[Huck]

And I’m sure Mark Levin would be able to articulate far better than I can how States with large pinko Congressional Delegations such as California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey who now pretty much control spending from the federal treasury and are quite happy to vote for every progressive giveaway program because there are no consequences in the process

Only problem with this is that the pinko states you mention all pay in MORE than they get back from the feds, whereas the red states typically get back MORE than they pay in.

Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

[JOHN W K]

Huck wrote:

Only problem with this is that the pinko states you mention all pay in MORE than they get back from the feds, whereas the red states typically get back MORE than they pay in.

Huck,

There is no “problem” with our founder’s clear thinking. You have just switched the subject to political partisanship rather than compelling Congress to balance the annual budget.

Additionally, when the piko States with their larger representation in Congress get their bill, it will be far greater than the “red states” who you contend get back MORE than they pay in. So, as it works out, the founder’s rule of apportionment would be a financial win for the red states!

JWK

Solyndra is not “crony capitalism“! It was a swindle and plundering of our federal treasury from the very beginning.

[castlebrew]

“Only problem with this is that the pinko states you mention all pay MORE than they get back from the feds, whereas the red states typically get back MORE than they pay in.”

But apportionment is based on population, not the amount paid. An analysis of amount paid as a proportion of the total, compared to the population-based apportionment of the budget (as well as revenue and deficits), appears to be in order...