Also, bear in mind that if somehow conservatism made a comeback and people began to buy into the decentralization arguments, it would be important to make gradual changes to revert the funding responsibilities back to the states. In some cases, Reagan's policies moved too quickly and the states didn't always pick up the slack as they needed to.

Also, bear in mind that if somehow conservatism made a comeback and people began to buy into the decentralization arguments, it would be important to make gradual changes to revert the funding responsibilities back to the states. In some cases, Reagan's policies moved too quickly and the states didn't always pick up the slack as they needed to.

In terms of making up for inequities at the local/community level, I think the state steps in to redistribute resources in that way- so getting back to that water treatment facility example, if a community can't afford to make the water potable for its citizens, then the state would pull from the pool of funds that it takes in from around the state to assist. I think school funding should be done that way as well, rather than being so tied to property taxes in districts.

But I see no reason for federal funding in education, welfare programs, or the million other things that DC has gotten involved in.

In terms of making up for inequities at the local/community level, I think the state steps in to redistribute resources in that way- so getting back to that water treatment facility example, if a community can't afford to make the water potable for its citizens, then the state would pull from the pool of funds that it takes in from around the state to assist. I think school funding should be done that way as well, rather than being so tied to property taxes in districts.

But I see no reason for federal funding in education, welfare programs, or the million other things that DC has gotten involved in.

What do you think those basic concepts should be?

What do you think those basic concepts should be?

The term “the national interest” is vague.

I'm not out here suggesting that funding should only come from local communities, then states, then–only if it suits “the national interest”–the federal government.

What I have done is praise moderation and complain about corruption and inefficiency.

Somebody else brought up water treatment facilities.

I think people who live in Louisiana ought to have potable water to drink even if people who live in New York pay the bill. I imagine people who live in New York derive sufficient benefits as citizens of the United States to make this trade-off fair.

I would like the process of making these decisions to be more open.

And I think the politicians who represent states that get more than they give ought to be clear about that kind of redistribution.

The term “the national interest” is vague.

I'm not out here suggesting that funding should only come from local communities, then states, then–only if it suits “the national interest”–the federal government.

What I have done is praise moderation and complain about corruption and inefficiency.

Somebody else brought up water treatment facilities.

I think people who live in Louisiana ought to have potable water to drink even if people who live in New York pay the bill. I imagine people who live in New York derive sufficient benefits as citizens of the United States to make this trade-off fair.

I would like the process of making these decisions to be more open.

And I think the politicians who represent states that get more than they give ought to be clear about that kind of redistribution.

I've seen those stats before and I honestly haven't chased down the details, but it would be interesting to see greater detail on what the federal money goes back to the states for, exactly. I think you'd have to know whether there was more military spending in the red states, for example, or more interstate highway funding in the wide expanses of midwest/ western states. I don't know if that's the case, just pointing out that those are areas of spending that I wouldn't have a philosophical problem with.

I don't get your penultimate paragraph, in context of your overall argument. If you decry the inefficiency of sending money to DC and then bringing it back to a state (with the bureaucracy and regulation that goes along with that), and the lack of transparency in earmark spending, then why are you defending it? Or did I misunderstand your original position, and you're defending spending on local projects but want it to be done through the normal budgeting process (which still doesn't explain why you don't think the inefficiency is a problem that way?)

I've seen those stats before and I honestly haven't chased down the details, but it would be interesting to see greater detail on what the federal money goes back to the states for, exactly. I think you'd have to know whether there was more military spending in the red states, for example, or more interstate highway funding in the wide expanses of midwest/ western states. I don't know if that's the case, just pointing out that those are areas of spending that I wouldn't have a philosophical problem with.

I don't get your penultimate paragraph, in context of your overall argument. If you decry the inefficiency of sending money to DC and then bringing it back to a state (with the bureaucracy and regulation that goes along with that), and the lack of transparency in earmark spending, then why are you defending it? Or did I misunderstand your original position, and you're defending spending on local projects but want it to be done through the normal budgeting process (which still doesn't explain why you don't think the inefficiency is a problem that way?)

You may prefer a certain type of funding for whatever reason. But that's not really how it works. I believe you live in Louisiana. The residents of Louisiana, like all other residents of the United States, pay federal taxes. It's fair to ask what they get in return for it.

Just looking at the dollars, the residents of Louisiana do very nicely. In 2005, the most recent year I could find, they received $1.78 for every $1.00 they paid in federal taxes.

In the same year, New Yorkers (like Hillary Clinton) only got back 79 cents for every dollar they paid.

(Source)

I don't necessarily have a problem with federal funding for “community” projects. What I have a problem with is the lack of transparency in the process of allocating federal funds. It's not just unfair (and maybe it's actually fair), it's not just corrupt (there's no transparency for a reason), it's inefficient!

And looking at the source, I see a lot of so-called red states benefit from the redistribution of federal taxes. All their politicians must be socialists!!

You may prefer a certain type of funding for whatever reason. But that's not really how it works. I believe you live in Louisiana. The residents of Louisiana, like all other residents of the United States, pay federal taxes. It's fair to ask what they get in return for it.

Just looking at the dollars, the residents of Louisiana do very nicely. In 2005, the most recent year I could find, they received $1.78 for every $1.00 they paid in federal taxes.

In the same year, New Yorkers (like Hillary Clinton) only got back 79 cents for every dollar they paid.

(Source)

I don't necessarily have a problem with federal funding for “community” projects. What I have a problem with is the lack of transparency in the process of allocating federal funds. It's not just unfair (and maybe it's actually fair), it's not just corrupt (there's no transparency for a reason), it's inefficient!

And looking at the source, I see a lot of so-called red states benefit from the redistribution of federal taxes. All their politicians must be socialists!!

George: I don't know enough about the oversight of municipal water treatment but I'm pretty certain that those needs are addressed by the state if the community can't afford it. That's as far from the locality that I'd want the funding to occur.

George: I don't know enough about the oversight of municipal water treatment but I'm pretty certain that those needs are addressed by the state if the community can't afford it. That's as far from the locality that I'd want the funding to occur.