I agree with a caveat: the offending agency’s budget should be impacted rather than the general fund. The cost of lawsuits ideally would be itemized in the budget and publicized to show which agencies have legal waste. Otherwise the drag on taxpayers is obscured which gives cover for yet more malfeasance and political opportunism.
Yes, that’s exactly right. Maximal ‘individual liberty’ is my right to maximize my land’s value. My neighbors either agree to maximize theirs in a way that increases, or doesn’t hinder, mine, or they are my enemy to be litigated to death by my lawyers for damages.
This may or may not lead to a weaker Iran. From FP:
“Iran is frequently portrayed as a political order bound tightly to individuals. Yet the architecture that emerged after 1979 was formed by a different logic, one founded in the revolutionary experience itself. Khomeini captured this hierarchy in a remark (https://abdimedia.net/en/ruhollah-khomeini/system-ahead-life...) often cited within Iran’s political elite: “Preserving the Islamic Republic is more important than preserving any individual, even if that individual were the Imam of the Age”—a reference to Shiism’s 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi.
It is still unclear whether the system will always follow this principle. But one should expect a change in leadership in Tehran to be treated less as an ending and more as a chance for the country’s institutions to show they can survive.”
The largest chunk of federal "cash transfers" is not welfare; it is retirement and disability spending. The rural population is significantly older than the urban population.
Bear in mind that rural poverty rates (~17%) remain persistently higher than urban poverty rates (~12%).
And in a high-wage urban area (e.g., Seattle), a $20,000 Social Security check is a tiny fraction of the local per capita income. In a rural area, that same $20k check represents a much larger slice of the total economic pie. This makes the reliance on government cash appear massive -- ~29% rural and ~17% urban -- even if the absolute dollar difference is more modest.
Also, metro areas receive MASSIVE amounts of federal contracting money (defense, science, universities, federal employees), whereas rural areas get virtually none.
Mostly this is caused by the "graying" of rural America and the persistent lack of high-wage employment in rural areas.
Part of this is causal - if you're on what used to be called "fixed income" (read: social security) you migrate to places where your costs are lower; which is often rural areas.
Another part is that they're looking at total income over county-levels, which means that one Bill Gates or Elon Musk in your county will wipe out millions of people receiving "transfer payments".
> In contrast, many metropolitan hubs, affluent suburbs and exurbs, and high-income, high-productivity farming and mining communities remain minimally reliant on transfer income to power their local economies.
This may or may not be true; depends on the money flow, rich cities can have large swaths of poor people.
As part of a research project, I combed through archives of my local paper from the 70s and 80s. As a practice exercise, I highly recommend you log in to your local library and try exploring yours. I was stunned at the quality papers used to produce. It left me with a profound sense of loss and regret, but also hope that we can do better.
Even the most trivial seeming stories were treated with a care that seems lost to time.
The power of observation beats most content I encounter now. For instance, the coverage of a Lieutenant Governor’s election victory celebration after being snubbed by Gov. Reagan’s inaugural party. The clever politician persevered because he knew the way to people’s hearts: free steins of beer and brats. Thousands attended on a chilly winter night in a parking garage.
They even followed up to verify precisely how much beer and brats were consumed.
They were also funnier and better written that most journalistic writing see today. Local restaurant reviews had a sense of responsibility and respectful conduct, but didn’t shy away from levity when the food stank. Far from a mere aggregate of gripes of the crankiest customers or sycophantic pablum, it was a the product of someone who’d honed their craft—taking pains to represent what was there according to a professional ethic.
This amounts to a public record that’s a dependable source of historical truth in a way that a forum or social platform doesn’t approximate.
They may not be as good today, but $200 a year is arguably worth the democracy protecting function alone.
reply