3 ms·

States do have strong incentives to improve things for their residents, which is why, once ACA programs like state exchanges and Medicaid expansion are implemen

States do have strong incentives to improve things for their residents, which is why, once ACA programs like state exchanges and Medicaid expansion are implemented, they are popular. Many state elected leaders, however, have strong individual incentives to avoid any change that exposes previously hidden costs to their constituents, because then their opponents can accuse them of raising spending and/or taxes. (Even though they all know the cost has been there hidden all along.) This is the same incentive structure that inclines state politicians against spending state money on environmental protection, workplace safety, infrastructure, and many other areas where the federal government ends up taking the lead. You seem pretty plugged in and sympathetic to the point of view of state elected officials. The idea that federal taxes are money stolen from states, for example, is a classic state politician talking point. But I think you might be surprised how many federal actions are secretly supported by state officials who publicly campaign against them. They get to benefit from the material improvements delivered by the federal program, while blaming Washington for out of control spending, unfair coercion, etc.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> States do have strong incentives to improve things for their residents, which is why, once ACA programs like state exchanges and Medicaid expansion are implemented, they are popular. But this is just defending the general concept of such a program, not a reason it has to be constructed at the federal rather than state level. > Many state elected leaders, however, have strong individual incentives to avoid any change that exposes previously hidden costs to their constituents, because then their opponents can accuse them of raising spending and/or taxes. How is it that federal elected leaders are immune from this incentive? And if they are, isn't that bad, because they would then for the same reason have no incentive to implement programs efficiently? > The idea that federal taxes are money stolen from states, for example, is a classic state politician talking point. It's a straightforward economic effect. Bob earns his wages which are then spent by some combination of Bob, the state government and the federal government. If the federal government takes more then the state government and Bob get less, and Bob is going to be in a bad way if there isn't enough left to make rent. Meanwhile if the federal government uses the money for Medicaid then the state doesn't have to collect the money the federal government spends on it, but then it's the federal program setting the terms -- and if the state doesn't like those terms, Bob still has to pay all of the same federal taxes. The state can't use his money to operate their own program instead. Federal spending is currently ~25% of GDP, which is more than it is for most states -- and a huge chunk of the money attributed to states is the state portion of the money required to implement federal programs. By the time you also pay for state programs whose funding couldn't reasonably be reallocated to something else, there is nothing really left. The states have lost the ability to try to do better because the federal government has locked up all the money. > But I think you might be surprised how many federal actions are secretly supported by state officials who publicly campaign against them. Well of course they do. They're opportunistic politicians. If they can't reasonably implement useful programs because the money they'd have to spend is already going to the feds then their remaining option is to claim credit for not spending it. The point is, what would happen if the states were actually left with both the problems and the resources to solve them?
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  We know what would happen because that’s how things were before the federal programs were created. It’s not like all the states had everything solved and then the feds came in on top with Medicaid etc for no reason.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The federal government has been doing this since the depression/WWII, before which there wasn't enough of a tax base to support these kinds of programs at any level of government.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> States do have strong incentives to improve things for their residents, which is why, once ACA programs like state exchanges and Medicaid expansion are implemented, they are popular. But this is just defending the general concept of such a program, not a reason it has to be constructed at the federal rather than state level. > Many state elected leaders, however, have strong individual incentives to avoid any change that exposes previously hidden costs to their constituents, because then their opponents can accuse them of raising spending and/or taxes. How is it that federal elected leaders are immune from this incentive? And if they are, isn't that bad, because they would then for the same reason have no incentive to implement programs efficiently? > The idea that federal taxes are money stolen from states, for example, is a classic state politician talking point. It's a straightforward economic effect. Bob earns his wages which are then spent by some combination of Bob, the state government and the federal government. If the federal government takes more then the state government and Bob get less, and Bob is going to be in a bad way if there isn't enough left to make rent. Meanwhile if the federal government uses the money for Medicaid then the state doesn't have to collect the money the federal government spends on it, but then it's the federal program setting the terms -- and if the state doesn't like those terms, Bob still has to pay all of the same federal taxes. The state can't use his money to operate their own program instead. Federal spending is currently ~25% of GDP, which is more than it is for most states -- and a huge chunk of the money attributed to states is the state portion of the money required to implement federal programs. By the time you also pay for state programs whose funding couldn't reasonably be reallocated to something else, there is nothing really left. The states have lost the ability to try to do better because the federal government has locked up all the money. > But I think you might be surprised how many federal actions are secretly supported by state officials who publicly campaign against them. Well of course they do. They're opportunistic politicians. If they can't reasonably implement useful programs because the money they'd have to spend is already going to the feds then their remaining option is to claim credit for not spending it. The point is, what would happen if the states were actually left with both the problems and the resources to solve them?

snowwrestler 3y ago
We know what would happen because that’s how things were before the federal programs were created. It’s not like all the states had everything solved and then the feds came in on top with Medicaid etc for no reason.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The federal government has been doing this since the depression/WWII, before which there wasn't enough of a tax base to support these kinds of programs at any level of government.