4 ms·

Federal taxes paid by California’s residents and businesses subsidize the budgets of the states who have made retaliatory gerrymandering efforts necessary. Spe

Federal taxes paid by California’s residents and businesses subsidize the budgets of the states who have made retaliatory gerrymandering efforts necessary. Spending money on Prop 50 is rational because California is on the verge of a durable situation of taxation without representation. This same phenomenon shows why California will struggle to replace the federal government for funding basic research.

mothballed 1y ago
It never ceases to baffle my why Californians tend to opine towards a strong federal government when the documents authorizing it are structured such that California is virtually guaranteed to get the worst end of the deal. California has 12% of the population and 2% of the senators. Every time Californians urge to give the federal government more power, even for "good" things, the rules of the game virtually demand it will be used against them. This might be a necessary evil for the bare minimums (military protection, federal court to settle contracts, enforcement of some federal laws), but I don't understand how Californians justify that every positive intention will be turned against them and carry on anyway.
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  Because they’re rich. In the US, the rich always win anyway. Full stop. If you believe otherwise, I’m sorry to say, but you’ve probably not been paying attention. Under the current administration, as under all administrations, it’s the poor and middle class states that have the problem.
- rectang 1y ago
  Well, now that taker states have figured out how to hack the system and bleed giver states while doing things such as neutering the EPA without facing electoral consequences, attitudes seem to be changing amongst people who previously were all right with subsidizing taker states on humanitarian grounds.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    This is something baked into the constitution from the beginning. The entire reason we have the senate is because the less populated slave states didn't want to get steam rolled by the the more populated northern free states. It was an anti-democracy measure to ensure low population regions get over-represented.
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      The differences in population weren’t that massive in the early years, though.
      - cogman10 1y ago
        The voting population difference was massive. The entire reason for the 3/5ths compromise was because the slave states would have almost no house representation.
        wqaatwt 1y ago
        Still not that massive in relative terms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_and_pre-Federal_U.S._historical_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_and_pre-Fed... Virginia would had still been the most populous or at least second most populous state if only white people were counted. Also there were plenty of small states in the Northeast with very small populations.
        rectang 1y ago
        Adding up the 1780 numbers on that page, the numbers appear to be almost identical. But there's a catch: those numbers include enslaved people. who numbered at least 500,000 (see [1]). * Free states: 1,390,067 * Slave states: 1,390,302 - 500,000 = 890,302 > Still not that massive in relative terms I don't know why you persist in saying this. [1] https://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/SlaveStats.htm https://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/SlaveStats.htm
- avmich 1y ago
  With senators that's by design. But there are also issues with representatives, and I'm not sure how it came to be and if it can be solved.
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    The problem with representatives happened as a result of the Reapportionment Act of 1929 [1], which capped the house at 435 members. tl;dr: the Republican party recognized that demographic shifts were going to make them a permanent minority in the House, so they refused to re-apportion the number of house members after the 1920 census, then in 1929 decided to cap the number of representatives permanently. The simple fix is to repeal the law and apportion seats properly, likely by significantly growing the size of the House. However, in typical Democrat fashion, they never bothered repealing the act and re-apportioning properly once they had power to do so. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
    - rectang 1y ago
      How robust would the reapportioned seats be against extreme political gerrymanders? It seems like packing and cracking would still work.
- CalRobert 1y ago
  Not all of us! I favor secession.

mothballed 1y ago

It never ceases to baffle my why Californians tend to opine towards a strong federal government when the documents authorizing it are structured such that California is virtually guaranteed to get the worst end of the deal. California has 12% of the population and 2% of the senators. Every time Californians urge to give the federal government more power, even for "good" things, the rules of the game virtually demand it will be used against them. This might be a necessary evil for the bare minimums (military protection, federal court to settle contracts, enforcement of some federal laws), but I don't understand how Californians justify that every positive intention will be turned against them and carry on anyway.

bilbo0s 1y ago
Because they’re rich. In the US, the rich always win anyway. Full stop. If you believe otherwise, I’m sorry to say, but you’ve probably not been paying attention. Under the current administration, as under all administrations, it’s the poor and middle class states that have the problem.
rectang 1y ago
Well, now that taker states have figured out how to hack the system and bleed giver states while doing things such as neutering the EPA without facing electoral consequences, attitudes seem to be changing amongst people who previously were all right with subsidizing taker states on humanitarian grounds.
- cogman10 1y ago
  This is something baked into the constitution from the beginning. The entire reason we have the senate is because the less populated slave states didn't want to get steam rolled by the the more populated northern free states. It was an anti-democracy measure to ensure low population regions get over-represented.
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    The differences in population weren’t that massive in the early years, though.
    - cogman10 1y ago
      The voting population difference was massive. The entire reason for the 3/5ths compromise was because the slave states would have almost no house representation.
      - wqaatwt 1y ago
        Still not that massive in relative terms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_and_pre-Federal_U.S._historical_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_and_pre-Fed... Virginia would had still been the most populous or at least second most populous state if only white people were counted. Also there were plenty of small states in the Northeast with very small populations.
        rectang 1y ago
        Adding up the 1780 numbers on that page, the numbers appear to be almost identical. But there's a catch: those numbers include enslaved people. who numbered at least 500,000 (see [1]). * Free states: 1,390,067 * Slave states: 1,390,302 - 500,000 = 890,302 > Still not that massive in relative terms I don't know why you persist in saying this. [1] https://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/SlaveStats.htm https://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/SlaveStats.htm
avmich 1y ago
With senators that's by design. But there are also issues with representatives, and I'm not sure how it came to be and if it can be solved.
- atmavatar 1y ago
  The problem with representatives happened as a result of the Reapportionment Act of 1929 [1], which capped the house at 435 members. tl;dr: the Republican party recognized that demographic shifts were going to make them a permanent minority in the House, so they refused to re-apportion the number of house members after the 1920 census, then in 1929 decided to cap the number of representatives permanently. The simple fix is to repeal the law and apportion seats properly, likely by significantly growing the size of the House. However, in typical Democrat fashion, they never bothered repealing the act and re-apportioning properly once they had power to do so. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
  - rectang 1y ago
    How robust would the reapportioned seats be against extreme political gerrymanders? It seems like packing and cracking would still work.
CalRobert 1y ago
Not all of us! I favor secession.