Strangling with the pursestrings

This critique of the punitive or coercive withdrawal of federal funds from cities who refuse to implement federal immigration policy might actually hold water.  If so, I look forward to the reversal of a whole swath of punitive and coercive withdrawals of federal funds from local and state entities who decline to implement federal policy on the subjects of women's football teams, transgendered bathrooms, health insurance, climate youknowwhatwemean, etc.  In fact, let's just eliminate most of the federal funds, lower the tax rates, and let the local and state authorities handle most of the crazy issues that have been vaulted onto center stage during the Silly Season that began several years back.  You know the Silly Season I mean:  the one that spawned the now popular question, "You want more Trump?  Because this is how you get more Trump."


Grim said...

Great concept -- why don't we just have the Feds do a lot less, and you can keep your money?

E Hines said...

Why only most? I can't think of a single legitimate reason for Federal funds going in a domestic direction beyond that third Constitutionally mandated purpose for instituting taxes at all--and that general Welfare is clearly defined and limited by the 16 clauses of Art I, Sect 8 that discuss the issue. And those are national-level questions, not within-State.

Other than, contra Madison (because we're wealthier enough today to afford it), one-time and limited duration and size grants or loans to a State to help it handle an emergency that has (temporarily) exhausted its resources.

Eric Hines