Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Are you using the Bong tonight. Again, I was pointing out that in the small states the people have inclination towards limited government. Just because some of their politicians representing their states are voting for increased spending during a war at the Federal level does not mean that the citizens of these states have abandoned their anitpathy towards government. Have the state governments in these states started increasing their spending recently? Have they changed their state legislatures from being part time to full time? Just because some of their representatives have voted for increased government spending over the past few years does not mean that the average citizen of these states have changed their inclinations towards small government.
I am listeneing to what you are saying, but trying to argue that voting population in the rural states are less inclined towards big government is a completely ridiculous position to take. It is completely unsupportable and yet you try and argue it.
|
I think it's a little unfair to compare the situation in California to pretty much any small state. It's a lot harder to govern California than to govern SD. We have a population much more diverse by any metric you can name - ethnically, by religion, by sexuality, etc.; much greater diversity in occupations (what can you do in SD? Beyond work at the base, farm or greet customers at WalMart); greater disparity in incomes among the populations, etc. than in the red states, which
in general tend to be more homogeneous. I'm not saying that corruption and waste are equivalent, but the greater challenges in governing this state have contributed to a larger, more complicated - and yes, probably more wasteful - government. Put another way, waste aside and assuming perfect efficiency, do you think California could provide the same type, level and quality of services to its citizens that SD does, at the same per capita cost? How many Hmong interpreters do the SD courts employ?
