4 ms·

The US is a strong federative country. Individual states are almost literally _states_ (as in "country") and have a lot of power. They can impose their own carb

The US is a strong federative country. Individual states are almost literally _states_ (as in "country") and have a lot of power. They can impose their own carbon taxes, net neutrality rules, fund research, etc. And more importantly, their local democracy is going strong.

ajross 2y ago
States have "power", but not money. There are no state level science grants anywhere at the scale of the linked article.
- cyberax 2y ago
  CA spends around $11B on the University of California system. The NIH budget is $47B. I haven't done the math, but I would hazard that the total amount of money spent on science by the Federal and the individual state authorities would be comparable. It's just that historically the Federal government was leading with the fundamental research, but if push comes to shove, states can start spinning up replacement programs.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    Isn't CA a particularly rich state and not a good example of what states are capable of doing when compared to the federal government?
  - directevolve 2y ago
    I foresee three big challenges to funding science at the state level. Shifting to state-level funding would require states to independently raise new taxes. Each state would have to work within the constraints of its state level constitution for levying that tax. Research would no longer be pork. This seems politically difficult. States would have to either coordinate on which grants to fund or accept a siloed, fragmented system. That seems inefficient. Institutes at lower-income states would not be subsidized by higher-income states and fail. That seems wasteful. All that said, it might be the only alternative.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > Each state would have to work within the constraints of its state level constitution for levying that tax. Interstate compacts exist. For example, states can make an agreement that a company can receive grant funds only if it's incorporated in a state that spends a certain percentage of the budget on scientific research. San-Francisco (in a ham-fisted way) tried to do something similar, by prohibiting city-sponsored contracts with companies in states that restrict abortion.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > Interstate compacts exist. Not without positive action by Congress they don't. (US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 10.)
        cyberax 2y ago
        As I replied in another message: That's not quite correct. The judicial practice in the US is that the intestate compacts (agreements) require Congressional authorization only if they infringe on the sovereign Federal powers. One good example for the 2nd Amendment lovers: states are free to make reciprocal agreements with other states for concealed carry permits. It doesn't require any authorization from the Congress. Another example are the laws for taxation of multi-state corporations that the neighboring states can negotiate together.
  - ajross 2y ago
    Running a university and administering research grants aren't remotely the same thing. Does any of that $11B go to fund science?
  - acdha 2y ago
    California spends $4.7B in general fund revenue on the UC system. Tuition is a bit more than that, but it’s paid by students for their personal benefit so you can’t just repurpose it because some billionaires want tax cuts. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4862 https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4862 That covers everything from paving roads and mowing grass to paying for their pension system and monitoring for wildfires, so the proportional increase for research funding would be even larger than it sounds because federal funding has been the backbone for that since WWII. While you’d be looking at a significant increase in tax demand for them it’d be much worse for almost everyone else because California is also the richest state in the country, almost twice as rich as the second (Texas). There’s no way that isn’t a bloodbath for American science.
hackyhacky 2y ago
> And more importantly, their local democracy is going strong. I guess you never heard of gerrymandering.
- 0_____0 2y ago
  To your parent comment's point, this varies a lot by state!
  - pstuart 2y ago
    Enough to control the House.
malcolmgreaves 2y ago
Except that the states have no power because an unchecked executive branch can just claim that it had authority and the states have no recourse to resist. The US has an incredibly weak form of government.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cyberax 2y ago
  Don't get so depressed. The Executive branch in the US does not have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the states. For example, Trump can't actually force states to change their school athlete programs. It doesn't have any power over individual states (or schools). All his DoE can do, is to threaten to withhold funding. And even that is being contested because the Congress has not authorized it. However, if he does manage to withdraw the funding, that's just 6% of total spending on schools in CA ( https://lao.ca.gov/Education/EdBudget/Details/900 https://lao.ca.gov/Education/EdBudget/Details/900 ) and 8% in NY. The states will just shrug and go on. The discretionary part of the US Federal budget is not large, on the scale of the country.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    Congress has authorized it: civil rights laws make schools ineligible when violated, and Trump is claiming various programs violate those.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      And this is going to be contested through the courts for many years.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    Are states exactly flush with cash to plug even small gaps in school budgets? You mentioned CA which is rebuilding from massive fires, can they afford that? What about Arizona, 2021 to 2022 19% of their schools budget was federal funding. What happens if there is a natural disaster, Trump can withhold funds to force changes. Can a state turn down that level of assistance? They would have to prioritize recovery I assume and just accept the change. >Don't get so depressed. The Executive branch in the US does not have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the states. Money is power
UncleOxidant 2y ago
And yet states aren't allowed to form alliances with other states according to Article 1 section 10. Sure, states might be able to fund research, but most states on their own aren't going to be able to afford to do this effectively - but if several states could band together to, say, keep funding climate science that might help keep us on track and keep scientists employed until better times come back. But they can't do that.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > And yet states aren't allowed to form alliances with other states That's not quite correct. The judicial practice in the US is that the intestate compacts (agreements) require Congressional authorization only if they infringe on the sovereign Federal powers. One good example for the 2nd Amendment lovers: states are free to make reciprocal agreements with other states for concealed carry permits. It doesn't require any authorization from the Congress. Another example are the laws for taxation of multi-state corporations that the neighboring states can negotiate together.
archagon 2y ago
States need a military to enforce their independence, but almost none have one of note. The National Guard is under the executive branch and state guards tend to be tiny (e.g. just 900 enlisted for CA).
zamfi 2y ago
Actually, in many cases they cannot. Take a look at the EPA "exception" that California has needed in order to impose more stringent fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Many forms of commerce or communication that are relevant across state lines (net neutrality rules, etc.) are considered a federal prerogative and states have limited ability to control these. Yes, states could do more to fund research--and hopefully they will--but no state has the same level of tax rate as the federal government, and while the NSF budget is "noise" in the federal budget ($10B/$1.7T discretionary) it would be quite a big outlay for most states, even for California it would represent 3%+ of the total state budget to reproduce. Though, now that I look at that number, maybe it's actually an opportunity for CA...
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Take a look at the EPA "exception" that California has needed in order to impose more stringent fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Yet, WA now has a carbon tax for companies operating within its borders. And it was found constitutional by the SCOTUS. > Many forms of commerce or communication that are relevant across state lines (net neutrality rules, etc.) are considered a federal prerogative and states have limited ability to control these. The interstate agreements are allowed as long as they don't infringe on the sovereign Federal power. And there are plenty of workarounds. For example, CA has these ridiculous agricultural inspection stations on freeways. They are legal because they don't technically deny you the freedom of movement, declining to submit to an inspection simply revokes your driving privilege in CA.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
Unless states have their own sovereign militaries that do not and cannot answer to the federal government that is of minor importance.

