Sender: Rickrad
Subject: Re: transpartisan momentum
Date: Mon, Feb 9, 2015
Msg: 101169

That's a great question. Their answer, I suspect, would be that there is no guarantee and that some states would be better than others, but that's ok -- over time, best practices will become clear. My personal answer is that the one string attached to a block grant should be a requirement that the spending be prioritized -- ranked from top to bottom -- like how Oregon prioritizes Medicaid procedures. Such a requirement would put add a new type of pressure, encouraging the right decisions.

- Rick Raddatz http://IncentiveReform.org ?

On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:45 AM, John Backman wrote:

> <> > > > > Strictly as an aside, I always wonder how they can sustain this belief given the existence of the New York State Legislature. I don't mean this cynically, but rather as an actual question, since New York's dysfunction can sometimes make the federal government seem a model of efficiency and civility. > > > > John Backman > > The Dialogue Venture > > www.huffingtonpost.com/john-backman > > Board member, NCDD > > Author, Why Can't We Talk? Christian Wisdom on Dialogue as a Habit of the Heart (SkyLight Paths Publishing) > > > > > > From: Rickrad [mailto:rickrad@me.com] > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:08 AM > To: John Backman > Cc: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] transpartisan momentum > > > > John Backman -- An example to how they are waking up to the transpartisan possibilities is that one of their core messages is that they believe state legislators can decide how to help people in their state better than the federal government can. Now this is *not* a "states' rights"-based argument... this is a question as to who can best pursue social justice (see attached handout for my take on this). So they are effectively saying "50 different dialogs about how best to help people is better than one dialog". The group has democratic sponsors in two states. > > Jim Turner -- I've been to a number of their conference calls for state leaders and never heard them discuss the issue of re-balancing the money. I'm sure that will be a concern when it comes time to figure out the details, but it's not a top-level concern driving the movement right now. > > - Rick Raddatz, http://IncentiveReform.org > > > On Jan 30, 2015, at 06:26 AM, John Backman wrote: > > Thank you for bringing this up, Rick. Oddly (because I'm not conservative on > many issues), something about this effort appeals to me. Maybe it's the > novel (yet thoroughly constitutional) approach to revisiting the very roots > of a worldview--i.e., small government for conservatives--and trying to > align the government with that worldview. In my book, it beats the one-off > threats of constitutional amendments on isolated, and often not > amendment-worthy, issues. > > One question for now: In what ways are they waking up to the transpartisan > element in their work? > > John Backman > The Dialogue Venture > www.huffingtonpost.com/john-backman > Board member, NCDD > Author, Why Can't We Talk? Christian Wisdom on Dialogue as a Habit of the > Heart (SkyLight Paths Publishing) > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: List for transpartisan leaders and innovators > [mailto:TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Raddatz > Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 6:17 PM > To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > Subject: [TRANSPARTISAN] transpartisan momentum > > Hello fellow transpartisans, > > There's a movement you're going to be hearing more and more about called > "convention of states". they have operations in 39 states, 430,000 > supporters and growing fast. > > Here's their website: > http://ConventionOfStates.com > > Right now, they are a completely right-dominated movement but here's what's > interesting: the reform they are advocating has the potential to lead to > transpartisan success and they are starting to wake up to that idea. > > You see, what they want to do is leverage Article V of the U.S. Constitution > to call a "convention of states" that will have the power to propose > amendments that limit the size and scope of the federal government. > > At first glance, this is a purely right-leaning reform. But consider this: > it will be the state delegates coming together who make the proposals... And > the states will not screw themselves... Just the opposite. The states have > every incentive to not just limit the federal government, but also to bring > that power home, without strings attached. > > What's more, the any amendments the convention proposes will still > ratification from 38 states, forcing transpartisan (or at list bipartisan) > flavor. > > So my prediction is they end up with something like cap-and-prioritize where > the federal government is capped and the money for social spending is > block-granted to the states without many strings, creating 50 different > experiments for how best to prioritize (how best to govern). > > Now how we leverage this, I don't know, but I thought I'd bring it up to the > group. > > - Rick Raddatz, http://IncentiveReform.org > 303-720-9913 > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: > write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > or click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 ############################

To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1