You HAVE to allow competition

And you HAVE to let the best ideas win out.

Holy shit. Atkins and I agree. I need to bleach my brain!

and we're afraid to use federal power to try to reign in california.

The federal powers EXPLICITLY OUTLINED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

All Cali is doing is refusing to use local power to enforce federal law. The feds can still do it themselves.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/us/oakland-mayor-libby-schaaf-ice-arrests/index.html

That in itself, though, is creating policy concerning immigration.

Oregon just voted 2/3 to 1/3 to withhold local assistance for federal enforcement of immigration law. The feds can tax. Let them pay for it.

Atkins, that was one individual's use of their liberty.

Oregon is a sideshow in that they don't have a border with Mexico.

I've got to head out...

Hasta

California is a sideshow too on that they don't control thier border with Mexico.

The feds do

They're aiding and abetting criminals, and enticing them with free stuff. They are complicit.

They are actively working to undermine the authority of the United States and are directly harming other states as a result.

Their mindless virtue-signalling has real world consequences.

I'm inclined to agree.

If it wasn't for the tech giants (that they're currently trying to tax into leaving), California would have long since imploded.

And when they implode the diaspora of illegals into neighboring states will begin.

Part of the problem with our strengthened federalist system is that certain states such as Cali are able to subsidize themselves at the expense of non-state residents

Essentially requiring states with balanced budgets and surpluses, even, to pay what amounts to foreign aid, by force.

So a system that works is required to support a system that doesn't.

With that in mind it becomes quite apparent why Californians are advocates for redistribution of wealth. Their lifestyles are already dependent on it.

But Cali is a doner state

barely. they receive $0.99 in federal funds for every dollar of federal tax.

<https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/does-california-give-more-it-gets-dc/>
`In January 2017, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office said by several measures California is, indeed, a donor state, but just barely. It receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, which is below the national average return for states of $1.22 per dollar paid, according to its review of a 2015 New York Comptroller study.`

that's a precarious balance, based largely on the golden goose of the tech sector.

a golden goose that they're doing their damnedest to kill
<https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-Prop-C-homeless-tax-measure-to-raise-300-13369555.php>

My point is that I don't see this "foreign aid" from other states

how do you square giant federal spending with the 10th amendment?

medicare, medicaid, social security, and the whole shebang

I stand 1 percent corrected

The power to tax is how it was justified.

If we end Social Security and Medicare what will that mean for the elderly? The two were created at different times but because the elderly were destitute.

Do what Milton Friedman said: convert all outstanding social security liabilities to federal bonds and end the program.

rip that bandaid off.

everyone gets what they have been promised, but new workers no longer have to pay into the system. they'll only get a bond proportional to what they've paid in.

couple of decades later, all the bonds will have come to term and the whole problem is solved.

The elderly can be cared for by friends and relatives. Failing that, they probably would end up in low-paying positions and low income housing. With their higher than average medical costs, they would most likely die younger.