[Boogieman]

Yep, I have thought that something similar is the best plan for a while now. Figure a fair method to allocate the federal expenses to the states and then let them figure out how to pay their share of the bill.

This would have the bonus effect of making states more likely to elect fiscally conservative representatives, since sending a bunch of big spenders to Washington will crush their own state budgets.

[Svartalfiar]

Yep, I have thought that something similar is the best plan for a while now. Figure a fair method to allocate the federal expenses to the states and then let them figure out how to pay their share of the bill.

This would have the bonus effect of making states more likely to elect fiscally conservative representatives, since sending a bunch of big spenders to Washington will crush their own state budgets.

How would this make the states send fiscally responsible Reps? It's still the same people electing those reps, it would just have the national/state budgets rolled together. Little people wouldn't even notice the difference. The only way that could work is by also abolishing the 17th Amendment and returning to the states electing Senators. There's a reason the government was set up that way.

But what's more fair than simply passing a budget, then dividing the number by 535? Each Rep takes a share home to their state. Unfair to small states since they have so few people for their Senator's share? Well most of the NE can merge into a single state. It's not fair that they get 20 Senators of representation, while Texas only gets two.

Bonuses? Repealing the 17th has plenty of pluses. This method would force a budget to be passed. Hitting state budgets (like you said) should start lowering the Fed budget. Each state can decide how to raise its own taxes, do what's best for its own citizens (sales, income, etc). Fedgov would have to seriously look at what departments are really needed (much less even Constitutionally within their purview).