Arizona eyes punishment for local progressive policies

Can someone from the right please help me understand why this is ok? I'm asking honestly and not trying to start a fight. It makes no sense to me.

 

This always has been a huge flaw in the "get the federal government out/devolve power upon the states" Federalism philosophy in practice - many states have a higher chance than the federal government of being run by vindictive, incompetent, intrusive buffoons and have fewer safeguards and less transparency than federal authorities do.

 

Flow chart for determining whether political action is ok?

What is the party affiliation of the people responsible?
If it matches my party affiliation, justify it. If it is opposite of my party affiliation, condemn it.

 

I'm not from the right, but I do think the states asserting their authority is a sensible thing to do. When companies are looking for a location (where they will pay salaries and taxes) they want to be able to understand how much it's going to cost them and what return to expect from their business. If companies start to worry that the regulatory environment is at the mercy of a hundred city councils across the state, it will have a chilling effect on the attractiveness of the whole state. Even if you locate your headquarters outside of city limits, what will stop some mayor and city council from expanding city limits to include you in the tax base, then hit you with local ordinances about minimum wage and sick leave, and then tell you you can't do x, y, or z inside the city? Every company will prefer a state that withholds that power from municipal governments. Cities should still be empowered to make rules, but the state should supersede where there is a legitimate state concern.

You could go on to argue that pushing that power further up to the federal government does not follow the same logic. Maybe some businesses would prefer countries with a uniform regulation regimen, instead of contending with 50 sets of rules. But, in reality, nobody is going to pass on doing business in the US just because states can set their own rules. That said, there are still some subjects where uniform federal rules make more sense and others where state rules make more sense. Having maxims of states' rights in every case or devolving power to the most local body are too blunt to be optimal.

On the punishment thing, that makes no sense. If the state doesn't want a city to have the right to pass a certain ordinance, they can pass their own law to say so. I don't see why deterrence is needed at all.

 

This happened in Texas as well. Denton residents voted to ban fracking in city limits. And more cities started to consider fracking bans as well and sure enough the legislature banned localities from local energy rules like the ban in Denton.

 

State legislatures are voted on and subsidized locally; typically small business owners are the only group engaged and organized enough to effect change, both during the elections and when it's time to lobby legislation. This is why despite libertarians and philosophical conservatives' protestations to the contrary, "states rights" and state governments are pure garbage.

 

The United States passes on doing business in the United States
It is not the SELLING in the United States that is the issue
The movement toward Exporting all the JOBS is . . ..
and Many Corporations are doing so . . .

Rocket River

 

That's true. But, they don't export those jobs because of the regulatory uncertainty that comes from devolving power to the individual states. They do so because they have certainty that their costs would be higher if they located in any state of the United States. That would remain true whether federal, state, or municipal power made the rules.

 

Where are the district rights conservatives?

State governments are too powerful and centralized. Time for a movement to return the power back to districts.

Take back our districts!

Spoiler

 

potentially an issue if local city, county employees are getting paid with state funding. Would create unbalanced state funding as the governor mentioned. Then you have the idea that two people doing the same job in different counties or cites are paid differently causing artificial financial vacuums. ie, richer cities/counties could get richer while poorer cities/counties get poorer. also, state funds from all cities/counties paying for unattainable benefits for those that are paying.

it actually makes perfect sense when you think about it. federal or state level wage laws make the most sense.

 

just like many cities/counties have a higher chance than the federal government of being run by vindictive, incompetent, intrusive buffoons and have fewer safeguards and less transparency than state authorities do.

everyone has heard of what happened in Crystal City. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/22/after-almost-every-official-in-this-texas-town-was-arrested-black-water-started-coming-out-of-the-pipes/

 

Cities have different needs and concerns and need to structure their laws accordingly. Should NYC and SF be able to assign a different minimum wage due to different cost of livings? They are allowed to tax differently. Why aren't they allowed to govern employment differently?

Also companies don't look at states only when they decide where to locate - they look at the individual cities from many perspectives. I think a city should have self-determination around the way it wants to manage and attract employers - again suited to it's needs, strengths, and weaknesses.

You sound like a socialist.

 

So higher wage cities/counties get more federal funding than lower wage cities/counties? Are you prepared to cut all federal funding for local entities due to this inherent unfairness you're introducing with these types of measures? You do realize that local police, schools, public works, etc..., all get federal aid? So local police in the same state and even county could be paid differently if the city decides so. However part of the city police funding comes from federal aid. You don't see how that is a problem. If yes, how do you solve that problem?

i'm not but who gives a **** what i sound like, my points are valid. we are a federal republic with federated states. we are not city states run by local warlord law. this is especially true when we are all taxed federally (as well as locally) and some of those tax dollars are used locally.

 

Police already get paid differently based on their location. I don't understand why this is an issue based on minimum wage only - it's already happening across many cities. Do you think public sector workers in urban areas get paid the same rate as they do in rural areas???? Really? Why aren't you fighting that battle. Cops don't earn minimum wage and they don't get paid the same across city limits. Wake up.

I don't know if you know about this, but the leader of a city is called a mayor, not a warlord.

 

Meh.

The Federal government has this thing called the United States Constitution that enumerates its powers pretty specifically. Those powers NOT enumerated in it are transferred to the several States.

State governments on the other hand do not have such restrictions when regulating business within the confines of their jurisdiction (assuming they are not violating their State constitution).

Of course politics creates what you see as a double standard. But this is simply politics as usual. Hypocritical. Sure. But fair. If the people of the state think its unfair, their remedy is vote the bums out.

 

Another example how a rural state is stuffing its values down the throat of its "immoral" city

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...a-anti-discrimination-law-20160323-story.html