Driving in to work, listened to a Morning Edition story that illustrates the difference between state and federal regulation.
Basically, the recent fatal meningitis outbreak has been traced to a fungus that somehow was mixed into medicine at a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts. Apparently, this sort of thing did not happen in the 90s, when there was federal regulation of such pharmacies. However, SCOTUS struck down those regulations, I'm sure much to the delight of republicans who think everything can be done better at the local and state level. Now, it's up to the states to regulate those pharmacies, and they're not doing such a good job. Not good as in many people have died because of it.
So what is one of the main platforms of the republican party? Oh yeah - federal regulation is ALWAYS BAD!!!!111!!!! We should let the states do everything for themselves! . . . and let private industry alone, because private industry always has our best interests at heart, never makes a mistake, and never needs to be regulated.
My only counter argument would be interstate highways. The Federal government provides funds for those and has regulations about them, and they're still bad.
Of course, it's because the regulations stop at that sentence and the actual maintaining and work is done by state contractors, which are incredibly variable and often shitty. So really my counter argument would be: Yeah, Federal regulation is TERRIBLE because there's not ENOUGH of it.
My only counter argument would be interstate highways. The Federal government provides funds for those and has regulations about them, and they're still bad.
Of course, it's because the regulations stop at that sentence and the actual maintaining and work is done by state contractors, which are incredibly variable and often shitty. So really my counter argument would be: Yeah, Federal regulation is TERRIBLE because there's not ENOUGH of it.
Bullshit. Our Federal Interstates are mostly pretty amazing.
Wait, what state has better run departments of transportation? Minnesota maybe?
In Missouri, federal highways vastly beat state in terms of upkeep. But Missouri has relatively low scores on transportation things so that's no surprise.
Bullshit. Our Federal Interstates are mostly pretty amazing.
It varies from state to state and sometimes even county to county, so I can see why someone thinks the federal interstate system is broken if they live in one of the particularly badly managed states/counties. Here in MA, some stretches of some of the interstates I routinely travel on are impeccably maintained, whereas other stretches are so full of potholes that it's a miracle you don't see more blowouts on the side of the road. There may be other geographical factors at play here as well: northern states have more problems with ice causing potholes and such, so they may look to be in worse shape than southern states that don't have these problems.
My only counter argument would be interstate highways. The Federal government provides funds for those and has regulations about them, and they're still bad.
Of course, it's because the regulations stop at that sentence and the actual maintaining and work is done by state contractors, which are incredibly variable and often shitty. So really my counter argument would be: Yeah, Federal regulation is TERRIBLE because there's not ENOUGH of it.
Bullshit. Our Federal Interstates are mostly pretty amazing.
Hahaha, good joke. Go for a drive in Spain or Germany sometime.
We regularly see billboards in CT from labor unions about how our interstate bridges are in danger of imminent collapse and haven't passed a safety inspection in XX years.
We regularly see billboards in CT from labor unions about how our interstate bridges are in danger of imminent collapse and haven't passed a safety inspection in XX years.
I'd take those with a grain of salt, since labor unions do have a vested interest in bridge/highway construction since many of the employees that would do the work are unionized.
Not that there aren't any bridges in CT that are desperately in need of repair/replacement -- just that I rarely trust a source that has a potential conflict of interest, no matter their political stance.
Rym, I think you might have missed my point. The idea of the Federal Interstates is fantastic, but they leave the maintenance and details up to the state. This means that it is insanely variable. For example, NC has some pretty decent highways and good maintenance. Connecticut has a lot of very good highway design and maintenance, although there are battles.
SC, however, has some of the shittiest Interstates I've ever driven on, and the design of many of the intersections was neither forward thinking nor cost effective. I mean, 526 is a viaduct system that incorporates traffic weaving at almost every on/off ramp, coupled with passing through the middle of many rapidly-growing towns. It would cost billions to fix, and our maintenance budget is not nearly that much.
Internationally, I only have France to compare to. France's interstates are absolutely incredible, but they use a completely separate system to fund and maintain them. Regardless, the roads are excellently maintained despite facing a lot of the same challenges that we do.
As an aside - have you ever read up on Highway engineering? It's actually an incredibly fascinating topic, and I've been learning more and more about it from the materials used to the politics involved in contracting out and the actual physical layout of the highways. I'd recommend starting here. It's a SA thread where a traffic engineer takes questions and answers quite well, similar to an AMA on The Reddit. Dude is insanely good at explaining the concepts, and it completely changed my views when it came to traffic.
