12 ms·

> What your are basically seeing as a complete failure of all government programs and safety nets. Not to get overly political, but I think this was the goal,

> What your are basically seeing as a complete failure of all government programs and safety nets. Not to get overly political, but I think this was the goal, at least for one of the US's political parties.

bhupy 6y ago
Nearly all of those programs listed are funded and administered at the state and local level, which are run by both major political parties.
- suchire 6y ago
  There were many influential policy decisions at the Federal level that pushed for defunding public programs, such as cutting federal grants/loan forgiveness for teacher training
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Like what, specifically? To use one of the cited programs, the US school system, as an example: per-pupil inflation-adjusted spending on schools is the highest it's ever been, and has been continuously increasing: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.asp?current=yes https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.a... Also, Federal spending only covers about 8% of public school budgets: https://theconversation.com/federal-spending-covers-only-8-of-public-school-budgets-142348 https://theconversation.com/federal-spending-covers-only-8-o...
  - claydavisss 6y ago
    Can you honestly not take two seconds to Google-factcheck your own post?
  - jakearmitage 6y ago
    Can you cite any?
- takeda 6y ago
  yep and without federal help the states are struggling the unemployment benefits come from state funds as well
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Yeah but nothing stops states from raising their own taxes.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      Other than, say, capping the SALT deduction.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Capping the SALT deduction doesn't stop states from raising their own taxes — it just makes it harder to hide higher state taxes behind Federal deductions. Keep in mind that State and Federal governments are two independent sovereign state actors, with their own expenditures and services. Both have to be paid for somehow, and SALT tax deductions just hide the true cost at the state and local level. Also, the SALT deduction overwhelmingly benefited the rich, who arguably don't pay enough in taxes.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Yet the states with high taxes pay more to the government than they receive compared to the states with lower taxes.
        bhupy 6y ago
        This is: 1. Not true of all low tax states (Nevada, Washington, New Hampshire, South Dakota, etc) 2. More representative of which states have the most senior citizens and military bases, because most of the Federal budget goes into Medicare, Social Security, and the military. 3. Better alleviated by directly targeting net-takers rather than trying to approximate which states are net givers and takers based on the state and local tax rates, which is ham-fisted
- lostcolony 6y ago
  Actually most of those are a combination of funding sources. But even given that, the effectiveness of those programs can't be distanced from counter effects from national policy. For instance, libraries are funded by both federal and local sources. There is only one party that consistently wants to remove that funding (hint @which one: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/79496-in-fy2020-budget-proposal-trump-renews-bid-to-end-to-federal-library-funding.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l...) How much additionally is spent is locally determined, yes, and here you see that disparity as well. In Georgia, a heavily GOP state where I have family, the online catalog is pretty meager, even for major cities. While they have PINES for the less populous counties, a state-wide interlibrary loan program, it only is for physical books. Access to electronic resources is anemic. In California, a heavily Dem state where I live, the online resources tend to be excellent (especially if you're in larger counties/cities), not only having an extensive online catalog, but a lot of extras (Kanopy, Hoopla, language learning stuff, etc). But even all that aside, the -effectiveness- is curtailed by federal effects. Online resource access, extremely relevant under COVID, requires stable internet access. But unfortunately, that's not always available. Attempts to treat internet as a utility, to financially fund broadband rollout nationwide, have failed, due to one particular party preferring it staying privatized and purely for profit. Programs to create financial incentives to offset the cost even where it is rolled out have been created, but only under one party, and the other seems inclined to defund or cancel them. Attempts to allow municipalities to roll out their own broadband to be able to offer faster speeds without data caps at lower prices have been fought tooth and nail, again, by one particular party, on behalf of preventing governmental 'competition' with the private sector. Etc. In short, while you're right that localities are run by both major political parties, both the explicit statement you make that funding is local (only), and the implicit belief you're relying on that you can distance local effect from federal decisions, are wrong.