Bullying is when the feds withhold highway funds until a state enacts a helmet law for instance, or when they do the same to force a state to lower the DUI limit. Regardless of whether or not it is a good idea, it is bullying by the feds.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Our nations tax structure is totally backwards. County governments depend on funds from the state and federal government while state governments depend on funds from the federal government. Tax rates should be inverted with the greatest number of tax dollars going to the county governments and the least amount of tax dollars going to the federal government. This would give the citizens much greater control over how tax dollars are spent.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Article VI, Clause 2 sets forth that the Federal Government reigns supreme over the states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
This can change whenever the states decide enough is enough, by two-thirds vote.
Ronbo wrote: Our nations tax structure is totally backwards. County governments depend on funds from the state and federal government while state governments depend on funds from the federal government. Tax rates should be inverted with the greatest number of tax dollars going to the county governments and the least amount of tax dollars going to the federal government. This would give the citizens much greater control over how tax dollars are spent.
Can you imagine what the John Tighe Park County Taj Mahal would look like with all those county $$$?
This is why the town of fairplay did their resolution against ammendments 60, 61 etc along with the county doing their promotional propaganda to vote No on these ammendments. WE the CITIZENS/TAXPAYERS would have gotten some control in voting power before they could simply push things through with out a vote from the public had these ammendments passed.
Gee! I guess just like the 8,550sq ft building which will house ONE office. Are they going to have some dances/social gatherings there?
During the campaign, The advertisements on TV were no less than terrorist tactics, stating "look what you will lose". I am sure most of those asking for a no vote, are the very ones, who would have been restricted in their budget decisions.
Sundance wrote: Gee! I guess just like the 8,550sq ft building which will house ONE office. Are they going to have some dances/social gatherings there?
Sorta ot, but since you brought it up...... When I was a recruiter in Mi. I was responsible for 5 rural high schools. Each was its own school district, each had a huge admin. building on a separate piece of property which housed the superintendent and a few other paper pushers.
For a while my wife and I were part of a ballroom dancing group. I do not remember the cost, but it was cheap to rent the assembly room in one of the admin buildings that was as big as a ball room.
