The federal gravy train hits a hard stop
-
@Copper said in The federal gravy train hits a hard stop:
Red states farm, blue states eat.
I'm pretty sure blue states eat too. Some of them eat a lot.
-
Probably a dumb question, but does the President have the power to stop federal grants? I'd imagine that would be a legislative branch duty.
-
Probably a dumb question, but does the President have the power to stop federal grants? I'd imagine that would be a legislative branch duty.
@89th said in The federal gravy train hits a hard stop:
Probably a dumb question, but does the President have the power to stop federal grants? I'd imagine that would be a legislative branch duty.
Good question. But the legislature has ceded whatever authority it's supposed to have to the executive a few decades ago. Hence all the EOs.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Probably a dumb question, but does the President have the power to stop federal grants? I'd imagine that would be a legislative branch duty.
@89th said in The federal gravy train hits a hard stop:
Probably a dumb question, but does the President have the power to stop federal grants? I'd imagine that would be a legislative branch duty.
Probably in most cases no. And ignoring these laws harms many identifiable people so standing won’t be an issue. (Contrast that to the TikTok law, where (perhaps) only congress has standing and they’ve chosen to make their branch of government subservient to the executive.)
-
@89th said in The federal gravy train hits a hard stop:
Probably a dumb question, but does the President have the power to stop federal grants? I'd imagine that would be a legislative branch duty.
Good question. But the legislature has ceded whatever authority it's supposed to have to the executive a few decades ago. Hence all the EOs.
@George-K said in The federal gravy train hits a hard stop:
@89th said in The federal gravy train hits a hard stop:
Probably a dumb question, but does the President have the power to stop federal grants? I'd imagine that would be a legislative branch duty.
Good question. But the legislature has ceded whatever authority it's supposed to have to the executive a few decades ago. Hence all the EOs.
Yeah they're a double-edged sword, depending if you agree with it. For example, restoring biology to the federal government, or ending DEI? Awesome. Stopping NIH funding or declaring an energy emergency? Doesn't add up. I guess I don't blame Trump for using the weapons in his arsenal, but I get a feeling he's sitting at his desk thinking he is king... punishing those disloyal to him (like Bolton, or leadership in OPM), and signing orders that otherwise would run through a due process in the legislature, although that's a whole other quagmire).
-
-
It’s not just the agricultural subsidies. It’s also transportation and federal land expenditures. It’s not just flyover country, it’s drive-thru country. A lot of freight still has to pass through areas with low density population. The federal government has to issue large grants to those states to maintain the highway systems in those areas. The federal spending will of course be higher per capita in those areas.
Plus, many of the areas discussed have the highest percentages of federal land. 50% of Wyoming is federal land, and the population of the rest of the state is so small by comparison that there will of course be a “trade deficit” when it comes to federal taxes vs federal expenditures.
California has even more federal land, but there are so very many people living in the non-federally controlled areas that the numbers are reversed…
-
It’s not just the agricultural subsidies. It’s also transportation and federal land expenditures. It’s not just flyover country, it’s drive-thru country. A lot of freight still has to pass through areas with low density population. The federal government has to issue large grants to those states to maintain the highway systems in those areas. The federal spending will of course be higher per capita in those areas.
Plus, many of the areas discussed have the highest percentages of federal land. 50% of Wyoming is federal land, and the population of the rest of the state is so small by comparison that there will of course be a “trade deficit” when it comes to federal taxes vs federal expenditures.
California has even more federal land, but there are so very many people living in the non-federally controlled areas that the numbers are reversed…
@LuFins-Dad Good points!!
