The decision by congressional Republicans to keep fighting ACA even after the Supreme Court ruled its subsidies were legal shows their contempt for democracy. If ballots and laws cannot settle issues a regime of law is impossible. There is a word for using ever means to secure one's ends and refusing to accept any outcome besides your preferred one. It is War.  A Democratic Republic require's losers to accept their loser status and yes campaign in the future but refusing to accept victories by the other side ensures civil war as being the only way to effect change. The 'no compromise' position of the Tea faction shows the fragility of democracy. Democracy can only work if both sides are prepared to lose and lose gracefully.

States, in the USA sense, are stupid. Perhaps this is why the American conservative tendency has always been such enthusiasts for the US state. They are small enough to be dominated by a small elite yet to large for actual self government. They perpetuate the regional differences which are the source of diversity and color but also help set up one's prejudices as admirable traits because they are 'our 'prejudices. It is not accident that too often 'States rights' are a front for retrograde policy and short sightedness. Natural resources become a personal cash machine for those who value exploitation now over careful stewardship. Minorities can be easily turned into scapegoats and demonized by a majority run state. If the minority was in their own city/state they would have more power while if they were one of many competing sectors of a larger polity they would also have less local scapegoat status.                                                                                                                                                               This perennial US problem has raised its ugly head again with the Supreme Court now deciding on the fate of subsidies for Obamacare. Although it is obvious the opponents of ACA are looking for anything it is only with an exaggerated sense of the importance of 'states' can their argument be even slightly plausible, To think of a province or territory in a country ( the classic 'state') as being exempt from a law because they pouted and did not participate would be absurd in any other circumstance.     States can also be  the 'laboratory for democracy' they are touted to be. Issues such as Global Warming and cannabis legalization are able to be dealt with in a state precisely because the people  can be brought to a more progressive position than it would be possible to get nation wide. It is also true that the USA is way too large and disconnected from a national culture. The states are too small, the USA too large. Breaking the USA into five or six regional nations would be logical but is not in the realm of possibility. That said it is revealing to see how the concept of 'states rights' has been used for mostly regressive policies but can be used for progressive ones.

The declaration of war by the Republican led Congress against the EPA is the perfect example of the old joke 'if the opposite of pro is con what is the opposite of progress?'. Most issues in politics are not provable. they are a matter of viewpoint, of interpretation, of  ideology. The necessity of changing our approach to our Earth is not one of them. most issues allow a do-over. If we err on the side of too much economic regulation, or of too much laissez faire in most areas we can undo what we have done and proceed differently in the future. Environmental devastation is not one of them. The Republicans are against regulations which have an immediate, easy to understand objective such as reducing smog linked to asthma and chronic bronchitis. I guess none of their kids have respiratory problems. Coal ash can be tested and the various heavy metals and carcinogens measured physically. The extremists in the Republican party ague it is not a hazardous material and should not be regulated. Even Global Warming is beginning to be seen in its effects at the poles and with rising oceans. The problem with the solutions is that they require a different approach and view of the Earth than is conducive to unlimited profit making. Republicans have no problem witrh spending tremendous amounts of money on defense yet will not use the same calculations to analyze the effects of using our oceans and atmosphere as waste bins. Of course it is cheaper to dump all your trash in your neighbors land instead of paying a dump fee but my guess is that if one did this to Republican's gated communities they would howl. The entire world however is seen as a common garbage dump which they refuse to pay the dump fee.                                                                                   The proof that government regulation is the only way to stop unlimited pollution is the track record. Wwe already tried the  Tea Party/ small government approach. It was called the 19th century. In it we exterminated the passenger pigeon, almost wiped out the American Bison, cut down the great eastern hardwood forests and poisoned waterways. It is like a baseball game. Republicans would not dream of allowing a major league baseball game without an umpire yet they think business does not need any rules keepers. Either they think  a ball game is more important than  the fate of our planet or they really are blind to the provable science if it interferes with profits. Some laws are poorly written and may need to be adjusted from time to time. It is important though to remember that most government regulations are the reaction to egregious incidents which are the result of human greed and short-sightedness. It is not easy to pass legislation. Conservatives often act like bureaucrats invent the regulations instead of them being the result of laws passed by congress.  A law creates a disincentive for for individual sleaze. Of course a company can do the right thing on their own, but in competition with sleazy operators they are at a disadvantage. We tried to let business write its own rules. It failed and it is time for voters to get over tired stereotypes of counter cultural types and deal with the reality of environmental science. Barry Goldwater was considered conservative yet he was a conservationist as well as a conservative. Why the Right cannot acknowledge that pollution and environmental damage are a legitimate area for government just as they acknowledge national defense is must be due to greed and short sightedness. For the  company heads and their bought politicans the incentive is clear. The voters must stop being suckered by cultural tribalism and accept the scientific consensus on the fate of our earth.                                                                                                                              

     Our new Guvner, Greg Abbott gave a speech in which he outlaid the some of the strange ideas some Libertarian leaning conservatives employ. The people who think lives should be free from Federal control have never held that to mean a freedom from State control. The same people who can pretend the water under my property is different water than that of you conjoining property think towns should not be free to make their own rules. This strike's this Yankee as odd. Isn't Austin making rules ( bag ban, SOS, et al ) local control? How does the state interfering with UT's desire for “a Well Regulated' state of the “the right to keep and bear arms” on Campus? Does not seem much like l;ocal control making these decisions on the state level instead of at the County/City level? The bag ban is a really good example of a local law that is working. Industry lobbyists came with misleading statistics about 'mass' of plastic ( we experience plastic bags as volume!) but we the citizens of Austin through our Republically elected representatives, our Gov say's it is bad for a city to just make it's own rules. Odd perspective from those who do not think much of what we do here in Texas should come under federal oversight. It is hard not to see this as an example of the double standard; today's Right see's pot's and declares that there have never been any kettles. If someone wants to produce desired end ( Nat Resources riches?) , that end will come. One seemingly has a Right to exploit property but not to preserve it.