AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Provide for the common defense partly means securing the border, "promote the general welfare" could include disaster cleanup to avoid diseases.

And legislation enacted by Congress under the commerce clause and money appropriated by Congress under the tax and spend clause may be used by the federal government to clean up the economic disaster caused by greedy corporations/executives in their "get rich quick" schemes that took advantage of conservative policies that embraced laissez faire capitalism but made them accountable to no one.

Perry is expecting the federal govt to carry out their constitutionally mandated responsibilities and to leave the state alone otherwise.

Governor Rick Perry, five days ago: Governor Perry Calls FEMA To Assist With Wildfires

" Governor Rick Perry, last month: Governor Perry Calls For 1,000 Troops To Be Sent To Border

" Governor Rick Perry, five months ago: Governor Perry Requests 18 Month Extension Of Federal Aid For Ike Debris Removal

I am agreeing with you.
However, congress cannot force a state to accept any federal money for its roads (to use your example).
If a state decides not to accept federal money, then that state is free to spend its money any way it chooses, without govt interference.
It would be a 10th amendment matter.

Under allocation formulas embodied in the current law, Mississippi, the poorest state in the Union, pays more than it gets back, while Connecticut, the richest state, gets back more than it pays. Moreover, fast-growing states tend to do worse than slow-growing states under the current formula. Fast-growing states like California, Florida, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina are long-standing donors--year after year shipping a portion of their fuel tax revenues to perennial recipient states like New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.3

For example, Texas does exceptionally poorly under the federal highway program. In 2001, its motorists accounted for 8.65 percent of the revenue paid into the Highway Trust Fund but received only 6.93 percent of the money paid out of the fund. If Texas had been entitled to a return share equal to its contribution to the trust fund, it would have received an additional $585 million in federal transportation money in 2001.4

Another major problem with the existing federal program is the mandated diversion of as much as 40 percent of federal fuel tax revenues to non-general purpose highway projects that benefit small but influential fractions of the population, including the billions of dollars wasted on the thousands of questionable pork-barrel projects that Members of Congress inserted into the legislation. The largest diversion of all is the federal transit program that shifts a disproportionate share of the federal transportation money (20 percent) from roads to transit systems that carry only a small portion (1.8 percent) of the traveling public
http://www.heritage.org/research/smartgrowth/bg1709.cfm

Please research this moron before defending him. He's no good.

Perhaps New Mexico would finally be able to clean up its act, the people could throw off the government foot on their necks, and we wouldn't be at or near the bottom of just about every negative quality of life indicator.

I would take that chance.

Quote:

Please research this moron before defending him. He's no good.

I am not defending him or his policies.
I am defending his stance regarding the 10th amendment, nothing more.

WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET

AUSTIN " Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

Which puts Texas about 41st or 42nd down on the list for getting a return on their money while it is pretty high up among the states who send the most per capita to Washington. Plus the money coming back that does not fund federal installations has a lot of strings attached to it.

New Mexico with a relatively small population does indeed receive more back per capita than it sends in, but most of that money coming back is going to the national labs and other federal installation, White Sands Missile Proving Range, three large military bases and some smaller military installations.

How much difference would it make to the local citizen if the $6000+ per capita that now goes to the Federal government could be reduced by several thousand dollars? Perhaps New Mexico would finally be able to clean up its act, the people could throw off the government foot on their necks, and we wouldn't be at or near the bottom of just about every negative quality of life indicator.

I would take that chance.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.