this is the key. states are addicted to the "federal govt. money" game and somehow need to be set free from that.
Other critics point out that if states want to send a clear message to Washington -- and not just pass resolutions -- they would refuse federal money or other services...
this is the key. states are addicted to the "federal govt. money" game and somehow need to be set free from that.
Bingo! It really is the key, and is even more insidious than just the surficial federally adminstered trough of programs, given the fact that the federal govt. is the only legitimate printer of the ubiquitous dollar, and hence can do whatever it wants in that venue.
In fact we were keenly waiting for the CA IOU thing to play out further, thus making it obvious that a State can internally deal (for better or worse) with its own monetary economics above and beyond the US dollar. When Palin was refuting the feds on stimulus money, similarly we had suggested Alaska create its own internal certificates; there's a situation (Alaska) which really could prosper on its own, i.e. I'd invest. What does the Constitution say about this?
In Alaska for instance there would be an immediate decoupling of government and Goldman Sachs, government and the Federal Reserve, etc. It would not quite be, as in the Confederate States, secession from the Union, but rather secession from the federal protection racket.
Leftism (centralized dependence) is not going to be blown out by the Republican Party, that has been proven, but there are other ways.
"Tea Parties" I suppose are one of those. This internet is another. Internal State monetization(?) another.