How The New Federalism Can Benefit Progressivism

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 11:53:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Meteor Blades discusses the decision of GOP governors to turn down federal money for rail projects and how that money should and can be transferred to states eager to fund high speed rail projects, which got me to thinking how the New Federalism could really be a boon to progressivism. Consider the rail money that Republican governors want to turn down, Texas' flirting with withdrawing from Medicaid and Oregon governor-elect John Kithaber's potential state based health reform within the framework of the Affordable Health Care Act.

If President Obama wants to package a structure that could be beneficial to progressivism while seeming to be a moderate conservative, this New Federalism could be the way to go.

Speaking for me only

< Jon Stewart's High Broderism | Obama's Not A Blue Dog, He Is A Bill Clinton Democrat >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

How The New Federalism Can Benefit Progressivism | 7 comments (7 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

But (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Warren Terrer on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:50:50 PM EST

that wouldn't be bi-partisan. I agree with you, but I don't see Obama doing it.

I think high speed rail money (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:05:37 PM EST

is for high speed rail and nothing else. I'm a little surprised at how vengeful Meteor Blades is about slapping around reactionary voters, its not like him :) We must have transportation systems that serve the nation and lead us into first world. The money is for first world efficient mass transit that will further help to lift us out of this economic malaise by providing more people with efficient afford cleaner healthier transit. It is not for inefficient, outdated, serves nobody much but the oligarchy, traffic jam creating, world and sanity and air destroying status quo.

I agree (none / 0) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 12:43:26 PM EST

with you. I mean it hurts people like me but sometimes people have to learn a lesson. There's no use in trying to give something to people who don't want it.

I keep reading New Feudalism (none / 0) (#5)
by Rojas on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 03:11:25 PM EST

dyslectic, I guess.

Time (none / 0) (#6)
by Politalkix on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 07:53:50 PM EST

for California, New York and Massachussetts to show Texas the superiority of progressive ideas. Govs Brown, Cuomo and Patrick, we are counting on you!

: Not going to happen in California (none / 0) (#7)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 10, 2010 at 08:42:35 PM EST

seriously FDR could come back to life and he'd fail in California- as would Reagan (its not a partisan thing) due to voter initiatives restricting both budget cuts and tax increases the state is effectively ungovernable.

dirty little secret (none / 0) (#8)
by diogenes on Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 05:23:24 PM EST

Obamacare was supposed to give health insurance to thirty million people. However, that's because they are going to be forced to buy it at higher than market rates (for the young) or because Medicaid will be expanded (and the states pay for half of medicaid and thus have to make the people pay via higher taxes).