This is why Lockheed Martin has some part of the F35 supply chain in nearly every US state.

The F-35 is used for defending airspace, a doubly-federal duty. Spreading the spending so widely is a purely political gambit (I believe pioneered by NASA with the Space Shuttle).

Although expensive, it wouldn't surprise me if the F-35 was financially profitable for the US.

  The F-35 jet program accounts for about 27% of Lockheed's revenue

  Lockheed financials: 2024 net sales $71.0 billion. Recorded pre-tax losses of $2.0 billion associated with classified programs 

  Returned $6.8 billion of cash to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases in 2024

  Total Assets @Q1 54.96B

  $110.94 B Marketcap

  Nearly 80% of the $46 billion in revenue in 2014 was generated from purchases by the US government

  Total foreign ownership of US companies is about 40% (I wonder if total US ownership of foreign companies exceeds foreign ownership of US companies?)

Sourced above by variety of sources - likely inaccurate.

Total costs (e.g. externalities, political) and benefits (e.g. security, influence) are harder to guess at.

The US political system puts a huge amount of pressure on allies to buy US armaments. The US military industrial capitalism is complex, and has massive political backing. Christmas lights sell missiles. I also wonder how much of the F-35 profitability comes from a Gillette/SaaS/HP financial model? Wars destroy capital goods, which is great if you're selling them.

To qualify for federal funding it should occur in ALL states, or be federal property (like interstates).

If it's not worth funding locally, it's not worth funding federally.

Usually these programs DO occur in all states, it's just that instead of having one large national bureaucracy that uses the same approach everywhere, the federal government defines requirements and then local organizations and governments apply for grants.

In fact, that's how the interstates work too - the state transportation agencies apply for highway funding from the federal government and then manage the projects.

I wasn't really talking specifically about this program, just kind of in general.

Although I'm not really sold on even the approach you describe - it seems like it's just a way to funnel taxes from local people -> federal -> back to local.

Skip the middleman?

The idea is to redistribute wealth from areas of the country with wealth to areas are poorer.

California tax payers support West Virginia infrastructure.

Inevitably some states are wealthier than others, the federal government acts as a balancer of this. This can improve outcomes in poorer states (education, building up new industries, local economies etc).

Ideally, it also provides a counter balance for changing economies, where there are inevitably winners and losers. Many industries are geographic centered, and having the ability to adjust for acute downsides in one area benefits the whole country overall in the long-term.

I think their point is not worth addressing on its merits. I downvoted them because while the article itself focuses on an $18M grant in RI, it also plainly states that this is part of $2B program that's aimed at all states, tribal lands, and territories. With a kagi search that took less time than the poster took to write the comment, I was able to further find a whole site dedicated to the grant along with fact sheets on same, here: https://www.communitychangeta.org/about-community-change-gra...

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.

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?

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.

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.