Devolution

The United States has a long tradition of state autonomy from the central

government. The nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave

the federal government little authority, vesting most of it in the 13 states that

comprised the country during its first few years. In 1787, when the current

United States Constitution was ratified, states ceded some of their authority

reluctantly to the central government, only after it had demonstrated its

inability to curb destructive interstate economic competition, to implement

coherent foreign policy, and to deter sporadic insurrections. The states sought

assurances against further federal encroachment of their prerogatives in the

Constitution’s tenth amendment, which provides that "the powers not delegated

to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are

reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people".

The trend of the last 70 years–a dramatic expansion of the size, scope,

and authority of the federal government–has been an historical aberration. As

recently as 1930, federal spending accounted for only 31 percent of total

governmental outlays by all levels of government. Today that percentage

stands at 61 percent.

During the past decade, a number of policymakers and scholars have

asserted that more fiscal responsibilities should be "devolved" or returned to

the states. The most famousor notoriousadvocate of such devolution was

Newt Gingrich, the former discredited Speaker of the United States House of

Representatives. When the Republicans gained control of the U.S. House of

Representatives in 1994, commentators predicted an imminent "devolution

revolution", which would bring about a major "rebalancing" of the nation’s

intergovernmental relations1

. Actually, the extent of devolution over the past

seven years has been modest. While the states have been given more discretion

in the implementation of some programs, Washington still "calls the shots" to a

significant degree.

The devolution revolution has fizzled because its most powerful

proponents have had higher priorities. For them, the devolutionary cause has

been an intermediate goal, to be bargained away, if necessary, to achieve other

ends.

https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/altri-atti-convegni/2001-fiscal-rules/737-768_tannenwald.pdf?language_id=1

>>14044483

Devolution: Four Proposals to Empower States and Reduce Washington’s Political Strife

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/proposals-empower-states-and-reduce-political-strife

America’s population has grown to 330 million—the third-largest in the world—and the nation spans an entire continent, 3,000 miles from coast to coast. Yet the federal government in Washington, D.C., decides which sidewalks to pave, which community centers require renovation, how teachers in local schools everywhere interact with children, and a fair price for kidney dialysis in Wichita.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Constitution was designed to require a large degree of cooperation and consensus in enacting large national reforms—yet partisan politics and a growing ideological chasm between Republicans and Democrats have made cooperation increasingly difficult.

For example, populist rage over Washington’s health-care debates caused control of Congress to flip in 1994 and again between 2010 and 2014. Yet this 30-year war resulted in just two major, transformational health reforms: the 2003 creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit; and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA). ACA saw a disastrous rollout, and a push to repeal the law dominated domestic politics for the next decade. Much of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary was riven by an intraparty war over whether to support Medicare for All, which has no chance whatsoever of congressional passage anytime soon.

And divisive battles are not just about health care; similar partisan wars are regularly fought on issues such as welfare, taxes, the minimum wage, transportation, and education.

This paper asks: Does Washington have to decide all these issues?

FASCISM'' as promoted by Democrats

1. An autocratic leader.

2. A centralized economy.

3. Rigid social control.

4. A domineering foreign policy.

5. Military adventurism.

6. Racism.

7. Paramilitary forces that inflict violence on the population.

8. An obsession with the glories of the past.

9. Historical revisionism.

10. Changing the definitions of words.

11. Government-organized marches and rallies.

12. Demonizing of all those who oppose the system.

13. Politicizing of all institutions.

14. Nonstop propaganda.

>>14044514

>>14044466

Actually, trafficked sex slaves who work as prostitutes in the evenings, often also work in nail salons and other types of beauty salons during the daytime. They make money for their owners even while they wait for a customer callout.

>>14044649

In the 1st image with the molecule in yellow did you see…

CO V Fe Fe

CO is carbon monoxide. It comes in to an Iron atom (Fe) which acts as a kind of catalyst. Electrons come in to a Vanadium atom (V) sandwiched between the FeFe ligand.

Water and or Hydrogen ions come in via another Fe atom and the .molecular machine constructs methane or ethane, the fundamental components of petroleum.

Remember when Trump tried to tell you this in a tweet? This is why Saudi capitulated. Their control of oil production is based on lies and fantasies. Oil is everywhere in ABUNDANCE!!!

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2011/dt/c1dt10240k#!divAbstract

PDF of the science is attached.