn't about mandatory seatbelt laws, which most states already have

it's about increasing police power to harrass minorities and poor people and increase the amount of traffic tickets they give out. When seatbelt laws were first passed, the fine was very small $10 and the police could not pull you over for just a seatbelt violation. Now the fines have gotten bigger, and in many states they can pull you over for just a seatbelt violation.

[Caliman73]

58. dude just put your seatbelt on and you can avoid all this drama

simple as that. It isn't a larger issue of a police state. It is an agreement we make for using state and federal roads. i am a minority and i have never been harassed for my seatbelt because I always put it on when I drive. I have been pulled over for speeding because I was going faster than the posted limit. My bad, I gambled on it to save time and I lost. I paid the fine and went to traffic school to keep the infraction off my record. That is the way it works.

[hfojvt]

59. speeding is fundamentally different. It is not a victimless crime.

If I drive down your street at 50 mph I am a danger to you, to your kids, to your pets, to your neighbors, to everybody else on the road. If, otoh, I drive down your street without a seatbelt I am a danger to nobody, not even myself in most circumstances. If the people just voted for laws requiring cops to leave harmless people the heck alone, then we could avoid all this drama too. At least that is how I would vote.

[Flying Dream Blues]

53. I don't even agree that he has good hair. More like a 70s hair helmet if you ask me. nt

[hfojvt]

55. probably better than Cox's or Couric's new haircuts

Sinead O'Connor already tried that.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

60. In regards to the seatbelt laws.

It's entirely up to the state if seeing a person not wearing a seatbelt is a reason to pull them over or not. If state were to wish to exercise their rights they can simply pass a law stating that a person must commit another offense to be pulled over, and that it cannot be for a simple seatbelt violation.


Other than that, seatbelts save lives and I fully support seatbelt laws. I also support helmet laws on motorcycles and bicycles, open container laws in vehicles and mandatory use of hands free cell phones while driving.

[damntexdem]

61. Perry doesn't get it, nor do you it appears.

The tactic used in the stimulus bill is an old one: money has strings attached. Many higher organizational levels who have no direct power over lower levels nevertheless gain substantial control by providing money with strings attached. State agencies regularly control local agencies this way. And the feds gain much power by attaching strings to money.

And if Kansas does not enact and enforce seatbelt law, then it DESERVES to "lose" millions. I'd be in favor of finding ways to make it lose substantially more than $10 million.

[anonymous171]

64. While I am a supporter of state soverignty, I am not a supporter of "states rights"

Mostly because "states rights" is really a code word for "a state's right to segregate."

[LanternWaste]

65. Well, I live in TX and "No"...

Well, I live in TX and "No". And before you ask...


How do you feel about....
a) primary seatbelt laws
Agnostic about them. Don't care much for pumpkin pie, though.

and

b) states being extorted by the Federal Government to pass certain laws
I reject the premise.