Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickff | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for posting the link, but it doesn’t make the program any more federal. Packaging a bunch of independent, local programs together under one umbrella doesn’t change the fact that they’re local programs. This really seems like the sort of ‘pork’ program everyone was complaining about a few cycles ago, albeit with an environmentalist sheen.

View on HN

The entire framework is federal, the money comes from the fed, and the implementation is via fed grants given to local programs to achieve a broader result. It's a very federal program.

It really seems to me that the only federal part is the allocation and distribution of funds. Put another way, what would a less federal program look like? Could you describe a program with less of a federal nexus, while still being federally funded?

Yes it does. Paying for a land delegating work to locals is one of the most common patterns for federal action.

Pork is good. Pork helps grease the wheels of government, it helps things pass and helps facilitate compromise.

That's how most federal programs work. Congress appropriates the money, a federal agency defines requirements, and then states, cities, or non-governmental entities apply for grants.

For example, my city is trying to build a bridge. There's a particular federal program for this (which will probably get killed by Trump), so the city applied for funding and now it's their job to build the bridge.

I agree that many federal programs are made up of many local components, though transportation has often been viewed as affecting interstate trade and military logistics. Food waste in Rhode Island does not seem to have a federal nexus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com