4 ms·
There is pretty powerful statistical evidence that when Regan moved homeless services from the federal level to a state responsibility it cratered the numbers o
by CerealFounder 6y ago
There is pretty powerful statistical evidence that when Regan moved homeless services from the federal level to a state responsibility it cratered the numbers of beds (especially in small towns) and created an unsolvable situation in that when you're struggling in your small town who has zero homeless support, you make a move to some place else, somewhere where being homeless is not has bad weather wise and has a bit of infrastructure. So now you have all of the struggling people from "Mainstreet usa" moving toward the main cities all at once (over a couple decades) an essentially a burden on them to deal with EVERYONES homeless problem instead of historically their own.
This problem was working much better in the 70s and 80s when their was a national framework for it. While SF and LA's government is flawed, this blame state/city is like blaming the individual ushers when the fans run on the field after a football upset. It was more of a structural failure than a local.
- thrill 6y agoSo some dude in Montana should pay for cleaning the streets in San Francisco?
- tyg13 6y agoStates like Montana receive far more in federal tax dollars than states like California. If you think Montanans are going to be subsidized Californians and not the way around, I have a bridge in Montana I've got to sell you.
- nitrogen 6y agoThis will need a number to back that up. I've seen claims in both directions here on HN. It's also a number that's easy to distort to say whatever you want. Are people employed by the IRS being "subsidized"? Civilian logistics coordinators working for the DOD? Are you talking per capita, per square mile, or gross?
- blululu 6y agohttps://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-portal/ https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-... From an accounting standpoint, gross money in be money out is what matters. Per capita makes sense to compare relative benefit, but realistically Montana is small potatoes on the Federal Balance sheet. Measuring per sq mile seems like some ludicrous ploy by Alaska’s senator to screw over New Jersey.
- jlarocco 6y agoHere: https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Balance-of-Payments.pdf https://rockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/1-7-19b-Bala... Or, the same data with a very hard to read circular bar graph visualization: https://howmuch.net/articles/federal-budget-receipts-and-expenditures-across-the-united-states https://howmuch.net/articles/federal-budget-receipts-and-exp... The numbers are actually pretty straightforward. "Expenditures is a broad category and covers a variety of things, including direct payments to people like Social Security, contracts for local governments, wages for federal workers and sub-contracting work."
- paul_f 6y agoOftentimes when this sort of stat is quoted, it is because of social security payments to retired people - for example, Florida
- Retric 6y agoNot for rural sates. Farm subsidies, military spending, and rural healthcare initiatives etc, move a lot of money to such areas. Social Security disability is also used by poor states to get people off their welfare rolls. Infrastructure costs are U shaped where extreme density is expensive, but so very low density. Mail delivery is a clear example where ultra low density just makes things more expensive.
- CerealFounder 6y agoLOL. Should some dude in Montana get to use an iPhone because it was funded in California? The selective "my tax dollars would never" is anti-american