Posted on 04/04/2026 5:10:56 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Feckless blue states are spending like there is no tomorrow, but tomorrow will come, and they’ll be demanding red state money to pay their debts.
I begin by presenting three trends. One might even call them inevitabilities, and one might argue they’re not trends at all, but present realities that are intertwined and will tend to collapse in on each other, inevitably leading to the third inevitability.
The first trend is a Congress of feckless fools:
I’ll get to Lippencott’s final question momentarily, but our Congress does seem unable to accomplish anything of consequence, such as the SAVE Act, which will make election fraud not necessarily impossible, but more inconvenient for the Democrat party, which arguably cannot win an election without massive fraud. A paralyzed Congress can’t even pay the Department of Homeland Security at a time when the danger of a massive terrorist attack within our shaky borders is at an all-time high. Democrats don’t care. If thousands of Americans die, they’ll blame it on Trump, with the help of their media propaganda arm.
While Congress does little to benefit America or Americans, its members excel at giving their power to unelected bureaucrats who, through rulemaking and nonsensical interpretation of congressional language and intent, run the bureaucratic state, which rules by ever-increasing rules and regulations.
The ATF was recently caught prosecuting Americans for possessing braced pistols, even though the prior ATF decision criminalizing them was rescinded. Congress could, by doing what it supposedly exists to do—legislating—resolve that once and for all, but it can’t even pass the SAVE America Act, which has as much as 90% public approval. Circa April 2026, apparently, 100% approval is required to pass anything, and it’s doubtful Congress could be roused to act even then.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I'm not sure I agree with that part of your comment. I'm coming up on being 76 years old and to me it seems like it's always been that way, although it has gotten worse recently.
Get Ready For Blue States To Demand Big Bailouts
Yes, Congress is dead, and the 16th (16A; direct taxes) and 17th Amendments (17A; DEI-foreshadowing popular vote for federal senators) desperately need to be repealed.
And while we are repealing 16&17A, we need to add another new amendment to the Constitution that does the following. The new amendment will require that dead states that cannot pay the "rent" (General Welfare Clause; GWC) to be temporarily put back on US Territory status to be governed directly by Congress until prospective new state leaders can prove that they understand the federal government's constitutionally limited powers well enough to run a thriving state without the need for unconstitutional federal bailouts.
Consider that politically correct state bailouts in no way satisfy the Madison Test for constitutionally authorized federal spending and funding.
From related threads...
Regarding the Madison Test, note that the 14th Congress in the time of President James Madison (4th pres.), Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had found some EXISTING tax revenues and got all happy about spending it. So Congress drafted the Bonus Bill of 1817 to use the taxpayer dollars to improve military readiness and commerce by authorizing the construction of roads and canals intended to facilitate moving troops and manufactured goods. But Congress had based the bill solely on the GWC which turned out to be a BIG mistake.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States [emphasis added]; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
More specifically, while Madison AGREED with Congress that the bill would improve federal purpose transportation, he diplomatically clarified in his veto explanation that while the GWC authorizes Congress to tax and spend, he reminded Congress that the Constitution's drafters, Madison himself a major player, had intended for the clauses that followed it in Section 8 to limit what Congress could spend tax dollars for, no mention of roads and canals for Congress's purpose for the Bonus Bill. Madison also noted that the bonus bill didn't even pass Congress's traditional "wild card" excuse for justifying spending, the infamous "Necessary and Proper Clause."
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper [emphasis added] for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States. —President James Madison, March 3, 1817: Veto Message on the Internal Improvements Bill
In fact, note that the only roads that the Founders expressly gave Congress the specific power to authorize are postal roads.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads; It is one of a few government agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution of the United States. (non-FR)
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Again, the 16th Amendment is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime front-ended buy deep-state Congress, and desperately needs to be repealed.
Why don’t states just keep the money they collect?
and
State and local officials can “brag” about getting federal money, which they then spend prodigiously.
When I look at States like WA, CA, Oregon, Illinois, NY, etc.; I see fiscal irresponsibility in State and local spending to the point that I don’t understand how bond rating agencies have not down graded their municipal bonds to “Junk” ratings.
In particular, I look at all the public employee pensions that are not properly funded and shake my head. Then, I look at all the teachers unions, and public employee unions that provide both campaign money and free labor to Democratic Party election campaigns. Some day those union employees who have given union dues and voted for Democrats will be horrified that the pension money they counted on......is not there.
100%. Blue states DO NOT CARE if their rich people leave.
They will fund themselves with printed, fiat money and massive debt issued by the Federal Government.
I’m not sure I agree with that part of your comment. I’m coming up on being 76 years old and to me it seems like it’s always been that way, although it has gotten worse recently.
NO BAILOUTS OF ANY KIND TO BLUE STATEs, ZERO, NADA,NONE.
Modern Monetary Theory doesn’t work. I learned that and the Left doesn’t care. Here where Democrats hold every seat on county council for 32 years (and they could lose that), Democrats push new taxes to spend their pet projects, and Republicans are taking advantage of that fact.
There’s a real knee-slapper.
They ruled paying an insurance premium was a tax.
Anyone who reflexively cries TDS at a factual statement, like you just did is suffering from projection. You are Trump deranged. Trump does no wrong is as deranged as Trump is always wrong.
Go read my previous post before you accuse me of your own TDS.
Do you still support Trump’s position on the free export of oil and gas?
It’s even worse than that report indicates when you use a “real world” ROI to calculate the unfunded liabilities.
NO BAILOUTS. Let them fail.
“California and New York are net surplus, not deficit.”
Incorrect. Both spend more than they take in.
California Budget Deficit: over $18 billion for the 2025–26 fiscal year, following a previous deficit. While Governor Newsom announced a historic surplus in 2022, this was later found to be based on incorrect projections, and the state has struggled with a “structural deficit” since.
New York Budget Deficit: $2.3 billion deficit in early 2026
Donor vs. Recipient States: It is important to distinguish between state budget deficits and federal balance of payments. California and New York are often “donor states” (or “surplus” states in terms of federal tax contributions), meaning they send more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending. However, this does not mean their individual state governments have a surplus of funds. Keep in mind that less than a fourth of federal tax revenues are returned to the states.
Long-term Debt: A 2025 report by the Reason Foundation found that California and New York were among the states with the highest total liabilities (debt) in the nation, with California having the highest at $497 billion at the end of 2023.
From one perspective states like California and New York are “subsidizing” states like Mississippi and Kentucky. But you have to look at the big picture. Statistics often oversimplify the actual situation.
I think the point of the article is more about bailing out states if they can no longer pay their debts. While California and New York may wildly misuse tax revenue, I’m not sure we’re headed toward bailing them out.
Several have made an issue of definitions.
A state budget deficit is not covered by Federal bux. The article must largely be talking about federal money, since the whole point is to say Red states have to bail them out. It is with Federal taxes and spending that the scenario fails.
The overall concept would point at things like Welfare, and Red Appalachia spends a ton on that. There is an interesting look at per capita, but that’s not going to fit the article either.
Then there is military spending . . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.