Would you be willing to accept a decrease in Federal income tax for an equivalent increase in state taxes. It seems to me to be a very good trade. What do you think?
For one, too much funding goes out the door in grants to states. Yes, reducing that money may mean that cash-strapped states have to increase their taxes; however, money is better spent and politicians more accountable at the state level. We should be working to reduce federal taxes so that states can increase their taxes. That way we can provide the most bang for the buck and the highest return on investment, all while the same amount of total tax money is being plucked from American households. Eventually, total taxes will go down when the efficiencies and savings of having money spent at the state level are realized.
Not only is money better spent at the state level, there is no motivation for state politicians to send federal money home. When you can take money from other states and give it to yours, the temptation to do so is hard to overcome — even when it costs your state in the end.
Alabama has become exhibit A in the case against Federal “grant” addictions. We balanced our state budget on Federal handout for so long that now we are faced with draconian cuts due to the lack of Federal money. The Federal entitlement system is roughly equivalent to “free samples” of meth until you are hooked then you have to start paying for it. Our healthcare in Alabama is built on the slender reed of Medicaid subsidies and this year the Feds have increased the state match to the point where Medicaid and Medicare expense, combined with Corrections, will eat up half of the revenue of the state.
The problem is that all it would take is another increase in the match to push Alabama to the brink – assuming we are not already there. What is needed is a smaller Federal footprint on our collective throats. The way to do that is to shift taxing and spending from the Feds, where the Progressive Socialists hold power, to the states where people hold (more) power. If California and New England want to tax and spend themselves into oblivion, they should be able to, but without taking the rest of the country with them. Economic reality will set them straight soon enough. As it stand, the Federal Government bails out the spendthrifts on the backs of people in “fly over country.”
Here’s a modest proposal – cut the federal government back to 1967 levels with the understanding that the states take over care of vulnerable citizens… Nah. that’s crazy talk. We need the all-powerful
Sauron Federal Government to tell us not to eat cupcakes. Without the Federal government, we would not have fancy new bridges (to nowhere), or encouraging doctors to tell us to off ourselves.
For most real people (as opposed to credentialed idiots graduating from Liberal Arts Colleges) no Federal Government would be no burden at all. The people who would miss it include:
- Illegal immigrants
- Welfare cheats
- Union bosses
- Tort Lawyers
- permanent victim class (aka Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.)
- Corporate farm and timber operations
- GM and Dodge
- General Electric
- Goldman Sachs (what? you mean Wall Street is not a Republican Candy Store???)
You get the idea…
Of course the spendthrift states believe the federal Government will bail them out. Why do you think the inmates at the Asylum (California) elected Governor Moonbeam to continue driving them further into bankruptcy? Because they don’t really believe the fed will let them go bankrupt. They fully expect to be bailed out.
They should go bankrupt. They should be forced to live within their means, even if it means that sacred cows, such as union contracts, Bacon-Davis, free social services for illegal immigrants and so on, need to be killed.