And more importantly, their local democracy is going strong.
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...
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.
I guess you never heard of gerrymandering.
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.
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.
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.
Not without positive action by Congress they don't. (US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 10.)
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.
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.
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.
The US has an incredibly weak form of government.
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 ) 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.
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
Yes.
> What about Arizona, 2021 to 2022 19% of their schools budget was federal funding.
They are an outlier, but mostly because they spend so little: https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statisti...
> 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.
But many sides can play this game once the can of worms is open.
The thing is, then the next Democratic president (or a Democratic House/Senate) happens and yet another hurricane flattens a part of Florida. What do you think the Florida delegation in the Congress will do when faced with a prospect of not getting help?
> Money is power
Indeed. And the Blue States have way more money than most of the Red states.
Can you explain why you think this?
The financial outlook isn't good, not terrible but still.
"No Capacity for New Commitments State Faces Annual Multiyear Deficits of Around $20b" [1]
>Indeed. And the Blue States have way more money than most of the Red states.
Based on what? Note that GDP doesn't represent available funds to state governments
>But many sides can play this game once the can of worms is open
Trump has already threatened this to California. Two days ago Newsom asked congress for $20b and ..
"Ric Grenell, a Trump ally serving as his envoy for special missions, said Friday that “there will be conditions” to any federal aid for the state.
He said one of the possible conditions being discussed was defunding the California Coastal Commission, which regulates coastal development and protects public beach access. Trump has criticized the agency as overly restrictive, bureaucratic and a hindrance to timely rebuilding efforts."
>What do you think the Florida delegation in the Congress will do when faced with a prospect of not getting help?
Why would you assume the Democrats would do that?
[1] https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4939#:~:text=The%20st...
The budget of California is $320B. This is more than the _entire_ discretionary budget of the US.
> "Ric Grenell, a Trump ally serving as his envoy for special missions, said Friday that “there will be conditions” to any federal aid for the state.
Yeah, these are public statements. I expect that there's frantic back-room dealing right now to make sure that the relief funds are not attached to any conditions. Because in the long-term, that will benefit the states that have money.
> Why would you assume the Democrats would do that?
Because the Democrats who are unwilling to play ball will not get re-elected. I'm not talking about this electoral cycle, this will take a bit more time. For Republicans, it took about 8 years to get from the Tea Party to MAGAs.
I hope so but it also seems people keep thinking Republicans/Trump won't step over a line but end up doing it
>The budget of California is $320B. This is more than the _entire_ discretionary budget of the US.
It's 1.7T https://www.cbo.gov/publication/most-recent/graphics
I'm sure they'll try. But I'm also sure that this practice of using relief funds as for political pressure won't stick, exactly because money is power.
> It's 1.7T https://www.cbo.gov/publication/most-recent/graphics
Thanks! I meant it in a bit different way: not Defense related, not International Affairs, and not law-enforcement/justice related. By my count, that's $330B.
Republicans would.
The shoe only fits on one foot.