Isn’t Defense Money Federal Money? Aren’t We Putting a Boot in the Ass of the Feds?

I swear, trying to understand Republican politics in this state can give a girl a headache. (Not that following Democratic politics is much better. I mean, folks, apparently these days the TNDP chair gives a list of the Democrats the Party thinks are vulnerable to the media so that Republicans can have it. Why we would do this, I’m not sure. If it’s brier-patch politics, that’s one thing [that being “oh yes, Ty Cobb is SOOOOO vulnerable. Please run someone against him so we can stomp their butt, er, lose horribly.”] but otherwise? I just don’t know. Don’t get me started. I love Jeff Woods, and as a contributor to Pith and a great admirer of him, I encourage him to ask any and all questions. As a Democrat, I am begging, on my knees, for Democrats, when asked a question by Woods, to take ten seconds and just contemplate “Is what I’m about to say incredibly dumb?” And if you have to answer “Yes” or “I’m not sure,” then just say out loud to Woods, “You know normally, this is when I’d say something dumb. But, instead, I’m going to go get some ice cream. Would you like some?”]

Where was I? Yes, Zach Wamp, Tennessee’s angriest gubernatorial candidate.

So, Tennessee’s angriest gubernatorial candidate has unveiled his strategy for job creation and it is… take money from the Feds?

I mean, that’s clearly “Take money from the Feds” right?

I’m not opposed to taking money from the Feds, of course, being a liberal.

But Zach Wamp isn’t a liberal. So, I find this somewhat baffling. We’re against the Federal government except when we’re not? Is it too much to ask for a playbook? Or maybe a flowchart that Republicans could hand out to liberal bloggers who are trying to understand what the hell they’re talking about, that we could follow to understand when the Feds will be welcome in Tennessee and when we need to meet them armed at the border?

8 thoughts on “Isn’t Defense Money Federal Money? Aren’t We Putting a Boot in the Ass of the Feds?

  1. Ooo, maybe that’s why folks were trying to figure out “who the liberal bloggers are” – to provide us with a handy chart to understand when constitutional amendments are sacred and when they aren’t.

  2. B, it makes perfect sense if you apply the Lee Atwater Algorithm. Of course, you must expand the list of assumed undesirables to include liberals, gays, women, etc., depending on what political points the Republican is trying to score at a particular moment.

    In other words: federal money that appears to benefit politically correct groups is good; federal money that appears to benefit politically incorrect groups is bad.

  3. How about it being about Constitutional powers granted to the Federal government – such as the defense of our country – vs. all those that were supposed to be left to the states?

    I would much rather see the Defense budget being spent in America rather than Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, Korea, and all the other foreign countries where we have armed forces based.

  4. Jim, what do you think is the purpose of all the federal ‘defense’ dollars spent “in America”? Every ‘defense’ penny that isn’t spent on the Coast Guard is eventually going overseas. Our hundreds of military bases and installations world wide exist primarily for their own sake, and they suck down a massive portion of our tax dollars. Worse yet, the perpetual state of war that justifies the ever-rising ‘defense’ spending does nothing if it doesn’t divert more power to the federal level (especially to the executive branch).

    So, yeah, a ‘small-government’ politician angling for federal dollars that will put his state more in the grips of federal power– well, that’s kinda funny.

  5. Not to mention a number of positive duties to insure that the nation’s citizens can exercise their inalienable rights, even if a particular state doesn’t want them to…

    Hmm, actually, looks like the central governing authority of the federal is pretty damn important to the proper functioning of the nation. That’s why they call it “FEDeralism.” The kind of dual federalist philosophy that Jim is talking about hasn’t been operative since the Taney Court. There was this big thing that happened in the US, see, between 1861-1865 that convinced everyone but guys like Jim that any individual state could not be (and should not be) co-equal politically to the nation itself. Since that time, the federal government itself (through the instrument of the Supreme Court) is the last authority on the limits of its own power.

  6. “Since that time, the federal government itself (through the instrument of the Supreme Court) is the last authority on the limits of its own power.”

    So when the federal government outlaws abortion, it will be ok because the federal government determines what its own powers are? Or when the federal government determines that anyone over 75 years old cannot receive healthcare that will be ok because the feds say so? As long as the federal government can find 5 people that agree with them and happen to have them on the Supreme Court than anything they decide goes?

  7. “So when the federal government [does something I assume you oppose], it will be ok?”

    No, but it will be the law. People don’t have to agree with, support, or even refrain from actively fighting against the law to recognize that it is in fact the law.

    There have been, are and will likely always continue to be laws that are not “ok,” but I think most people would agree that it’d have to get pretty bad with no resolution before we ought to consider reconfiguring the entire method by which our government functions.

Comments are closed.