What Cain means by Empower the States

Last Sunday, November 27, 2011 CNN's Candy Crowley interviewed Republican candidate Herman Cain. Ms. Crowley was understandably confused about his position on illegal immigration, a hot topic in the Republican candidate debates. Herman Cain said he would "empower the States" to deal with illegal immigration.
  

Normally when Republicans say "empower the States" they mean to devolve Federal powers of legislation to the State level. That was how Ms. Crowley understood his statements, but Mr. Cain, who aims to bring "strength through clarity" to the Presidency, responded with a vigorous but somewhat muddied "explanation" that, after many viewings, I think I understand.

      
It seems that Herman Cain was trying to say was that he would enable states to "enforce" federal law, not that he would "empower" states to choose their own policies on immigration. Perhaps he mixed up the word "enforce" with the word "empower"?
  
At any rate, it does seem he uses "empower" to mean "deputize". This use of empower is opposite from the normal Republican meaning. Herman Cain means to impose the resposability and expense of enforcing federal law onto states without expanding their right to shape those laws in any way.  
  
I posted something like this at the "comments" section for the CNN piece, but it is still "awaiting moderation". Since no other posting have shown up either, it seems that the layoff last week of more than fourty reporters and editors at CNN is taking its toll.
 
CNN was already noticably short of investigation. Their claim to be an international news organization has long ago yeilded to content amounting to little more than "cat up a tree somewhere in the lower 48", except for the Sunday morning line up. If even Candy, Fareed and Howie have had institutional support removed then they should move together to another network. I would not have to subscribe to the rediculous CNN anymore.
 

Domestic Surge

Response to the 'American Jobs Act' speech by US President Obama two days ago seems to be missing  obvious parallels with military 'surge' successes.

If earlier QE spending has not acheived better results, maybe it was
-> not enough and
-> not correctly targeted.

Republicans argue that it is instead less government, even eliminating government altogether, that would turn the American economy into a jobs-creating machine.

Right. Because anarchy works so well to create jobs in Haiti and Somalia ?

Strong economies in Germany and China do not actually seem to be correlated with less regulation nor do earlier, happier times in the US economy.

At issue here is the kind of regulation. Is a particular piece of legislation designed to protect and strengthen citizens in general or is it aimed at promoting the interests of a specific lobby? This kind of legislative gerrymandering to promote specific businesses is just as corrosive to the economy as redrawing voting districts to protect incumbents is to democracy.

Eliminating these special interest exceptions and directions in law would eliminate fingers on the scales of the economy AND clarify regulations so that they are easier (and cheaper) to follow and enforce.

At the same time, a positive role exists for government action to enable its citizens to better compete in the world:

-> Funding research institutions; Money for student loans, bursaries and scholarships.

-> Improved transportation, electrical and communication infrastructures.

-> Protection from random disasters like flood or cancer (Why do Americans understand the need to share burdens of weather disasters but not of medical disasters ?)
  
 

Post Vacation Post

Surprising lingering benefits of a Caribbean vacation

I don't think I'd ever had a resting vacation before my visit to the Dominican Republic in May. It was lovely while it was happening but the amazing part has been the healthy perspective I have been able to maintain since returning to regular life; The persistence of distance, I suppose.

Do it if you can.

Removing barriers to better health care

Good news- There is an easy way to improve US health care and reduce costs.

In the United States, for every person providing a direct medical service there is a host of clerks parsing the bill. We don't pay for that army of clerks in Canada. Those people are applying their bookkeeping skills in other, more productive businesses. Our medical expenses are, in fact, medical expenses.

Single payer health insurance distributes individual medical risk across the entire population without the added overhead of pointless administrative and legal quarrelling over exactly who will pay for which part- because in the end we all pay anyway.

Besides radically reducing the cost of health care and improving the quality available to everyone, there are other, perhaps more important, advantages to these improvements.

Do Americans imagine that it costs them nothing to allow other Americans to grow up physically handicapped or poorly educated? That they can maintain a healthy, competitive, capitalist economy this way? Apparently they do.