And I think it's a matter of the citizens being involved and providing oversight, really. One problem I find here is that we're in such a conservative area that most of the GOP run unopposed, and I think whenever one party dominates like that you end up with a lot of fraud and corruption (that said though, our area isn't too bad but there are certain issues like too much collusion with developers.)

I also feel that online tools and transparency can work a lot better at the local level, and I was pleased to discover that we have a watchdog group for my county and that some of our state officials have set up websites where you can easily access information about budget and project oversight.

I don't think those things are all that useful at a federal level- though it's better to have the daylight than not, of course- but I don't think most people could glean much meaningful information from a federal department budget.

I mean I've lived in a place where the local government was excellent, provided more public transportation and other services than most big cities, had great schools and didn't have any higher tax rates than elsewhere, but that was the exception, not the rule. I'm just not convinced that the Federal Government is the source of most of the day to day problems.

That said, I don't think that Federal control is the answer either. But there needs to be some sort of network for oversight, sharing resources etc that local govts can use.

It wasn't meant as a snark or a trap, but billions in Fed money goes directly to Hurricane and tornado cleanup all the time. People see that as a blessing when FEMA shows up. You may see that as an extreme example, but it demonstrates what I was questioning.

I believe you have to define the scope very carefully, or else the general concept fails to be implementable. It's like you asked, “If you want lower taxes, what services are you willing to give up?” 20% unemployment likewise requires outside intervention just as much as storm damage.

“Who's not for keeping the Federal govt out of trash collection or sand sweeping?”

Those are very local level examples. I can't even imagine a scenario where the fed is involved in such activities. (horrifying thought!)

“…for states and communities devastated by the downturn, the 'smaller government' meme falls apart. The argument then is smaller govt until we need you.”

But right there, you come back to the point. States and communities can, in fact, handle a lot of this without the fed. But neither the people nor the the fed seems to think so.

For example, I know many who have commented here were absolutely against the stimulus, but for states and communities devastated by the downturn, the 'smaller government' meme falls apart. The argument then is smaller govt until we need you.

Calling for smaller govt is fine; but don't you have to state very clearly where this idea fits into the various situations we all know will occur. Without that clear delineation, smaller government is just becomes another political sound bite.

The federal government is good at a lot of things…big things. It is there as a framework in which the states can work together for common needs. I think when it comes to issues of morality within the bounds of the constitution, it needs to leave that to the states. I also just don't understand why I pay federal taxes that are then allocated back to my state to repair a highway.

I've actually been meaning to work up a guest post on why liberals should like states rights, too, but haven't gotten around to it.

So a generation later, they're stuck, and leaving part of the country in poverty (it's not just LA) does not further the interests of the nation.

So that's an aspect (not the only one by any means) where I'm really torn.

Anyway, I certainly get your point about corrupt local governments- but when you live in an area that's not like that you see how it can work (despite having to have voters who keep them on our toes as I mentioned with our local politicians.) But at least at the local level, some semblance of oversight is possible. I think the problem comes in the cities and towns where people have come to accept that the corrupt officials are the ones who 'get things done', which I know has been the mentality in LA. Even Huey Long had his populist version of this in his rhetoric back in the day- he didn't claim he was going to clean up the govt, just that he'd have corrupt guys working with him, for the folks.

In our community, we've funded quite a few park and school improvements through ballot initiatives for local sales tax with designated purpose. It's done through a GA state program called SPLOST, which allows counties to tack on up to 2% sales tax for projects that get voted by referendum on the ballot. Of course, true to form, some of our local politicians have now corrupted this system by borrowing against future SPLOST income (to the tune of the next 25 years of projected income being earmarked- and the state law doesn't allow for further increases above the 2%.)

So what could be a logical (and accountable) way to fund community needs is now all but useless for further needs. And it's especially egregious since there's been overuse of this method of funding for new school construction instead of requiring sensible impact fees from developers and/or donation of land for schools (in several cases land was set aside for school construction but- surprise, surprise- when it came time to build it was suddenly discovered that the land was unsuitable.)

So I think that our cynicism is well founded, frankly.

But at the same time, what jwest says is true as well- I don't think that citizens will refuse to pay for legitimate needs, as long as they see the money being properly spent.

jwest, it wasn't until I was writing this post (and then thinking about various comments here and over at the other post) that I realized how very cynical I've become. It bugs me to recognize that in myself, but you're right. I would be surprised.

Faith in local government. There's a thought. I have to tell you, though, that these days, right or wrong, I see government at every level as pretty suspect. Whether that stems from frustration at the ballooning entities generally, or just projection from the federal goat rope is hard to say, but faith is definitely missing.

Garvey — wow. Thank you very much. What a nice comment — and doubly welcome, since this was my first post here at TMV in a VERY very long time.

Hear, hear, DaGoat. Even though neither of those items (banning pork or putting off high speed rail) is going to come close to balancing the budget, at least they demonstrate fiscal responsibility based on the right first principles of accountability and affordability.

And both involve a more significant amount of cost reduction than the toe nail trimming that Obama recently announced.

This is kind of a straw man argument since as others have said taxes at the federal level are so opaque that it's hard to tell what services you're actually getting. I think there are exceptions, though. In the case of earmarks I can say most of them are local issues that should be decided and paid for locally. In the case of a high-speed rail system I can say that is a project that should wait until the government is more flush.

I live in Iowa and one of the earmarks is to study hog farm odor here in Iowa. Although that sounds like a joke it really is very important to the Iowa economy. Nevertheless I think that is a project that should be funded at the state level if at all. I doubt there is going to be outrage from Iowa voters if we don't get a federal hog farm study.

There was a lot of outcry when the state suggested that it might have to cut school budget line item for school nurses, and to some extent this seemed like the scare mongering that Jwest is referring to. But in this case, I do feel that our legislators rose to the occasion, and when people said “no, don't cut there” they didn't use that as an excuse to say, “OK, then we're either going to have to raise taxes or use deficit spending” (the latter would require repeal of our balanced budget amendment.) Instead, they appear to have done due diligence to find wasteful spending in the budget and cut it in order to reconcile the budget.