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    0.4% (yes, really) of library funding comes from the Federal government. Cutting that spending is literally a rounding error for libraries. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/library-funding https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/library... Only 8% of public school budgets comes from the Federal government: https://theconversation.com/federal-spending-covers-only-8-of-public-school-budgets-142348 https://theconversation.com/federal-spending-covers-only-8-o... The impact of Federal spending cuts on these programs is overrated, and one good-faith reason for cutting that spending is to federalize (I.e. decentralize) the administration of those services.
- ojbyrne 6y ago
  State balanced budget provisions have largely been pushed by one party.
- rdtwo 6y ago
  It’s not a funding problem. It’s a lack of National policy problem. Every little fiefdom of government is creating their own covid policy. Even overlapping districts and library systems will have drastically different policies. If everyone pooled their resources outcomes would be much better but instead every organization is spending significant resources on drastically different unaligned covid policy.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Except this is exactly how nation states work... The State Massachusetts has more people than the entire country of Norway. At the state level, scale is more than sufficient.
    - rdtwo 6y ago
      But the individual states don’t have cohesion either. Ever school district in the state runs a different curriculum and uses a different set of textbooks
      - bhupy 6y ago
        That's true within many countries also (see: Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Canada). Different States have different ways of running their shit — some better than others...just like nation-states.
claudeganon 6y ago
This is the express goal of both political parties in the post-Clinton era. While some democratic leaders have gained applause for “believing in science,” very few have done anything beyond this acknowledgement to provide the material supports needed to stop the spread of the disease. Instead, they’ve bowed to the demands of business and real estate leaders that bankroll their campaigns that people “get back to work.” They have the perfect foil in Trump because they can serve their donor class by washing their hands of the problem and pointing at him.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  You see democrats allowing businesses to reopen as caving to corporate interests, but I see it to differently. I see them as caving to the people that don't think COVID is a serious threat and want to get back to work. They accuse democrats of deliberately sabotaging the economy in order to seize power.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
shirakawasuna 6y ago
It's in capitalists' interest so the pressure often exists prior to the ideological goal. Keeping in mind that I'm not "both sides"-ing this, consider that neither party actually uses their power to address the deep systemic issues in education. While it's easy to point at one and note their overt rejection of the entire idea, you don't have to look hard into the other one to find widespread pushing of the charter school system (something that works way differently than most people think) and zero attempts to force equitable funding of education or solving poverty. This is also because it is in capital's interest to oppose these things because it increases their taxes and removes opportunities to sell things to schools/kids/the poor. They don't even have to coordinate outside of industry lobbying groups. Their influence and money captures both parties, promoting the destructive components of the one overtly opposed to public education and controlling the opposition of the one ostensibly in favor of it.
tomp 6y ago
Presumably you mean Republicans? But then why did the Democrats bail out the top 1% 10 years ago? This is just plain stupid divide-and-conquer. They're playing you on social issues (abortion, social justice, ...) while looting the 99%.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  If both are looting, then how is someone being "played" on social issues? I'd rather at least have my freedoms while being looted than not.
  - tomp 6y ago
