it’s the $$$
the federales pass various legislation and they get the
states to comply by only providing federal funding if they
do
ie, if the states don’t comply with legislation about (say)
“disparate outcomes” in school suspensions or some such
ridiculousness, then the feds will stop funneling tax monies
from gasoline etc
quite slimey but thats politics
You beat me to the punch...
it’s the $$$
the federales pass various legislation and they get the
states to comply by only providing federal funding if they
do
ie, if the states don’t comply with legislation about (say)
“disparate outcomes” in school suspensions or some such
ridiculousness, then the feds will stop funneling tax monies
from gasoline etc
quite slimey but thats politics
I’ve been thinking about this exact thing.
They are “Federal Mandates”, some are funded and some are unfunded.
The States, have become addicted to the Federal monies that come with these mandates/laws etc.
The affect of 3/4 of the states rejecting the mandates and the money would be profound. The Feds would soon be drowning in cash looking for something to spend it on. Most of these Government agencies measure success by how much they spend or grow their spending on these programs. Their budgets are set for the next year based on how much they spent the previous year.
Consider this, instead of cutting off the purse strings, flood them with their own/(tax payer) money that virtually no State will accept. They would have no choice but to reduce their budgets going forward and would likely result in a balanced federal budget and possibly start to reduce the Nat’l debt.
There’s more. The reduction in funds transferred to the States would or should allow for a substantial reduction in the number Government bureaucrats that administer those programs.