ziggy29
Moderator Emeritus
Agreed. And while it would likely cause state taxes to rise, one thing I would do is stop the "federal funding" of so many state and local programs. I think this allows the federal government to get around the 10th Amendment and meddle in state and local affairs by getting states addicted to "federal funds" and then coercing them to pass state by state laws in order to keep receiving them. It also encourages political careerism in Congress by allowing someone to keep "bringing home the bacon" to gain reelection. It's a nice, slick trick to get around the Constitutional limits on federal power in state and local matters and keep entrenched incumbents in office. Sleazy as heck, but slick and creative.I suggest we maybe give priority to functions that are explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as being the responsibility of the federal government. That's not a guide to how much to spend, per se, but it might be a guide to what should be considered "Job 1."
If the federal government has enough money to give back to state and local governments, that's money they shouldn't be collecting in the first place. Let the states decide if they want to raise taxes for the things "federal funds" provide in their states.