    > If both are looting, then how is someone being "played" on social issues? Look up "divide and conquer". The basic idea is, to avoid facing your enemies all at once, you seed division between them (splitting them in different groups) so they fight among themselves, leaving you alone. That's what the top 1% (or rather top 0.001%) is doing to the rest - all around the world, just particularly obvious (and important) in the US.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Being played means being fooled. If I know both parties are looting from me, but one is also aiming to restrict my civil rights, then going with the less bad option is not being played. Ranked choice voting is the only way to fix this (and getting rid of electoral college, increasing number of reps in house, and getting rid of gerrymandered districts), but that's all a pipe dream. I have to play with the cards I'm given.
- Splendor 6y ago
  Neither party is perfect, but there's no contest if we're going to add up the cumulative negative effects of each party on public institutions (especially those that are most useful to lower income citizens).
galaxyLogic 6y ago
"Here’s the irony. Residents of “blue” states send more tax money to Washington than they get back in federal help, while residents of “red” states send less money to Washington than they get back in federal help ... blue states are sending welfare to red states – the same red states that say they don’t like welfare." https://www.salon.com/2018/11/16/how-blue-states-help-red-states_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2018/11/16/how-blue-states-help-red-st... To caricature the situation a bit: Red States don't like to pay Federal taxes. They only like to receive tax-dollars from the Federal Government
- claydavisss 6y ago
  California is now at parity https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-longer-pays-more-to-Washington-than-15243861.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-l...
  - galaxyLogic 6y ago
    Something's going on with California, the Covid-numbers are so high, it must be the laid-back attitude
  - nostrademons 6y ago
    Note that "receives as much as it contributes" does not mean "fair share". Because the federal budget deficit has ballooned under the last 3 presidents, the federal government now spends significantly more than it makes. This is reflected in the map in your article: only 8 states contribute more than they receive, and it's usually $0.98/0.99 on the dollar, while the ones that receive can get up to $2+. The balance is made up by government debt, which will eventually be monetized by inflation, which acts as a tax on savers & retirees for the benefit of those who receive direct government payments. Not sure why more people aren't mad about this, but maybe the economic effects are a bit too indirect for people to notice.
- TMWNN 6y ago
  The state of California or any other state does not pay a cent to another state or to the federal government. It is residents of California that pay federal taxes, which in turn provide funding and services to states and individuals. In any case, there is no massive subsidy from "blue states" to "red states". As claydavisss mentioned, Californians get back about $0.99 for every $1 they pay in federal taxes.(http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-california-federal-government-money-20170205-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-california-federa...) Each Oregonian gets about $2,000 more from the federal government than he pays in taxes (https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy2013.pdf https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy201...). Of the ten states with the highest per-capita surpluses (i.e., the ones that are "subsidized" the most by other states), five voted for Trump and five for Clinton.
mberning 6y ago
And it is laying bare the wildly divergent visions of what the appropriate role of government is in society. On one extreme you have intense advocacy for elimination of government programs, taxes, etc. On the other extreme you have advocates for major expansion of existing programs and creation of new ones. I do find it interesting that many of the biggest issues facing us have already had decades of government involvement, ostensibly to solve the issues of long ago. Yet now we find ourselves in much worse shape. Things like education, housing, and medicine are already heavily regulated and interwoven with the government at all levels.
rayiner 6y ago
> Not to get overly political, but I think this was the goal, at least for one of the US's political parties. Republicans sought to "starve the beast" by reducing taxes, on the theory that would force cuts in government spending. As shown in my sibling post, that never happened. Spending on social programs and safety nets has continually increased dramatically since Reagan was in office. Insofar as these "government programs and safety nets" are a "complete failure" the problem is operational, not budgetary.
- bhupy 6y ago
  To be fair, I'm not convinced that reducing taxes actually reduced revenue. Inflation-adjusted revenue has essentially been monotonically increasing: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-a... Federal receipts as a % of GDP has basically been flat since WW2: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S If the Republicans have sought to "starve the beast", I'm not convinced they've even done a good job of that.

