Replies

There has never been a 91% tax on all American earners. That is simply untrue.

Where you say that a 90% tax on State revenue does not mean a 90% tax on individuals is to somehow miss the point of the 28th Amendment. It is the individual citizen who pays taxes to his State (and ONLY to his State). It will not exactly be a secret when the Congress proposes to raise the State Tax Rate who is going to ultimately end up paying for the increase. Governors might be helpful pointing this out (screaming from the top of their lungs) to their citizens - because the State power they get to govern will be greatly diminished by the tax increase. - To the tune of billions upon billions of dollars. You say State governments will go along with this for the typical Federal dole out? No they won’t. What can a Congressman legally give to a Governor such that the Governor will say, “Yeah, go ahead take money billions of dollars of power out of the State I am running.”? The whole point of Federal deficit spending is that the Fed Gov spends BIG money it does not have. Whatever pork a Congressman brings back to the State: A)is less than what the State pays to fund the pork of the other States; and B)is not something the Governor gets to control or take credit for. You’re the one dreaming if you think Governors will give up billions of dollars of State power in exchange for a pittance of pork that they will have no say in the administration of. You’re in a deep sleep if you think the average citizen will be happy to hear that billions of dollars is leaving his State to fund the pork in other States. That’s money that could have been used to pay for his kids’ schools or to pay police salaries or to fix one of the pot holes he drives over every day. The whole point of the 28th Amendment is that it establishes an inescapable system that starkly exposes these discrepancies because State governments lose BIG MONEY POWER in the face of such discrepancies. Citizens of a State will never stand for it, and their Congressional representatives will never be able to hold office based on it.

Nobody said there had been a 91% tax on all earners, just that the top rate for some was 91%. Having established that as a possible rate, putting a 50% tax on states doesn't seem so bad. The states aren't likely to pass that directly through, so there will still be some folks who don't pay taxes and so don't care.

You are way, way too hopeful about politicians not being bought off. You don't have to buy them all off, just the last few (Landrieu, Nelson). If the money goes to their state, it takes a goodly amount. If the money goes to their own pocket, not so much. Just look at how many of the folks we send to Washington end up rich. Either their wife becomes a lobbyist, or they get wonderful investment help. The buyouts come in both subtle and crude forms.

This will take some pre-planning. Look at George Soros Secretary-of-State effort. One (or more) of his groups worked to get far leftist folks elected to Secretary of State positions so they could turn a blind eye to ACORN election rigging. They can do the same thing for the Governor slots. There is no natural law requiring governors to be loyal to their own state, or to be honest. Do you thing Governor Blago-whatever could not be bought off?

Medicare and No-Child-Left-Behind are the model on how this is going to work. Raise the mandates to where the states can't pay, and then take over both the program and the funding source.

And when the Federal Rate goes up, the PR story will be that the States just need to tax their rich a little more.

I live in New Jersey. Billions go out of New Jersey and a pittance comes back. Liberals won't yell much if "It's for the Children". H*ll, even at a state level, our RINO governor has decided to keep shoveling money to the failed big city schools and cut money to all the suburban schools. And not enough folks are complaining.

It doesn't matter how little pork comes back, if the pork goes to the governor's friends and supporters. There are some governors who might actually think about the state, but probably not enough.

If you want the states to keep the Feds at arm's length, then just rescind the 17th Amendment, giving the states real power in Washington again.