Hacker News Reader

Comment by almost_usual | Hacker News Reader

California is autonomous until it doesn’t want to be I guess. Pretty sure Newsom called Trump last week for Federal wildfire aid.

Edit:

Getting pretty heavily downvoted. It’s literally what Newsom said he did on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1317197526529830912

View on HN

California is a state, and thus dependent on federal budgeting like any other. A huge proportion of tax income goes to the feds, which they then dole out in various forms; California can't magically get around that.

For what it's worth, California gets less back from the federal government than most states, compared to what it sends in federally: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-l...

You're getting downvoted for being needlessly snarky and constructing a strawman to insinuate CA is somehow hypocritical.

Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not? A Federation of independent states unified under a federal government is kind of how the whole U.S. thing works, no?

You also seem to be trying to make a political statement. Should a "red" state like TX not request disaster relief funds (say, after a hurricane) if a Democrat is president?

Also, keep in mind that 57% of forests in CA are Federally managed. Only 3% is managed by the state.

> constructing a strawman to insinuate CA is somehow hypocritical.

It is - or at least the leadership is in almost every respect. Politico-turned-economic elites acting as egalitarian champions is par for the last 30 years.

Life-long Californian here.

> Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not?

Massachusetts, for a start, since they don't just talk about what they are going to do. You should visit.

The reality is that the CA representatives routinely declare that they are not going to abide by federal guidelines. Ostensibly, that's the autonomy being referenced.

Totally ignoring the poster's intent and swapping in your own bias as their content is outright trolling. If you don't understand (or can't imagine an interpretation that makes sense) it's rather civil to act in good faith and ask for clarification. SMH

The same thing happened with Obamacare and red states. It basically always happens that states fight the feds at least somewhat when the opposing party is in power.

Roughly 57% of forested lands in Caifornia are federally-managed and as another poster pointed out a significant amount of money is sent to the federal government by California and its residents. You’re getting downvoted because you’re wrongly implying that California is financially insolvent and looking for money it wouldn’t have on its own. The truth is that California and its residents subsidize many other parts of the US.

Disclaimer: I don’t live in California.

CA only owns 5% of the forests. The rest is private or federal.

Actually, to be precise, and assuming this source is accurate:

There are 33 million acres of forest(ed) lands in California.

Federal ownership is 19 million acres = 57%

State and local agencies (including land trusts) own 3%

Privately owned forest lands are 13.3 million acres = 40%

Industrial private owners are 4.7 million acres = 14%

Non-industrial privately owned forest lands are 9 million acres = 26%

Non-corporate private forest lands are 7.9 million acres

REITs and other investment devices are 344,000 acres

https://www.forestunlimited.org/resources/california-forest-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com