Wrong, try again. States are self funding entities. The fed does give grants for some projects (bridges, rails, etc). Some states do receive more tax/grant benefits than they give, but those funds are earmarked - states can't use that money for any old reason.
> Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around...
Correct, the Fed can help make resources available to the states but the states have to request and allow the resource. The fed for instance can have the military perform interstate logistics, or rent out all the frozen delivery trucks and lend them to states.
The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval.
> In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries?
Alaska isn't overly qualified to run a military, form treaties with foreign powers, regulate interstate commerce or run the FDA. The fed does have a place, but the fed doesn't have the power to control states or boss them around (in theory - in practice federal grants do give a fair amount of power over many states). The fed is limited to interstate (that is, things involving multiple states) actions, and can't dictate the internals of a state.
The federal government effectively controls things like highways speed limits in all the states. The department of education does a whole lot of wealth redistribution and exerts a ton of control over every single public school in the country. Just some examples. The federal government is also the largest employer in the country.
> The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval.
Fine. States that don't want the vaccine are free to refuse it. Do you think they won't play ball if the fed says "we will deliver and distribute the vaccines and you don't have to pay for them"? In what universe will this be something a state refuses saying "we want to pay for this ourselves"?
If it helps your mental model, you are the CEO of Alphabet, and Google is California, yet the worm is affecting all your subsidiaries.
The highway near my house runs at 70 and goes up to 80 in parts. Grants are conditional but also optional and that matters.
In general yes, the Fed does have an important part in what are basically non-capitalist practices - foodstamps, WIC, social security, etc etc. There are also state programs that are non-fed and also occupy a similar role.
None of that disagrees with the basic assertion - the Fed does not fund states general revenue. States are supposed to manage their own budgets and collect their own income. The fed is not an endless income stream.
Nobody is saying the fed shouldn't assist states with the vaccine. The states shouldn't however be entirely dependent on the fed for that help - they are supposed to be functional on their own. If the state is not functional without the fed then the state has screwed up.
Fine, semantics aside, the federal government is in a unique position to distribute vaccines and testing supplies and PPE with a higher efficiency coefficient than the collection of the states and territories individually. There are people arguing against this in this very thread. In generally, sure the states shouldn't rely on the fed to do everything. In this case it's better for the states to let the fed handle this. If not, why not?
Well, we only need to look at the last time there was a mass vaccination drive. New York City had a smallpox outbreak and administered millions of doses in record time.
The city was able to mobilize hundreds to thousands of distribution points, call up city workers (who the Fed has no power over) and run vaccine administration 24/7.
The state knows more about their interior, they have more resources on the ground and more control over schools and other public buildings (libraries, community centers, etc), more ability to use private businesses if needed, and control the local health infrastructure.
Did the whole country have a smallpox outbreak? No? So it sounds like it was localized to one state.
The point is that this is a nation-wide problem, and the federal government is in a unique position to be the most efficient at handling production and distribution of vaccine/testing supplies/PPE. What exactly is your argument around why it should have little or no role? There is a shortage of these things and production happens in a few centralized places. It makes sense that one centralized entity coordinate the production and distribution. What is the problem with that? Please show your work on how 50 states plus territories would handle it better.
> It makes sense that one centralized entity coordinate the production and distribution
Centralized planning can work, but when it doesn't work, it's disastrous for everyone. Decentralized systems trade off a little bit of hypothetical efficiency (again, it depends on the central planner being competent) in return for guaranteed antifragility.
If what you're saying is accurate, then we really ought to have a global government (say, the UN) coordinate distribution across the entire planet. Countries like Israel, Taiwan, New Zealand, and Singapore shouldn't be allowed to set up their own distribution systems, rather they should all play into the same globally centralized distribution system. It's a global pandemic after all, right?
We are in a pandemic. How we handle this does not change how we govern ourselves outside of a pandemic. It doesn't even change how we govern ourselves during a pandemic. We aren't talking about forming a world government. We aren't talking about expanding the federal government's powers. We aren't talking about Hunter Biden, the pee tape, the impeachment, chem trails, or mega churches. Put that out of your mind. Try to think like this isn't US politics because that's clearly clouding your judgement.
A centralized entity coordinating a nation-wide effort to distribute the vaccine, testing supplies, and PPE is normal. What exactly would go wrong there that the states couldn't mess up. By your logic, the FDA and the CDC shouldn't have been approving the vaccines. It should be left up to each state, no? Because what if the FDA got it wrong. Better let 50*2 smaller, less well funded agencies decide individually than one well funded agency, right?
How could the states possibly do better than a national strategy for handling the pandemic.
Note: national strategy != central government. National strategy does not expand any powers. The federal government already has all the powers it needs. No new laws would need to be passed. No new powers granted. It's literally using the resources already there for what they are meant to be used for: responding to an emergency. Why do you thing agencies like FEMA exist?
I'm done with this topic because it really seems there is a number of people here willing to bend over backwards and give themselves a cranial colonoscopy just to not blame the current admin for its utter failure to do its most basic job. If you really think this is going better than the ebola outbreak, a disease much deadlier and more contagious than COVID, then I can't do anything to pull you out of your alternative reality. That is on you.
We all understand your point of view, but beating your chest and “How. The. Fuck. Is. This. So. Difficult”ing your way around actual discussion isn’t going to change anyone’s minds.
> By your logic, the FDA and the CDC shouldn't have been approving the vaccines. It should be left up to each state, no? Because what if the FDA got it wrong. Better let 50x2 smaller, less well funded agencies decide individually than one well funded agency, right?
This isn’t even a “what if”, the FDA was disastrously slow in granting EUA’s for rapid testing. The fact that 50 states were hamstrung by the federal FDA exacerbated the pandemic. You can visualize what the FDA/CDC bottleneck looked like early in the pandemic here -> https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1238981855812055041
By your logic, why should 200+ countries have drug agencies? Why have sovereignty at all? The argument is that while central coordination is well and good, you don’t want a system that’s overly reliant on it.
And if the problem is that mobilization will be difficult for some States due to underfunded health agencies, now is the perfect time for their legislatures to increase funding via taxes and bonds. A once-in-a-century pandemic is the perfect use for State bonds, since it won’t be a recurring expense.
Wrong, try again. States are self funding entities. The fed does give grants for some projects (bridges, rails, etc). Some states do receive more tax/grant benefits than they give, but those funds are earmarked - states can't use that money for any old reason.
> Moreover, the federal government can use its resources to physically drive the vaccines around...
Correct, the Fed can help make resources available to the states but the states have to request and allow the resource. The fed for instance can have the military perform interstate logistics, or rent out all the frozen delivery trucks and lend them to states.
The fed can not force states to take the grants, or perform operations in the state without approval.
> In your worldview, what is the purpose of the USA as opposed to 50 separate countries?
Alaska isn't overly qualified to run a military, form treaties with foreign powers, regulate interstate commerce or run the FDA. The fed does have a place, but the fed doesn't have the power to control states or boss them around (in theory - in practice federal grants do give a fair amount of power over many states). The fed is limited to interstate (that is, things involving multiple states) actions, and can't dictate the internals of a state.