• @AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    196 months ago

    “We anticipate that our state’s full approach to serving children will continue to be successful this year without any additional federal programs that inherently always come with some federal strings attached.”

    Like what?

    • ElleChaise
      link
      fedilink
      19
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Like when they put interstates through the Southern United States, then had to actually force Florida to enforce drunk driving rules, threatening to take away highway funding iirc. Just one of the million examples I can remember being controversial briefly. I wanna say there was a similar debacle surrounding seat belts. Basically any time the Fed gives you money, it comes with some (albeit basic, somewhat common sense) rules and stipulations.

      • Gormadt
        link
        fedilink
        236 months ago

        “You must turn off the orphan crushing machine to receive food aid for children.”

        GOP, “No, we like our orphan crushing machine.”

        • squiblet
          link
          fedilink
          56 months ago

          The federal government routinely ties highway funds to conditions like that - they did it with drinking age, as well as BAC percentage for drunk driving laws.

          One example:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

          The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was [… ] signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on July 17, 1984. The act would punish any state that allowed persons under 21 years to purchase alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by 10 percent.

    • Jo Miran
      link
      fedilink
      46 months ago

      Maybe they are required to follow educational guidelines that might hamper their book, CRT, black history, LGBTQ+, etc., banning efforts.