I hope that we can agree that blowing off the 10A and allowing all of this federal bloat has not been a swift call.

Social services left at the State level would be subject to a smaller pool of votes for approval and are more likely to be funded by actual tax revenue instead of debt.

That is: sustainably.

Furthermore, the lack of One True Database is a safety feature in the face of the inevitable bad actors.

In naval architecture, this is called compartmentalization.

There are good arguments against this, sure, but the current disaster before you would seem a refutation.

▲

paulryanrogers 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Some states are too poor to effectively fund and maintain their own safety nets. It's common for folks laid off in these states to get a dubious mental health diagnosis to justify SSDI, because doctors know they have no prospects and could well become homeless without it.

▲

smitty1e an hour ago | parent [-]

So we mug other States rather than address the problem?

	▲	paulryanrogers 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		These states may be fundamentally too resource poor to effectively maintain their populations. So collectively we agreed that richer states should subsidize them, because no one wants to see their neighbors suffer unnecessarily. And in the hope that newer generations may invent or unlock other resources to break the cycles of poverty. My fear is that many of these states are locked in a bubble of lies, a culture that longs for an imaginary and idealized past that never existed. That they'll continue raising generations of people who think they need to be an independent, 'rudged' individualist when that's never been possible anywhere. And once they fail they'll settle for punching down on people different than them.