Don’t Want “Devastating” Cuts? Don’t Rely on Federal Government.

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

It seems that the special interests who rely on federal money for their income in Rhode Island (in and out of state and local government) have been working to keep stories like this in the news every week:

Potential cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration put forward by the Trump administration could have devastating effects in Rhode Island.

The Coastal Resources Management Council, the state agency that oversees development along the state’s 400 miles of coastline, would lose nearly 60 percent of its funding.

This is the problem with the government plantation/company state model.  When you’ve built your economy around the government’s ability to make other people pay for services that the government insists on providing, local taxpayers will move away and people in other states may decide to cut funding.  It’s a risky dead end of an economic development approach.

Our goal as a state (similar to our goal in our cities and towns) should be to react to news of changes at the federal level by expressing relief that we don’t rely on the federal government for much of anything.  That would be a state of both freedom and stability.



  • I personally would love to see both a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and a return to the imposition of a Federal capitation levy upon all states, as specified by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

  • Merle The Monster

    “The Rhode Island program has trained shellfish farmers to prevent the spread of bacteria and seafood handlers to increase consumer safety. In response to the recent toxic algae blooms that have closed down shellfishing in parts of Narragansett Bay, it has channeled funds to new research.”

    I think that assisting small businesses such as shellfish farmers is an appropriate use of federal tax dollars. RI farm raised oysters are beginning to be served in cities such as Washington DC, NYC, Boston and many other places. Imagine if there were any incidents of contaminated oysters reaching someones plate. Not only would the consumer’s health would be of concern but the businesses being adversely affected would include the one who serving the oysters and the farm who raised and shipped the oysters. Now unless you believe that government should have no role in that chain of events and that the injured parties should initiate law suits all the while their businesses or health suffer, then I would understand your ridiculous statements like this, “When you’ve built your economy around the government’s ability to make other people pay for services that the government insists on providing, local taxpayers will move away and people in other states may decide to cut funding. It’s a risky dead end of an economic development approach.” I think that assisting small businesses and protecting consumers is helpful to the oyster farmers in RI and consumers in RI and other states and an appropriate use of federal funds.

    • Mike678

      Hi Merle,

      The program sounds like a great thing. Do you also have the results of said intervention? Has it increased consumer safety 5%? 10%? What drove the intervention? Results count, do they not? Perhaps before you defend a cherry-picked program, you may want to know if the cost was worth the results? Imagine a world with some accountability!

Quantcast