Not quite. The contracts and expenses that sum paid represent years and decades long projects. Also- the process to approve those funds etc. as well as purchasing decisions and trails make up years or decades or work. The fact the money was transferred in fractions of a second is a measure of technology- not the time the money took to spend.
Of course- It took 102 minutes for the trade centers to collapse, and a nuclear bomb takes fractions of a second to detonate. So time is somewhat relative in these things. We should fix Flint. We can spend 1.6 billion on a border wall project we are seemingly willing to put decades and 21 billion plus dollars into. Lotta folk upset wanting to see free college- but when your neighbors don’t have clean water that seems like t could be more important no?
And we are spending at least a million dollars a month so far on this impeachment- not to mention what’s been spent on investigations. A million a month buys a lot of clean water vs. a long shot chance of ousting an unpopular ruler who’s trial might not even be over by the time they have to leave office any way.
I’m not saying none of this other stuff is important. Just because impeachment is expensive does that mean we shouldn’t bother (assuming there is a rightful reason to?) just because it would be expensive doesn’t mean universal healthcare should be ignored. The military is expensive. Do you think is a coincidence that the most prosperous nations in the world tend to either have the biggest militaries or be allied with the biggest militaries? Flint has been in bad shape and no- the government hasn’t done much and neither has anyone else. Care to guess how much amazon or Disney made in those 2,000 odd days?
Any one of those companies could easily help- but here’s the kicker. All that money came from us! So if anyone gave as much of a shit about the people of Flint as they do about $2 hair curlers or Watching Infinity War in IMAX- we wouldn’t be having this conversation. How is someone going to poo poo the military for buying luxuries like body armor or equipment for troops when they can’t be bothers to break off a bill and send a family in flint some clean water every month? We want the world to do things for us so we can keep being cunts ourselves. Funny how that works.
Yea, but I really liked that school. And it’s pretty sad that a deciding factor for my school search was “is the water drinkable?” especially in a developed nation
That's for the City and State to deal with. The whole point of federalism is to delegate local problems to local authorities. Or should Michigan be in charge of the US Military while a 50 State Congress deals with bad water in one city?
Yep^
The Flint water problem blame lands solely on the heads of the City officials that allowed it. Federal tax dollars (yours and my money) dont belong anywhere near it.
I’m not saying wether there is moral obligation or compulsion to help- in general where one can help- one should. That said- within the system of government we have- State and Local government is responsible for the crisis directly. As to wether there should be federal liability- it is the responsibility and mandate if the EPA- a federal agency- to ensure environmental compliance. Such compliance IS A federal issue because it impacts more than a single state or the interactions between states and is a matter of national importance, economics, and security. The EPA can compel states to comply through sanctions and legal actions. The EPA was aware of the issue and did not use the instruments at its disposal to elicit or enforce compliance. So there IS some federal liability here- created through negligence on the part of a Federal entity.
A strict federalist might argue the EPA shouldn’t exist- and that is a whole separate debate that has not found legal footing in the over 40 years the EPA has existed. Without some form of federal government we don’t have a United States- just a North American Union at best and tiny fiefdoms at worst. Telling a state they can’t kill people and they can’t contaminate the environment with heavy metals that can find their way to other states- and compelling compliance seems reasonable. As for being required to right the situation- that isn’t so much the case unless the state declares an emergency and asks for federal aid.
Lol. Sort of I guess? Legal responsibility falls to the state to handle those issues solely within its state- and the responsibility to make sure the state does right by them falls to the citizens of the state. The federal governments role in a federalism is regulation of interstate commerce and matters of national interest. It wouldn’t do for states to all have their own money for example- we could argue the money a state uses is its own business- but as part of a country- within and outside our borders such variance undermines the countries ability to function and would make each state its own country- like the EU.
But by that same token the federal government has other powers and responsibilities. If Florida wanted to make Nuclear weapons legal for public ownership- that would pose a serious threat to the nation.
In short- the idea that it is the states responsibility to design, build, maintain, and remediate its own water system is true.
It is not under the jurisdiction of federal power to “fix” what another state has done by choice or design within its borders.
However- the nature of the problem isn’t just a water crisis. Lead is a persistent heavy metal. The fact that lead can, will, and already has found its way into systems that have an effect on the environment places responsibility on the federal government to locate the responsible parties and compel them- using the judicial system if necessary- to mediate further damage and clean up the environmental mess.
So- in principal the water system ITSELF is not of any concern of the federal government. If there was say.... electricity in the pipes and people were being fried- that’s not really directly federal unless on the judicial side it reaches federal court.
Since what we have is an ENVIRONMENTAL contaminant- the part that IS federal is stopping that. If the state wants to not supply water to Flint at all that is not a federal issue immediately- but supplying lead tainted water is environmental.
There has been a ton of corruption at the local level, even in the cleanup efforts. Contracts for replacing water lines have been questionable to say the least, and the replacement has been over-budget and behind schedule.
The Flint water problem blame lands solely on the heads of the City officials that allowed it. Federal tax dollars (yours and my money) dont belong anywhere near it.
It is not under the jurisdiction of federal power to “fix” what another state has done by choice or design within its borders.
However- the nature of the problem isn’t just a water crisis. Lead is a persistent heavy metal. The fact that lead can, will, and already has found its way into systems that have an effect on the environment places responsibility on the federal government to locate the responsible parties and compel them- using the judicial system if necessary- to mediate further damage and clean up the environmental mess.
Since what we have is an ENVIRONMENTAL contaminant- the part that IS federal is stopping that. If the state wants to not supply water to Flint at all that is not a federal issue immediately- but supplying lead tainted water is environmental.