3 ms·
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. Ea
by 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 agoAs 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.