Hi Wolfgang,
Interesting thought but I doubt that it could ever happen. The constitution etc was very adamant and the feelings very strong to maintain the separation of States and the federal government.
In addition many of the states are extremely culturally different from each other (not including N and S Dakota). I would suggest that is similar to the difference (other than language) Between Germany and Austria or England.
Alabama and California could never mix.
Euro will never be a single country. Imagine forcing the English to drive on the right or Germans to drive on the left.
I would also suggest that many of the government programs or services are complimentary each providing a piece of the service and not being a duplication.
The Fed provides Interstate Highways and the States local roads. Not a duplication. If the Feds took it over they would have to hire the States engineers anyway.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang Schaub
[mailto:Wolfgang.Schaub@...]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
8:02 AM
To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] The
greater picture
After looking too much towards the past I felt I should look a bit into
the
future now.
Following your discussions on intra-U.S.
boundaries I begin to wonder if
there is, in the U.S., anybody who ever has
estimated the waste of $ caused
by maintaining some 50 states. Three reasons:
1) The relative size of some states is drastically
divergent (Rhode Island
vs. Texas and California)
2) There is often little intra-state homogeneity
(New Jersey, for example,
split between an industrial, NY-City-oriented half
and woodland towards DE
and PA; similar situation with N.Y. State)
3) The boundaries of many states seem drawn too
straight to make sense
(cities are sometimes split, like Texarkana, and
others).
I know there is a historical reason for all that,
but is this situation not
contrary to the otherwise so
"forward-looking" America? A reform could help
saving billions of dollars that could be used for
a better purpose than
nurturing small-size or disparate governmental
administrations. Or: Is there
a difference, geographically, ethnically,
culturally or otherwise that
supports a reason for North AND South Dakota?
(I may even offer a recipe: Amalgamate the 50 into
6 new states, NE, SE,
mid-S, mid-N, SW, and NW)
I know this sort of discussion, carried in by a
foreigner, is not to the
liking of patriotic Americans. And precisely for
that reasons I bring this
up. Give me a reasonable answer please,
forward-looking.
Wolfgang