Weaning local government from Leviathan

[Badger52]

Based on a suggestion, soliciting thoughts regarding what, if anything, can (or should) be done that might mitigate the seeming preponderance of sub-national governments that are welded to the US Government teat. We pretty much know that Heinlein's cautionary "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" (TANSTAAFL) applies significantly everytime .GOV's Good Idea Faerie decides to open up the purse and throw money at states, counties, and cities. It's like Crack - its draw is heavy. But the Piper will want to be paid further down the road.

No particular national administration's party is immune to using this lure because it reaffirms the caste system, which is needed to exert control. (Think a 3rd world need of someone to push the cart. You're not going to hire the Pusher. You're going to end up hiring the Pusher, the Pusher's Helper, the Pusher's Helper's Pusher, etc.)

Many of those who've lived most of their adult lives in .GOV/.MIL know how this works when some end-of-Fiscal Year "free" money comes down and "you can have it IF you have a project ready that you can throw it at. If not, they'll give it to the Public Works community to buy more sand for the roads because snow - and we can always use more sand." Show of hands of people who turned money back in to Uncle Sam saying, "Nah, we don't need it, just put it back in the Treasury." Right.

As Exhibit A that is tweaking my Bile-O-Meter, currently the Governor's office in the Demokratic People's Enclave of my state located down in Madison in Dane County (spiritual home of university bombers everywhere) is having quite the go 'round with the Rx2 legislature over how to FURTHER disburse Manna from Heaven (or Biden's K-street lobbyists and the heavenly stimulus bill, take your pic). The Blues do not like that the Reds are pointing out, for example, that acceptance of such-n-such Federal bak-sheesh in this specific piece of the pie (see oxcart analogy above) will actually create more compliance requirements.

Further, that this will HURT a small business's bottom line, as well as still cost the state money it doesn't have, due to one of those ornery "matching funds" requirements. They further point out to the Blues' consternation that this will be worse than if the state simply said "No thanks" and allowed the business to take a credit or write off on their state tax down the road because "OMG Chicom Flu."

Now to be "fair & above board" the Reds are trumpeting "Broadband for all" - and few are reminding them that the regional telecomms already got 100's of millions from your tax dollars & mine to do that very thing, deadline (now 7 years running) of 2022. Meanwhile, rural deplorable-land can't do remote schooling worth a damn. Funny how those political critters all start to blur into the same image.

What seems to foster this mentality of "a state's purpose is to take care of me?" Over a couple generations, have "backwards emigres" from other states polluted the notion of allegiance to one's state that was seen in our earlier history? Has it fostered that dependency that seems to permeate local governments? When Californians started heading for CO many could see the eventual result. (I recall a sign that Delaware once did, I think as a prank, on the interstate facing the eastbound lane coming from Maryland: "No Vacancy Full Up. Go back, we're Closed." Might've been headed to Dover to catch a hop; laughed all the way there.)

I'm not so naive to think that being able to recognize a problem implies the capacity to fix it. Discuss at will, please, whether it be the historical context if it might lead to a remedy (or even IF it should be remedied) and/or spit-ball local solutions to getting local governments off the damn teat of that big sow in Washington, DC - a place which was only supposed to be a rent-to-own location for office space.

Happy Curmudgeon hat on, GBF cup filled with cheap workin' grade coffee. You are cleared hot.
Thanks Ret10E; you were right, it didn't take long.
:cool:

[Ret10Echo]

So here we go:

Technically, it is completely legal for there to be “strings” attached to Federal dollars.
Commonly known as the Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution has been widely recognized as providing the federal government with the legal authority to offer federal grant funds to states and localities that are contingent on the recipients engaging in, or refraining from, certain activities. However, the Supreme Court has articulated certain limitations on the exercise of this power. In its 1987 decision in South Dakota v. Dole, which arguably remains the leading case regarding the use of the federal government’s conditional spending power, the Court held that legislation enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause must be in pursuit of the “general welfare.” In addition, the Dole Court held that any conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds must: (1) be unambiguously established so that recipients can knowingly accept or reject them; (2) be germane to the federal interest in the particular national projects or programs to which the money is directed; (3) not violate other provisions of the Constitution, such as the First Amendment or the Due Process or Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment; and (4) not cross the line from enticement to impermissible coercion, such that states have no real choice but to accept the funding and enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

CRS R44797 (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44797)

So the idea needs to be to "NOT" enter into an agreement where the rights of the State and the citizens therein are sold off.

The argument might be that the acceptance of these funds is a method of wealth distribution from those states that generate more tax revenue to those states that generate less tax revenue.

Interesting.


From what I am able to find online when talking about the federal funds taken by any particular state, the numbers provided can be somewhat confusing and potentially misleading at the first glance. Included in those numbers are not only federal highway funds or extortionary education funds and grant dollars, but also the wages of federal employees within the state and any federal contracts awarded to companies incorporated within the state.

So where lies the danger?

In 1974, Congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL). The bill mandated that states lower maximum allowable highway speeds to 55 miles per hour in order to receive federal highway funds.
The law was passed in the hope that lower speeds would lead to lower gasoline consumption in the midst of the oil crisis at the time.
Yet when the oil crises ebbed and the price of oil crashed in the early 1980s, the national speed limit law remained.


Western states were facing a potential loss of FEDERAL dollars ( I won’t call it Revenue) grudgingly instituted the law but internally the decision was made to establish the fine for exceeding the 55mph speed limit was going to be $5.00

In 2018 Montana accepted $380.0 million of federal funds for highway-related activities. What is the likelihood that Montana politicians would choose to go against some decision made in D.C. even if their elected officials voted against the legislation. Yes, the disagreement of the State is not limited to the basic sector or purpose of those Federal funds. Decline to change an internal State policy on gun registration? Lose highway funds. For that matter, disagree with any regulatory policy… Lose highway funds.

Montana Legislation Publications (https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/fiscal/leg_reference/Brochures/highway-funding-2018.pdf)

Maybe the problem is the religion of politics?

Religion:
* A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.

We as a people have revealed our bloodlust for tribal alignment and mindless anger.

Tough way to dig out of that hole


*the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

[The Reaper]

It has been said before.

Too many takers, not enough makers.

Cloward and Piven told us what they were going to do.

The Chinese virus has accelerated the process.

TR