With all due respect to my friends out in bankrupt California… it’s unfair to the rest of us when you export your lousy policy choices in the form of relocated voters and federal bailouts.
Your government screws up its finances, your voters are unable or unwilling to sort it out, so you are heading for and hoping for a bailout from the rest of us. Then, rather than stay in the utopia they voted for, many who can afford it move to CO & NV and continue to advocate similar policy madness for their new homes and at the national level.
Voting with your feet is supposed to contain state-level problems, not metastasize and spread them throughout the electoral college.
Here’s VDH writing at the above link:
Open borders, redistributionist socialism, therapeutic and politicized public schools, and public-employee unions finally are proving a match even for Apple, Google, Facebook, the Napa Valley wine industry, Central Valley agribusiness, Hollywood, Cal Tech, Stanford, and Berkeley. In California, it is a day-by-day war between what nature and past generations have so generously bequeathed and what our bunch has so voraciously consumed.
On any given day, beautiful weather, the Pacific Coast, and the majestic Sierra Nevada are trumped by released felons, $5-a-gallon gas, and a 1970 infrastructure crumbling beneath a crowded 2012 state.
There are many lessons from California. One is that the vision of the present administration is already here — and it simply does not work.
Rivkin and Foley write in today’s WSJ that “Despite federalism’s many virtues, it is not much in vogue” because “Democrats regard federalism as quaint – another disposable constitutional concept that stands in the way of ‘progress,'” while “Republicans (mostly) pay lip service to it.”
The idea that the Constitution grants only limited and enumerated powers and leaves the remainder to the states is foreign to those who believe that the national government should or even could address voters’ every concern. But contrary to the view widely shared by the political class, Washington—in particular, Congress—does not have the power to pass any law it wants in the name of the “general welfare.”
…Keeping the federal government within its proper constitutional sphere is critical to all Americans, regardless of their political allegiance. This is because federalism is not about protecting “states’ rights” but about preserving individual liberty. In the words of a unanimous 2011 Supreme Court decision, Bond v. United States, by “denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake.”
Federalism also allows states to craft policies that best suit the preferences and needs of their citizens, who can always vote with their feet. Likewise, leaving key policy choices to state governments benefits voters through sheer proximity to decision makers. State legislators are often part-timers who work and live in our communities and are more palpably accountable to us.
…Meanwhile big-spending states such as California and Illinois have been lobbying Congress for a federal bailout of their unfunded pensions. From the federalist perspective, it is appropriate that the promiscuous spending of some states makes it difficult for them to borrow more money. Such consequences, while dire, provide the political leverage that citizens living within those states need to force their elected representatives to reform.