6 ms·

> much of the funding that US states are reliant on comes from the Federal government, mainly because the US Federal government is allowed to do things that th

by bhupy 6y ago

> much of the funding that US states are reliant on comes from the Federal government, mainly because the US Federal government is allowed to do things that the states already do and thus to require the funding for it, which means that many state programs are in fact funded by the Federal government. Besides Medicaid, the vast majority of State-administered services are paid for through State taxes — a combination of income, sales, and property taxes. The vast majority of Federal taxes go toward Medicare, Social Security, the US Military, and Medicaid — all of those comprise 80% of the Federal budget. Besides Medicaid, none of those other things are State-level programs. > This means that the Federal government, if it disagrees with a decision of a State, can cripple it by withdrawing funding. This only applies to Federal highway funding. The Federal government has little control over how States fund their public K-12 schools, public universities (for eg Georgia funds its University system by taxing the lottery), electricity, water, sewage, police departments, fire departments, local public transportation, or public libraries. Further, the Federal government recently cut taxes, making way for States to fill in the gap to further cement control over their own finances. In fact, there is nothing stopping States from increasing the marginal tax rate back to WW2 levels. > So essentially, de jure States and Provinces are more or less equal in autonomy, but in practice Provinces have much more sovereignty. Not sure how you think this. US States are arguably more sovereign than Canadian provinces. The States exert more control over the affairs of the Federal government through its equal representation in the Senate. While Canada also has a Senate, in reality, it's like the Queen in that it totally lacks democratic legitimacy and could not actually stop major legislation from the House of Commons without sparking a Constitutional crisis. The Senate basically can force the Commons to vote on amendments, but does not block the government's agenda. This is simply not the case in the US. Every State has its own Constitution, Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, and a State judiciary that enforces its own Constitution. Most US States even have their own military[1]. Americans are Constitutionally citizens both of the Federal republic and of the state in which they reside. > The economies of scale that make public healthcare work require you to either control the market or a significant portion of it in order to strong arm the suppliers, A few US states such as California might be able to, but the Federal government would very likely interfere. Yes, and every state has the ability to do this. Pharma providers, Hospitals, and doctors would be forced to accept a State single payer insurance plan, or they would have to either leave the state or go out of business. A provider in Chicago isn’t competing for patients in Florida. Pharma companies that supply medicine and supplies can either decide to accept lower revenues in a State, or stop operating in the state. The resulting vacuum from doing so presents an opportunity for new Pharma entrants (perhaps even homegrown in those states). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

mattkrause 6y ago
I think you're underestimating the scale and scope of (US) federal funding. During FY2019, the federal government awarded 9,989 grants, 181,947 contracts, and made 99,148 direct payments to people and organizations in Georgia. This includes $630M from the NIH, at least a billion dollars from the Department of Education, and about three billion more from the USDA. Some of this might happen anyway--the DoD is not going to stop buying stuff from Lockheed any time soon--but a lot of this could be cut off if a state decided to go its own way. Meanwhile, in Canada, one province has decided to pick its own official language, rolled its own tax scheme, and spent five years trying to opt every law out of federal court via the "notwithstanding" clause (and then used it twice more anyway). Grant numbers from: - https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot=&fy=2019&state=GA&ic=&fm=&orgid=&distr=&rfa=&om=n&pid=&view=statedetail https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot=&fy=2019&state=GA&... - https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/3b17d170c1cf87cac2f307d1dbce25cd https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/3b17d170c1cf87cac2f307d...
- bhupy 6y ago
  Those NIH grants are not awarded on a per-location basis, they’re awarded to institutions, the vast majority of which are not affiliated with the State governments, so this isn’t a particularly strong source of leverage from Federal governments specifically against States. And for the sake of argument, let’s say that withholding funding from random institutions that happened to have branches situated in a particular state is an effectively targeted attack, the Georgia state budget is $48B, and there’s more than enough room for Georgia to raise its own taxes. US States also have the ability to set their own languages, including Hawaii and Alaska. Every state has the ability to set its own tax scheme. Alaska has its own sovereign wealth fund.
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    Georgia spent ~$47.5B, but only collected $21.5B in taxes, with much of the rest ($14B) coming from the federal government or bonds. So...federal spending has a lot of leverage. "Get with the program, or we're moving the CDC/National Primate Center/etc to Rayleigh-Durham" would certainly get some state politicians moving. Not only is that a lot of money, but those are also good jobs and prestigious institutions. I agree that totally cutting off funding from an agency would be unlikely, but it's not totally unprecedented (55 mph speedlimit and raising the drinking age). And of course, there's the middle ground of changing priorities with a wink and a nudge. As for language, no. A national language has been politically fractious in the US for decades. States do have them but they're all English, with some symbolic concessions to indigenous peoples' languages in a few states. Alaska's law, for instance, "does not require or place a duty or responsibility on the state or a municipal government to print a document or record or conduct a meeting, assembly, or other government activity in any language other than English." I doubt many people are renewing their drivers' licenses in Lakota or Hawaiian.... Compare this with Quebec, which requires that both official languages be used federally, and not only doesn't use one of them, but even has an office devoted to ensuring that the other isn't too prominent in provincial government or daily life. Likewise, states certainly can set their own taxes and level of social services, but Quebec itself has tax and social service treaties with other countries. Quebec also runs a parallel immigration system (selection/admission) that again, has treaties with other, mostly francophone, countries. No state in the US does anything like this; in fact, it's explicitly forbidden by the Contracts Clause (Article 1, Section 10). I'm struggling to examples where US States are stronger than the federal government or their Canadian counterparts. In theory, the 10th Amendment suggests that they could be, but US v. Sprague and Darby Lumber Company basically gutted that idea: the reserved powers clause "added nothing", "states but a truism", etc. In practice, the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause let the federal government do nearly anything. Georgia budget figures from here: https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_state_budget_and_finances https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_state_budget_and_finances) Alaska language law: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/28/Bills/HB0216B.PDF http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/28/Bills/HB0216B.PDF Quebec-France tax treaty: https://www.revenuquebec.ca/en/citizens/your-situation/new-residents/income-tax-return/international-tax-treaties/ https://www.revenuquebec.ca/en/citizens/your-situation/new-r... Quebec vs. Canada Immigration: https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/immigrate-settle/businesspeople/applying-business-immigrant/selection-admission.html https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/immigrate-settl...