ajross 2y ago

States have "power", but not money. There are no state level science grants anywhere at the scale of the linked article.

cyberax 2y ago
CA spends around $11B on the University of California system. The NIH budget is $47B. I haven't done the math, but I would hazard that the total amount of money spent on science by the Federal and the individual state authorities would be comparable. It's just that historically the Federal government was leading with the fundamental research, but if push comes to shove, states can start spinning up replacement programs.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  Isn't CA a particularly rich state and not a good example of what states are capable of doing when compared to the federal government?
- directevolve 2y ago
  I foresee three big challenges to funding science at the state level. Shifting to state-level funding would require states to independently raise new taxes. Each state would have to work within the constraints of its state level constitution for levying that tax. Research would no longer be pork. This seems politically difficult. States would have to either coordinate on which grants to fund or accept a siloed, fragmented system. That seems inefficient. Institutes at lower-income states would not be subsidized by higher-income states and fail. That seems wasteful. All that said, it might be the only alternative.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Each state would have to work within the constraints of its state level constitution for levying that tax. Interstate compacts exist. For example, states can make an agreement that a company can receive grant funds only if it's incorporated in a state that spends a certain percentage of the budget on scientific research. San-Francisco (in a ham-fisted way) tried to do something similar, by prohibiting city-sponsored contracts with companies in states that restrict abortion.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > Interstate compacts exist. Not without positive action by Congress they don't. (US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 10.)
      - cyberax 2y ago
        As I replied in another message: That's not quite correct. The judicial practice in the US is that the intestate compacts (agreements) require Congressional authorization only if they infringe on the sovereign Federal powers. One good example for the 2nd Amendment lovers: states are free to make reciprocal agreements with other states for concealed carry permits. It doesn't require any authorization from the Congress. Another example are the laws for taxation of multi-state corporations that the neighboring states can negotiate together.
- ajross 2y ago
  Running a university and administering research grants aren't remotely the same thing. Does any of that $11B go to fund science?
- acdha 2y ago
  California spends $4.7B in general fund revenue on the UC system. Tuition is a bit more than that, but it’s paid by students for their personal benefit so you can’t just repurpose it because some billionaires want tax cuts. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4862 https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4862 That covers everything from paving roads and mowing grass to paying for their pension system and monitoring for wildfires, so the proportional increase for research funding would be even larger than it sounds because federal funding has been the backbone for that since WWII. While you’d be looking at a significant increase in tax demand for them it’d be much worse for almost everyone else because California is also the richest state in the country, almost twice as rich as the second (Texas). There’s no way that isn’t a bloodbath for American science.

hackyhacky 2y ago

> And more importantly, their local democracy is going strong. I guess you never heard of gerrymandering.