bhupy 6y ago

Nearly all of those programs listed are funded and administered at the state and local level, which are run by both major political parties.

suchire 6y ago
There were many influential policy decisions at the Federal level that pushed for defunding public programs, such as cutting federal grants/loan forgiveness for teacher training
- bhupy 6y ago
  Like what, specifically? To use one of the cited programs, the US school system, as an example: per-pupil inflation-adjusted spending on schools is the highest it's ever been, and has been continuously increasing: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.asp?current=yes https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_236.55.a... Also, Federal spending only covers about 8% of public school budgets: https://theconversation.com/federal-spending-covers-only-8-of-public-school-budgets-142348 https://theconversation.com/federal-spending-covers-only-8-o...
- claydavisss 6y ago
  Can you honestly not take two seconds to Google-factcheck your own post?
- jakearmitage 6y ago
  Can you cite any?
takeda 6y ago
yep and without federal help the states are struggling the unemployment benefits come from state funds as well
- bhupy 6y ago
  Yeah but nothing stops states from raising their own taxes.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Other than, say, capping the SALT deduction.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Capping the SALT deduction doesn't stop states from raising their own taxes — it just makes it harder to hide higher state taxes behind Federal deductions. Keep in mind that State and Federal governments are two independent sovereign state actors, with their own expenditures and services. Both have to be paid for somehow, and SALT tax deductions just hide the true cost at the state and local level. Also, the SALT deduction overwhelmingly benefited the rich, who arguably don't pay enough in taxes.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Yet the states with high taxes pay more to the government than they receive compared to the states with lower taxes.
        bhupy 6y ago
        This is: 1. Not true of all low tax states (Nevada, Washington, New Hampshire, South Dakota, etc) 2. More representative of which states have the most senior citizens and military bases, because most of the Federal budget goes into Medicare, Social Security, and the military. 3. Better alleviated by directly targeting net-takers rather than trying to approximate which states are net givers and takers based on the state and local tax rates, which is ham-fisted
lostcolony 6y ago
Actually most of those are a combination of funding sources. But even given that, the effectiveness of those programs can't be distanced from counter effects from national policy. For instance, libraries are funded by both federal and local sources. There is only one party that consistently wants to remove that funding (hint @which one: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/79496-in-fy2020-budget-proposal-trump-renews-bid-to-end-to-federal-library-funding.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l...) How much additionally is spent is locally determined, yes, and here you see that disparity as well. In Georgia, a heavily GOP state where I have family, the online catalog is pretty meager, even for major cities. While they have PINES for the less populous counties, a state-wide interlibrary loan program, it only is for physical books. Access to electronic resources is anemic. In California, a heavily Dem state where I live, the online resources tend to be excellent (especially if you're in larger counties/cities), not only having an extensive online catalog, but a lot of extras (Kanopy, Hoopla, language learning stuff, etc). But even all that aside, the -effectiveness- is curtailed by federal effects. Online resource access, extremely relevant under COVID, requires stable internet access. But unfortunately, that's not always available. Attempts to treat internet as a utility, to financially fund broadband rollout nationwide, have failed, due to one particular party preferring it staying privatized and purely for profit. Programs to create financial incentives to offset the cost even where it is rolled out have been created, but only under one party, and the other seems inclined to defund or cancel them. Attempts to allow municipalities to roll out their own broadband to be able to offer faster speeds without data caps at lower prices have been fought tooth and nail, again, by one particular party, on behalf of preventing governmental 'competition' with the private sector. Etc. In short, while you're right that localities are run by both major political parties, both the explicit statement you make that funding is local (only), and the implicit belief you're relying on that you can distance local effect from federal decisions, are wrong.
- bhupy 6y ago
  0.4% (yes, really) of library funding comes from the Federal government. Cutting that spending is literally a rounding error for libraries. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/library-funding https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/library... Only 8% of public school budgets comes from the Federal government: https://theconversation.com/federal-spending-covers-only-8-of-public-school-budgets-142348 https://theconversation.com/federal-spending-covers-only-8-o... The impact of Federal spending cuts on these programs is overrated, and one good-faith reason for cutting that spending is to federalize (I.e. decentralize) the administration of those services.
ojbyrne 6y ago
State balanced budget provisions have largely been pushed by one party.
rdtwo 6y ago
It’s not a funding problem. It’s a lack of National policy problem. Every little fiefdom of government is creating their own covid policy. Even overlapping districts and library systems will have drastically different policies. If everyone pooled their resources outcomes would be much better but instead every organization is spending significant resources on drastically different unaligned covid policy.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Except this is exactly how nation states work... The State Massachusetts has more people than the entire country of Norway. At the state level, scale is more than sufficient.
  - rdtwo 6y ago
    But the individual states don’t have cohesion either. Ever school district in the state runs a different curriculum and uses a different set of textbooks
    - bhupy 6y ago
      That's true within many countries also (see: Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Canada). Different States have different ways of running their shit — some better than others...just like nation-states.

claudeganon 6y ago

This is the express goal of both political parties in the post-Clinton era. While some democratic leaders have gained applause for “believing in science,” very few have done anything beyond this acknowledgement to provide the material supports needed to stop the spread of the disease. Instead, they’ve bowed to the demands of business and real estate leaders that bankroll their campaigns that people “get back to work.” They have the perfect foil in Trump because they can serve their donor class by washing their hands of the problem and pointing at him.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
You see democrats allowing businesses to reopen as caving to corporate interests, but I see it to differently. I see them as caving to the people that don't think COVID is a serious threat and want to get back to work. They accuse democrats of deliberately sabotaging the economy in order to seize power.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

shirakawasuna 6y ago

It's in capitalists' interest so the pressure often exists prior to the ideological goal. Keeping in mind that I'm not "both sides"-ing this, consider that neither party actually uses their power to address the deep systemic issues in education. While it's easy to point at one and note their overt rejection of the entire idea, you don't have to look hard into the other one to find widespread pushing of the charter school system (something that works way differently than most people think) and zero attempts to force equitable funding of education or solving poverty. This is also because it is in capital's interest to oppose these things because it increases their taxes and removes opportunities to sell things to schools/kids/the poor. They don't even have to coordinate outside of industry lobbying groups. Their influence and money captures both parties, promoting the destructive components of the one overtly opposed to public education and controlling the opposition of the one ostensibly in favor of it.