by bhupy 6y ago

mattkrause 6y ago

I think you're underestimating the scale and scope of (US) federal funding. During FY2019, the federal government awarded 9,989 grants, 181,947 contracts, and made 99,148 direct payments to people and organizations in Georgia. This includes $630M from the NIH, at least a billion dollars from the Department of Education, and about three billion more from the USDA. Some of this might happen anyway--the DoD is not going to stop buying stuff from Lockheed any time soon--but a lot of this could be cut off if a state decided to go its own way. Meanwhile, in Canada, one province has decided to pick its own official language, rolled its own tax scheme, and spent five years trying to opt every law out of federal court via the "notwithstanding" clause (and then used it twice more anyway). Grant numbers from: - https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot=&fy=2019&state=GA&ic=&fm=&orgid=&distr=&rfa=&om=n&pid=&view=statedetail https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot=&fy=2019&state=GA&... - https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/3b17d170c1cf87cac2f307d1dbce25cd https://www.usaspending.gov/#/search/3b17d170c1cf87cac2f307d...

bhupy 6y ago
Those NIH grants are not awarded on a per-location basis, they’re awarded to institutions, the vast majority of which are not affiliated with the State governments, so this isn’t a particularly strong source of leverage from Federal governments specifically against States. And for the sake of argument, let’s say that withholding funding from random institutions that happened to have branches situated in a particular state is an effectively targeted attack, the Georgia state budget is $48B, and there’s more than enough room for Georgia to raise its own taxes. US States also have the ability to set their own languages, including Hawaii and Alaska. Every state has the ability to set its own tax scheme. Alaska has its own sovereign wealth fund.
- mattkrause 6y ago
  Georgia spent ~$47.5B, but only collected $21.5B in taxes, with much of the rest ($14B) coming from the federal government or bonds. So...federal spending has a lot of leverage. "Get with the program, or we're moving the CDC/National Primate Center/etc to Rayleigh-Durham" would certainly get some state politicians moving. Not only is that a lot of money, but those are also good jobs and prestigious institutions. I agree that totally cutting off funding from an agency would be unlikely, but it's not totally unprecedented (55 mph speedlimit and raising the drinking age). And of course, there's the middle ground of changing priorities with a wink and a nudge. As for language, no. A national language has been politically fractious in the US for decades. States do have them but they're all English, with some symbolic concessions to indigenous peoples' languages in a few states. Alaska's law, for instance, "does not require or place a duty or responsibility on the state or a municipal government to print a document or record or conduct a meeting, assembly, or other government activity in any language other than English." I doubt many people are renewing their drivers' licenses in Lakota or Hawaiian.... Compare this with Quebec, which requires that both official languages be used federally, and not only doesn't use one of them, but even has an office devoted to ensuring that the other isn't too prominent in provincial government or daily life. Likewise, states certainly can set their own taxes and level of social services, but Quebec itself has tax and social service treaties with other countries. Quebec also runs a parallel immigration system (selection/admission) that again, has treaties with other, mostly francophone, countries. No state in the US does anything like this; in fact, it's explicitly forbidden by the Contracts Clause (Article 1, Section 10). I'm struggling to examples where US States are stronger than the federal government or their Canadian counterparts. In theory, the 10th Amendment suggests that they could be, but US v. Sprague and Darby Lumber Company basically gutted that idea: the reserved powers clause "added nothing", "states but a truism", etc. In practice, the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause let the federal government do nearly anything. Georgia budget figures from here: https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_state_budget_and_finances https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia_state_budget_and_finances) Alaska language law: http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/28/Bills/HB0216B.PDF http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/28/Bills/HB0216B.PDF Quebec-France tax treaty: https://www.revenuquebec.ca/en/citizens/your-situation/new-residents/income-tax-return/international-tax-treaties/ https://www.revenuquebec.ca/en/citizens/your-situation/new-r... Quebec vs. Canada Immigration: https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/immigrate-settle/businesspeople/applying-business-immigrant/selection-admission.html https://www.immigration-quebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/immigrate-settl...