5 ms·

The Senate is required to approve city's road maintenance expenditures? I thought the US was more decentralized than that.

murgindrag 6y ago
A lot of the discussion is about federal taxes and subsidies. The federal government funds a lot of local stuff too. It maintains a lot of control over cities and states through funding. For example, if your roads and schools don't meet federal standards, that's okay, but you're not getting federal funding. Everyone opts for federal funding.
daniellarusso 6y ago
This is what keeps the federal government and federal politicians so powerful, most areas need federal funds to keep up with these expenses.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  This is simply untrue, and it's enough to look at budgets of most places to see that.
  - jcrawfordor 6y ago
    Various reports show that the federal government picks up about a third of the tab for infrastructure spending, although it varies widely by state and type of infrastructure. This seems quite significant.
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      Federal government is typically shelling out money for things like interstates, major bridges and major water works. They give practically nothing for local roads and sewers. Additionally, federal government money comes from the people's income taxes anyway, and if federal government didn't tax people so much, the state and local government could tax them more instead, to cover bigger share of the costs.
      - jcrawfordor 6y ago
        The big issue I see here is that where I live, and I think in many more rural areas, federal infrastructure constitutes a significant portion of the total infrastructure. A generous portion of the major city streets, for example, are US highways, and flood control was almost entirely built federally (and maintenance must now be funded by the local flood control district). This no doubt varies by region, but the portion of infrastructure which is federally funded is not small.
      - daniellarusso 6y ago
        “ if federal government didn't tax people so much, the state and local government could tax them more instead, to cover bigger share of the costs.” I upvoted you and agree. This is exactly my point, the power is at the federal level, and the state and municipalities rely on funds from ‘above’. Here are some EPA federal grants for municipal water systems: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-grants https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking... Sewer overflow grant: https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/sewer-overflow-and-stormwater-reuse-municipal-grants-program https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/sewer-overflow-and-stormwater-reus... I Googled “epa muni water grants”.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Now you're talking in circles. @seattle_spring's theory is that people in the "boondocks" keep voting against infrastructure projects, even though "cities majorly subsidize rural living through taxes." Now you're saying that "most areas need federal funds to keep up with these expenses." Is California rich enough to pay for its infrastructure projects by itself, or does it need money from other states to do it? If @seattle_spring is right and California doesn't need the money, then the Senate isn't holding anything up. California can proceed unilaterally. Maybe they can even vote for Republicans at the federal level, who won't make them continue to "subsidize rural living" in other states. But if you're correct that California "need[s] federal funds to keep up with these expenses" then why shouldn't the rural states oppose it when it won't benefit them? The reality is two-fold. 1) People in dense urban states aren't actually willing to spend this money, they just want to use these issues to get votes for Democrats. That's why they never actually build these things when they have to do it with their own money only. 2) Dense urban states want access to the Federal government's money printing machine. States cannot run structural deficits. But the rural urban states will be on the hook for that debt too.
  - daniellarusso 6y ago
    I was not talking about California, though.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Or New York or Illinois or whatever. The point is that you can’t have it both ways. If dense urban states have the money to pay for their own transit, they should vote Republican at the federal level so they can stop subsidizing Wyoming, and use those tax dollars to build whatever they want. But if they actually need federal funds to build transit, then Wyoming should be able to veto building transit in New York. Blue states have all of the money. There is no reason for them to complain so much about the Senate. If they want a vast socialist welfare state with state of the art transit, they should be able to pay for it themselves.
      - seattle_spring 6y ago

murgindrag 6y ago

A lot of the discussion is about federal taxes and subsidies. The federal government funds a lot of local stuff too. It maintains a lot of control over cities and states through funding. For example, if your roads and schools don't meet federal standards, that's okay, but you're not getting federal funding. Everyone opts for federal funding.

daniellarusso 6y ago

This is what keeps the federal government and federal politicians so powerful, most areas need federal funds to keep up with these expenses.

xyzzyz 6y ago
This is simply untrue, and it's enough to look at budgets of most places to see that.
- jcrawfordor 6y ago
  Various reports show that the federal government picks up about a third of the tab for infrastructure spending, although it varies widely by state and type of infrastructure. This seems quite significant.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    Federal government is typically shelling out money for things like interstates, major bridges and major water works. They give practically nothing for local roads and sewers. Additionally, federal government money comes from the people's income taxes anyway, and if federal government didn't tax people so much, the state and local government could tax them more instead, to cover bigger share of the costs.
    - jcrawfordor 6y ago
      The big issue I see here is that where I live, and I think in many more rural areas, federal infrastructure constitutes a significant portion of the total infrastructure. A generous portion of the major city streets, for example, are US highways, and flood control was almost entirely built federally (and maintenance must now be funded by the local flood control district). This no doubt varies by region, but the portion of infrastructure which is federally funded is not small.
    - daniellarusso 6y ago
      “ if federal government didn't tax people so much, the state and local government could tax them more instead, to cover bigger share of the costs.” I upvoted you and agree. This is exactly my point, the power is at the federal level, and the state and municipalities rely on funds from ‘above’. Here are some EPA federal grants for municipal water systems: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-grants https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking... Sewer overflow grant: https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/sewer-overflow-and-stormwater-reuse-municipal-grants-program https://www.epa.gov/cwsrf/sewer-overflow-and-stormwater-reus... I Googled “epa muni water grants”.
rayiner 6y ago
Now you're talking in circles. @seattle_spring's theory is that people in the "boondocks" keep voting against infrastructure projects, even though "cities majorly subsidize rural living through taxes." Now you're saying that "most areas need federal funds to keep up with these expenses." Is California rich enough to pay for its infrastructure projects by itself, or does it need money from other states to do it? If @seattle_spring is right and California doesn't need the money, then the Senate isn't holding anything up. California can proceed unilaterally. Maybe they can even vote for Republicans at the federal level, who won't make them continue to "subsidize rural living" in other states. But if you're correct that California "need[s] federal funds to keep up with these expenses" then why shouldn't the rural states oppose it when it won't benefit them? The reality is two-fold. 1) People in dense urban states aren't actually willing to spend this money, they just want to use these issues to get votes for Democrats. That's why they never actually build these things when they have to do it with their own money only. 2) Dense urban states want access to the Federal government's money printing machine. States cannot run structural deficits. But the rural urban states will be on the hook for that debt too.
- daniellarusso 6y ago
  I was not talking about California, though.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Or New York or Illinois or whatever. The point is that you can’t have it both ways. If dense urban states have the money to pay for their own transit, they should vote Republican at the federal level so they can stop subsidizing Wyoming, and use those tax dollars to build whatever they want. But if they actually need federal funds to build transit, then Wyoming should be able to veto building transit in New York. Blue states have all of the money. There is no reason for them to complain so much about the Senate. If they want a vast socialist welfare state with state of the art transit, they should be able to pay for it themselves.
    - seattle_spring 6y ago