Sunday, January 22, 2017

Devolution has begun

And if you don't believe it, check out this op-ed from Andrew Cuomo, the liberal governor of New York:

We are entering a new political era in which women across the country may feel that their reproductive rights will be threatened, and all states -- not just New York -- will have an opportunity to take the lead in improving the status of women through their respective legislatures.

As we are doing in New York, governors and state legislatures now have the opportunity and the duty, through executive orders and legislation, to protect reproductive rights, close the wage gap and combat sexual violence.
Cuomo then lists all the wonderful progressive initiatives he and the New York legislature passed. And in case you don't see where this is headed, Cuomo makes it crystal clear in this forceful conclusion:

It is time for states to use the legal powers they have to protect the rights of all their constituents, including the many women marching Saturday for equality.

The legacy of Thomas Jefferson, J.C. Calhoun, and Sam Ervin is alive and making history. Soon it will be re-drawing the map.


Larry in UPSTATE NY said...

Good ole Andy! He's worse than his father Mario was!!
Too bad we couldn't separate from Downstate!

roho said...

Why all of the sudden is States Rights of importance now?........................Classic.

Weaver said...

That sounds wonderful. They should experiment with mandating this and that, learn from the failures.

I don't worship the market, but an employer should be free to hire whom he will. An employer shouldn't be allowed to, say, rape his employee or otherwise abuse his power. But if there's high demand for workers, he won't be able to anyway. The worker would just quit, work elsewhere.

Weaver said...

Personally I like the soda tax, though I think it's too high.

These sorts of things can be and should be up to local communities.

While I dislike the knee jerk worship of the market, I love the idea of devolution: Each of us allowed to set our own standards.

In the South, small convenience stores supposedly used to try not selling alcohol. They couldn't manage this on their own, lost the competition. But with the help of government, an area could be alcohol-free in the stores, meaning customers would just have to drive out a ways. You can shape a community in this way though; and if the resulting community works, then residents will be happier.

roho said...

I think that luxury taxes should be defined.......Obviously, the lobbyist did not and destroyed them........For Example:

1. Should a man that buy's a $28,000 Chevrolet pay the same tax as a man that buy's a $250,000.00 auto?

2. Should a person buying a $4.00 meal at a fast food restaurant pay the same sales tax as a man buying a $100.00 dinner at a five star eatery?

3. A $150.00 J.C. Penny suit vs a $4000.00 Armani suit?

A well defined tariff combined with a luxury tax would work.

Weaver said...


luxury tax? We already pay a very high tax on alcohol.

"Luxury" frequently means "healthy", so I'm loath to agree to that.

For example, I usually grow my own vegetables (in the past, hydroponically) which are more expensive but also healthier than what one finds at the grocery store. Were I to find a buyer for them, and I am not wanting a buyer, it would likely only be to a restaurant. Adding a tax there would be excessive.

Armani suits aren't usually $4K that I've seen. I suppose they'd make more sense taxing, but you usually look better in a bespoke suit, suggesting they do serve a useful function in occupations where appearance matters.

Taxing luxury cars and yachts might make sense, but the super rich live on a geographically larger scale than we do. They might find it easy to bypass such taxes.

Also, currently "luxury car" frequently refers to "electric" or "hybrid" car. Those serve a purpose in furthering research towards more advanced cars. Our children, for example, might breath cleaner air should electric cars become economically viable. And if battery tech advances, we might be able to live off-grid more easily and less expensively, which furthers self-reliance.

But taxing a $250K muscle car sounds good to me. I'm not sure most "Alpha male" paleos like the idea of taxing their chick magnets though.

roho said...

Tomatoes?...................Please?............The super rich are not interested in your tomatoes?

Stay focused on the rich and famous.........A $15,000 watch is more in line with what i'm saying.

Weaver said...


I meant local taxes or at least state.

A buyer could just cross lines for that. Anyway, taxing a watch sounds fine to me.