- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced just one day after the U.S. officially withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO) that his state would become the first to join the organization’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network, in a seeming rebuke of the Trump administration’s withdrawal from international collaborations.
Newsom traveled this week to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he was scheduled to speak at an event but was canceled at the last moment. During his trip, he met with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
The last time this was seriously touted weather hit a few weeks later and the state cried for federal help. Whether its a good idea or a bad idea isn’t the point. The point is the state can’t support itself so independence will fail regardless.
Off the top of my head I don’t know what time you’re referring to but…
Is it “crying” for help, or just trying to utilize FEMA… the thing that’s setup for that exact situation?
I was referring to the 2020 fires. And It was both. I say “crying” because literally one week the vocal statement was “we don’t need the federal government” and the next week it was “you need to give us federal aid now”.
Yes, that is what FEMA is for, and California should (and did) get it. But the F is FEMA is Federal. You can’t have it both ways.
Again, I’m not for or against the concept. I’m just saying its very clear California is not able to separate.
I think there’s a clear distinction between your characterization and the reality which is that California contributes massively to the US government in EXCHANGE for federally funded services like FEMA. The money California generates for the US could just be relegated to their own FEMA.
That’s a fair point. The FEMA funding can be redirected. However my “characterization” is based on the tone of actual responses so that doesn’t make it inaccurate. But I’ll go with that wording because I think its a good description as well.
My point is, the California budget is in shambles constantly. This fact is emphasized by negatives in the state as well. I do not believe that the state government can adequately create a functioning independent government, even if they get to keep their federal payments. More money doesn’t fix inherent problems. They haven’t proven that they can’t manage what they are doing today, let alone give them more responsibility.
I think its not a very mature outlook to discuss independence when you don’t have your crap together.
You seem to believe that the CA government has good management over everything. I’m OK with that but I disagree. And I think that’s the root of the separation in our thinking and interpretation of things.
I actually think it would be a good serious consideration of breaking from the union, but I’m not sold on it. And I don’t think the state is ready to have that discussion.
If California didn’t send $80 billion more to the federal gov’t than it got back every year, I don’t think they’d need FEMA.
I just responded to another comment about this. I agree that keeping the money we pay to the federal government can be redistributed, but I’m not confident the government has the proper structure to do so.
Basically, they mismanage what they do today, so why should I conclude they can handle additional responsibilities tomorrow? More money doesn’t fix existing problems. Fix the problems first, get your existing budget in line, address the current responsibilities adequately, and that’s evidence you’ll do a good job with more.
Sounds a lot like Texas in the winter.
Exactly. I’m watching to see what northern TX is getting now wondering how bad it gets.