Rather then ideology most legislators rule by the most persuasive lobbying, this includes people and PACs that pay for their very very expensive campaign funds. And in this case semiconductor monopolies simply has a better performing lobbying campaign then social advocacy groups, so the former gets passed but not the latter.
Note. I don’t believe this listing of democracy is unique to the USA. You see it in Europe as well. However USA is especially prone to this because of lax lobbying laws, lax campaign financing laws while also being one of the least represented democracy in the world (even less represented then non-democracies like China).
That said, this bill is a very positive development. Investing in local manufacturing and R&D is a great idea, and it will help the economy. Hopefully it will efficient and money will not be captured by rent-seekers or cronyism.
You're ignoring that gerrymandering districts allow politicians to enact policies that don't reflect the will of the people.
But that would be even worse at a federal level because there are so many more districts to gerrymander, wouldn't it?
Also, states draw the federal district lines, so generally the Dems and Repubs both do it and the end result is less lopsided.
This makes sense because we want people to freely move around the country without encountering wildly different systems in every small town.
Differing county education funding was a real and evident problem when I was growing up in Massachuesettes in the 90s - some areas (like Wellesley) had extremely well funded schools due to local taxes while other areas had far too many students for the funds they collected. This, in part, lead to a whole big thing involving student busing[1] which was honestly pretty awful for the students that rode several hours to attend suburban schools - even if they did end up in a better funded district it was a cheap patch that avoided the real issue.
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/boston...
Lots of land is outside of cities, and that can't be left ungoverned. And many counties have very few people, which make a lot of government functions impractical or insufficient.
So states are still a reasonable unit after 250 years.
Not enough to claim that the federal government must take responsibility for all assistance programs, however.
I don't think going by names is the best approach when we've got legal documents and statements to go by which are far less vague.
The only way to solve this equation is to drop Federal Government taxing power to as close to zero as possible and zero may not be enough as states power is likely to drop.
If economics was a harder science, it would be about mathematically proofs of these possibilities.
Sure they do (except stuff like tariffs). They just face competition from other states on how much they tax their citizens.
So in other words if it's the will of the country we need to pass an amendment, and if not then move to a state where your ideals are embraced. I know I've heard this story somewhere before...i think back in 1860's...
Yes, because that's how the American constitution works. If you think something else should have similar protections - or if you don't like the second amendment and think it should be repealed - lobby for a new amendment.
Until then, it's the highest law in the land and is on equal footing with any constitutional protection, regardless of your personal policy preferences.
You see that quite often from Gorsuch and Alito- you'll not once see that from Sotomayor.
Thomas is consistent, though conveniently for him his policy and political preference's and how he reads the Constitution seem to align nearly perfectly.
Well, no. You always have the option to bring your lunch if you can afford it. So the government gets to decide what the lunches are for poor people who don't have another option. Take that for what it is, but shit lunch is better than no lunch, ask any hungry person.
It's not about the kid in Palo Alto who doesn't need it, but gets it anyway.
It's about the kid who lives in poverty and should get it, but doesn't, because their family didn't properly submit forms A65, B39, and F12 proving their annual income meets the ever-changing requirements.
Giving a benefit to everyone is by far the simplest and most effective way to be sure no one falls through the bureaucratic cracks (though it's probably more accurate to call them gaping chasms than 'cracks').
[0] https://www.schooldigger.com/go/CA/schools/2961004596/school...
Rather than embrace minimalism, the better question is if it is more efficient to run the program that way and often times, universal programs are indeed more efficient.
Snark aside, the answer is: it's much simpler to manage a program that offers the same thing to everyone regardless of income than it is to manage a program that has to work out who deserves it. And offering it to all avoids stigma.
I went to a public school in Uruguay and we had a daily free meal (not really lunch, it was more of a snack, school ran 13 to 17 for me) and I never went to get mine, but I always had a couple of classmates who didn't get a square lunch at home and they went to get that.
Also, giving every kid the same treatment is a good idea in general as it reinforces the idea that they should be treated equally.
Actually what it does is teach kids they should depend on the government for handouts - even if there families can easily afford to pay their own way. Not a message I would choose to send.
Universal “free lunch” is cheaper to manage, avoids filtering out children who needs it (but is filtered out due to administrative error or rigid rules), prevents children’s embarrassment, etc.
Why would a human being feel that feeding children is NOT their responsibility?
Clearly you have never had to be the "free lunch kid", or idealize your childhood independent of the cruelty of "different". You are extremely privileged.
The idea that we'd limit what kids we fund for meals, education, etc. is just gross and bifurcates any moralistic or democratic ideals.
The US has a serious problem with "bootstraps" and whatnot. Which really means, survival of the sh1tt1est.
If you feel that investing in the future of your community is BS, stop living in a community.
You don't have kids? Cool!
Meanwhile, you don't feel like you need to contribute to the future you wish you had secured for yourself without struggle? F*ck you. Your community is an investment in the continued existence of a people with similar DNA as yourself.
It is beyond my understanding to fathom how in 2022 we're all still trying to deal with false scarcity as some sort of reality.
There is MORE than enough for everyone, but we don't really care about that beyond a family or clan directive. That's a shame for any culture.
Perhaps we should ask the parents who are encouraged to not feed their own children because of the existence of these programs.
Let’s say there is a 22 to 1 student to teacher ratio. And 20 don’t need the free lunch but you give it to them anyways. Let’s say you’re spending $5 per meal per kid. That’s $100/day. 180 days per school year. $18k per class.
It could be higher, it could be lower. Certainly it’s enough to be out to good use.
Actually I’d rather they spend the money on teachers rather than lunches for kids whose parents can afford to pay for their own.
My kid would always bring a lunch from home but often return with it uneaten, because when you pit healthy home cooked food against microwaved pizza and crackers, for a six year old, it’s no contest.
I’m still supportive of the program - if there are starving kids in our community, of course having free options is great, I just wish they’d managed to have a cook onsite so it wouldn’t be so factory-made and artificial.