Looking at some of those bridges, I don't have a lot of trouble believing it.
Why is why I said that there may be some actually in need of repair/replacement. Just that I don't trust an organization whose main purpose is to provide work/higher wages/etc. for those tasked with the work to repair/replace them with giving an unbiased opinion on the subject.
Unfortunately, there are often self-interested parties on both sides of any advocacy, making relying on them nearly useless because it will all "balance out."
SC, however, has some of the shittiest Interstates I've ever driven on...
No kidding, man. Drive through NC and you'll see nice, well-maintained black tarmac. The very second you cross the border into SC, BAM, grey streets made of potholes with confederate flags lining either side and no apparent way out.
This digression into highways is a very, very good illustration of why I like some things to be regulated by the federal government instead of being "left to the states". Some states do a vastly different job of quality control than others. If you're lucky enough to live in a good state, that's fine, but if you live in a crappy state, you're screwed. When the federal government regulates things, at least you can count on some consistency from place to place.
What do you think it would be like if, as some republicans say they want, abortion rights decisions were left to the states? Or, what about if Ryan's Medicare plan was enacted, and the states made their own decisions regarding enforcement and enactment of Medicare?
This digression into highways is a very, very good illustration of why I like some things to be regulated by the federal government instead of being "left to the states". Some states do a vastly different job of quality control than others. If you're lucky enough to live in a good state, that's fine, but if you live in a crappy state, you're screwed. When the federal government regulates things, at least you can count on some consistency from place to place.
What do you think it would be like if, as some republicans say they want, abortion rights decisions were left to the states? Or, what about if Ryan's Medicare plan was enacted, and the states made their own decisions regarding enforcement and enactment of Medicare?
Yeah, I'm a fan of what you're saying with one little change. I want the Federal government to control Interstates rather than simply regulate them.
My local news station Facebook feed is chock full of morons declaring Ryan the winner of the debate. Biden killed but it's effectively preaching to the choir. The people who need to be reached do not care.
Well, I guess it is pretty biased to want the people on the Science Committee to actually believe in science.
On this I can agree with you. Fuck this guy, fuck his couch, watch it fly. If the Republicans could just stick to fiscally conservative, socially liberal I'd shit rainbows but no, they gotta do shit like this and give conservatives a bad name.
Comments
Of course, it's because the regulations stop at that sentence and the actual maintaining and work is done by state contractors, which are incredibly variable and often shitty. So really my counter argument would be: Yeah, Federal regulation is TERRIBLE because there's not ENOUGH of it.
In Missouri, federal highways vastly beat state in terms of upkeep. But Missouri has relatively low scores on transportation things so that's no surprise.
Not that there aren't any bridges in CT that are desperately in need of repair/replacement -- just that I rarely trust a source that has a potential conflict of interest, no matter their political stance.
SC, however, has some of the shittiest Interstates I've ever driven on, and the design of many of the intersections was neither forward thinking nor cost effective. I mean, 526 is a viaduct system that incorporates traffic weaving at almost every on/off ramp, coupled with passing through the middle of many rapidly-growing towns. It would cost billions to fix, and our maintenance budget is not nearly that much.
Internationally, I only have France to compare to. France's interstates are absolutely incredible, but they use a completely separate system to fund and maintain them. Regardless, the roads are excellently maintained despite facing a lot of the same challenges that we do.
As an aside - have you ever read up on Highway engineering? It's actually an incredibly fascinating topic, and I've been learning more and more about it from the materials used to the politics involved in contracting out and the actual physical layout of the highways. I'd recommend starting here. It's a SA thread where a traffic engineer takes questions and answers quite well, similar to an AMA on The Reddit. Dude is insanely good at explaining the concepts, and it completely changed my views when it came to traffic.
What do you think it would be like if, as some republicans say they want, abortion rights decisions were left to the states? Or, what about if Ryan's Medicare plan was enacted, and the states made their own decisions regarding enforcement and enactment of Medicare?
Heh.
Apparently, cops are for arresting, you know, other people...
"That's a pile of stuff"
"That's a load of malarkey"
"Facts matter"
"Here's a concrete example"
"Notice the man doesn't answer questions"
Someone assassinate Obama, THIS is the man we need in the Oval Office.