tomp 6y ago

Presumably you mean Republicans? But then why did the Democrats bail out the top 1% 10 years ago? This is just plain stupid divide-and-conquer. They're playing you on social issues (abortion, social justice, ...) while looting the 99%.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
If both are looting, then how is someone being "played" on social issues? I'd rather at least have my freedoms while being looted than not.
- tomp 6y ago
  > If both are looting, then how is someone being "played" on social issues? Look up "divide and conquer". The basic idea is, to avoid facing your enemies all at once, you seed division between them (splitting them in different groups) so they fight among themselves, leaving you alone. That's what the top 1% (or rather top 0.001%) is doing to the rest - all around the world, just particularly obvious (and important) in the US.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Being played means being fooled. If I know both parties are looting from me, but one is also aiming to restrict my civil rights, then going with the less bad option is not being played. Ranked choice voting is the only way to fix this (and getting rid of electoral college, increasing number of reps in house, and getting rid of gerrymandered districts), but that's all a pipe dream. I have to play with the cards I'm given.
Splendor 6y ago
Neither party is perfect, but there's no contest if we're going to add up the cumulative negative effects of each party on public institutions (especially those that are most useful to lower income citizens).

galaxyLogic 6y ago

"Here’s the irony. Residents of “blue” states send more tax money to Washington than they get back in federal help, while residents of “red” states send less money to Washington than they get back in federal help ... blue states are sending welfare to red states – the same red states that say they don’t like welfare." https://www.salon.com/2018/11/16/how-blue-states-help-red-states_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2018/11/16/how-blue-states-help-red-st... To caricature the situation a bit: Red States don't like to pay Federal taxes. They only like to receive tax-dollars from the Federal Government

claydavisss 6y ago
California is now at parity https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-longer-pays-more-to-Washington-than-15243861.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-l...
- galaxyLogic 6y ago
  Something's going on with California, the Covid-numbers are so high, it must be the laid-back attitude
- nostrademons 6y ago
  Note that "receives as much as it contributes" does not mean "fair share". Because the federal budget deficit has ballooned under the last 3 presidents, the federal government now spends significantly more than it makes. This is reflected in the map in your article: only 8 states contribute more than they receive, and it's usually $0.98/0.99 on the dollar, while the ones that receive can get up to $2+. The balance is made up by government debt, which will eventually be monetized by inflation, which acts as a tax on savers & retirees for the benefit of those who receive direct government payments. Not sure why more people aren't mad about this, but maybe the economic effects are a bit too indirect for people to notice.
TMWNN 6y ago
The state of California or any other state does not pay a cent to another state or to the federal government. It is residents of California that pay federal taxes, which in turn provide funding and services to states and individuals. In any case, there is no massive subsidy from "blue states" to "red states". As claydavisss mentioned, Californians get back about $0.99 for every $1 they pay in federal taxes.(http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-california-federal-government-money-20170205-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-california-federa...) Each Oregonian gets about $2,000 more from the federal government than he pays in taxes (https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy2013.pdf https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy201...). Of the ten states with the highest per-capita surpluses (i.e., the ones that are "subsidized" the most by other states), five voted for Trump and five for Clinton.

mberning 6y ago

And it is laying bare the wildly divergent visions of what the appropriate role of government is in society. On one extreme you have intense advocacy for elimination of government programs, taxes, etc. On the other extreme you have advocates for major expansion of existing programs and creation of new ones. I do find it interesting that many of the biggest issues facing us have already had decades of government involvement, ostensibly to solve the issues of long ago. Yet now we find ourselves in much worse shape. Things like education, housing, and medicine are already heavily regulated and interwoven with the government at all levels.

rayiner 6y ago

> Not to get overly political, but I think this was the goal, at least for one of the US's political parties. Republicans sought to "starve the beast" by reducing taxes, on the theory that would force cuts in government spending. As shown in my sibling post, that never happened. Spending on social programs and safety nets has continually increased dramatically since Reagan was in office. Insofar as these "government programs and safety nets" are a "complete failure" the problem is operational, not budgetary.

bhupy 6y ago
To be fair, I'm not convinced that reducing taxes actually reduced revenue. Inflation-adjusted revenue has essentially been monotonically increasing: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-a... Federal receipts as a % of GDP has basically been flat since WW2: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S If the Republicans have sought to "starve the beast", I'm not convinced they've even done a good job of that.