0_____0 2y ago
To your parent comment's point, this varies a lot by state!
- pstuart 2y ago
  Enough to control the House.

malcolmgreaves 2y ago

Except that the states have no power because an unchecked executive branch can just claim that it had authority and the states have no recourse to resist. The US has an incredibly weak form of government.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cyberax 2y ago
Don't get so depressed. The Executive branch in the US does not have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the states. For example, Trump can't actually force states to change their school athlete programs. It doesn't have any power over individual states (or schools). All his DoE can do, is to threaten to withhold funding. And even that is being contested because the Congress has not authorized it. However, if he does manage to withdraw the funding, that's just 6% of total spending on schools in CA ( https://lao.ca.gov/Education/EdBudget/Details/900 https://lao.ca.gov/Education/EdBudget/Details/900 ) and 8% in NY. The states will just shrug and go on. The discretionary part of the US Federal budget is not large, on the scale of the country.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  Congress has authorized it: civil rights laws make schools ineligible when violated, and Trump is claiming various programs violate those.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    And this is going to be contested through the courts for many years.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  Are states exactly flush with cash to plug even small gaps in school budgets? You mentioned CA which is rebuilding from massive fires, can they afford that? What about Arizona, 2021 to 2022 19% of their schools budget was federal funding. What happens if there is a natural disaster, Trump can withhold funds to force changes. Can a state turn down that level of assistance? They would have to prioritize recovery I assume and just accept the change. >Don't get so depressed. The Executive branch in the US does not have a lot of power when it comes to influencing the states. Money is power

UncleOxidant 2y ago

And yet states aren't allowed to form alliances with other states according to Article 1 section 10. Sure, states might be able to fund research, but most states on their own aren't going to be able to afford to do this effectively - but if several states could band together to, say, keep funding climate science that might help keep us on track and keep scientists employed until better times come back. But they can't do that.

cyberax 2y ago
> And yet states aren't allowed to form alliances with other states That's not quite correct. The judicial practice in the US is that the intestate compacts (agreements) require Congressional authorization only if they infringe on the sovereign Federal powers. One good example for the 2nd Amendment lovers: states are free to make reciprocal agreements with other states for concealed carry permits. It doesn't require any authorization from the Congress. Another example are the laws for taxation of multi-state corporations that the neighboring states can negotiate together.

archagon 2y ago

States need a military to enforce their independence, but almost none have one of note. The National Guard is under the executive branch and state guards tend to be tiny (e.g. just 900 enlisted for CA).

zamfi 2y ago

Actually, in many cases they cannot. Take a look at the EPA "exception" that California has needed in order to impose more stringent fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Many forms of commerce or communication that are relevant across state lines (net neutrality rules, etc.) are considered a federal prerogative and states have limited ability to control these. Yes, states could do more to fund research--and hopefully they will--but no state has the same level of tax rate as the federal government, and while the NSF budget is "noise" in the federal budget ($10B/$1.7T discretionary) it would be quite a big outlay for most states, even for California it would represent 3%+ of the total state budget to reproduce. Though, now that I look at that number, maybe it's actually an opportunity for CA...

cyberax 2y ago
> Take a look at the EPA "exception" that California has needed in order to impose more stringent fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Yet, WA now has a carbon tax for companies operating within its borders. And it was found constitutional by the SCOTUS. > Many forms of commerce or communication that are relevant across state lines (net neutrality rules, etc.) are considered a federal prerogative and states have limited ability to control these. The interstate agreements are allowed as long as they don't infringe on the sovereign Federal power. And there are plenty of workarounds. For example, CA has these ridiculous agricultural inspection stations on freeways. They are legal because they don't technically deny you the freedom of movement, declining to submit to an inspection simply revokes your driving privilege in CA.

HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago

Unless states have their own sovereign militaries that do not and cannot answer to the federal government that is of minor importance.