Here's a whiny piece from the LA Daily News, with at least two questions not asked (nor are they ever asked in pieces like this, or if they are, it's rare):

President George W. Bush's lean $2.57 trillion budget plan to beef up the U.S. military comes at the expense of Southern California's ability to hire more cops, help battered women and clean its drinking water.

The proposed 2006 budget slashes programs considered vital by local officials, including Los Angeles' Community Oriented Policing program, used to hire more police, and community block grants that fund low-income housing and other social services.

Boo.Hoo.

First unasked question: Why is it the responsibility of a taxpayer in Wyoming to provide clean drinking water for Los Angeles residents? Or pay cops' salaries?

How did this come to be within the purview of the federal government? These are local issues, that should be locally funded.

On to the next:

Getting California's fair share of federal tax dollars has long been on the agenda of Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders of both parties, with all five of them scheduled to be in Washington on Feb. 17 to meet with the state's 53 congressional members to see whether the current situation can be improved.

Estimates currently peg the state's take at 77 cents for every dollar paid to Washington by California taxpayers, and Democratic leaders in Sacramento said Monday that the president's budget doesn't bode well for rectifying that imbalance.

Our intrepid reporters report this as though it's a perfectly sensible notion that each state should get back exactly as much (if not more--though then that would beg the question of which state wasn't getting back as much to pay for the overage) as it pays in federal taxes, in the form of federal outlays.

The purpose of federal taxes is not to get them back in benefits to the state in proportion to the taxes paid. In fact, that would be impossible, since just the overhead costs of sending them to Washington and back would dictate that the total amount going back to the states would have to be less than that sent to Washington. It also ignores the funding that's sent overseas (embassies, military activities, foreign aid, etc.) that can't be spent in any of the fifty states. So when California insists on getting back all one hundred cents of its federal tax dollar, it's really saying that at least some, if not all other states should get less.

I've got an idea. Instead of state officials lobbying to get the gummint to spend money in their states, howzabout they lobby to reduce federal taxes, so that the people who live in the states have more money to spend on their own states, and don't have to rely on benefactors in Washington to pay for their police departments and womens' shelters after skimming their umpteen percent off the top?

You know, in talking with people, I'm not sure the majority of people even realize that the local and state governments are separate entities from the federal government. Sigh.

Well hasn't California always been the tax first ask questions later state anyways.

Then too, isn't California the state that has gone so enviromentally whacko that government contractors have been leavin in droves? Maybe tha money is still going to those contractors, but somewhere else. Ah yes, unintended consequences.

Part of my take on why "red" states get more money is that they're harder to bribe. Perhaps that's just due to their relatively larger voting power per capita compared to the more urbanized "blue" states.

For example, I imagine that California legislaters had to make numerous costly compromises in order to receive funding for the decades of public funds for water projects, highways, school systems, and other projects with easy to divert funds. Of course, you'd have to bribe the other states to look the other way while you fill up the hog trough. And IMHO that means that California now gets 77 cents on the dollar (hypothetically).

Second, I'm dubious as to who really gets the money. Just because the money gets dumped in a particular state, doesn't mean that it goes to the citizens of that state. For example, do most farm subsidies really get paid to residents of the state? I don't know.

How about we reduce the federal tax rates and raise our state rates instead? I'm still in California and it wouldn't make much difference to me.

You hit the nail squarely on the head, Rand.

First, the liberals take over the schools and make sure the populace doesn't learn anything useful about how government actually works....

Why is it the responsibility of people in California to spend their money to defend people living in Wyoming?

That's as ludicrous a question as asking why people in Wyoming should pay for schools, police and other services in Wyoming.

Perhaps people in all the blue states should withhold that percentage of their taxes that funds whatever they believe are unnecessary military expenditures. If the red staters disagree, let them pay for that stuff.

The notion that artficial costructs like state borders should allow some people to avoid their responsibilities is simply a thin cover for the same old tactic of bigotry, bias insupportable privilege taking refuge behind the notion of states rights.

In a democracy, the relationship of a citizen and government is not that of customer and seller of services.

Why is it the responsibility of people in California to spend their money to defend people living in Wyoming?

That's as ludicrous a question as asking why people in Wyoming should pay for schools, police and other services in Wyoming.

Only if you're ignorant of the concept of federalism, and the Constitution.

Defense is something that has to be done by the nation as a whole--it can't be left up to local jurisdictions, for what I would hope are obvious reasons.

In a democracy, the relationship of a citizen and government is not that of customer and seller of services.

And why shouldn't it be? Few times in history when governments were subject to market pressures, such as Italian city-states during Renaissance ("If Venice does not deliver on my taxes, I move to Florence"), they actually ran efficiently. But...

Perhaps people in all the blue states should withhold that percentage of their taxes that funds whatever they believe are unnecessary military expenditures. If the red staters disagree, let them pay for that stuff.

Aren't you advocating just such relationship? Or is the idea of government being a competitive seller of services, and a citizen being a consumer with choices so absurd to you that you are just being sarcastic?

A democracy is not a business or a corporation. All of us, by our continued residency and our continued willingness to accept the privilege and protection of citizenship in that democracy, take on obligations to every other citizen. The fact that we will, always, differ about how those obligations should be manifested does not reflect on their reality.

Reducing participation in a democracy to that of customers seeking the cheapest or most efficent provider of services absolves each "customer" of those obligations. The concerns of others that are not perceived as bearing on an individual's incentive to maximize the services he receives from government will be ignored. Ultimately, the right to vote itself would be threatened, because an incentive would exist to disenfranchise people whose interests oppose yours. Because government would be seen as a provider of services, not as a protector of rights, logic would compel "customers" to thwart the ability of others to influence government to migrate resources into the production of competing services.

Yes, I was being sarcastic about blue states pulling tax revenue for spending they oppose. Yet, it happens all the time when the administration decides to pull funding from some program because the president and his supporters take moral exception to it, thereby allowing their personal opinions to control the behavior of others. Exactly how much of that tax money is returned to the states that don't support that decision?

Rand, unsurprisingly, retorts that national defense spending must, almost by definition, be controlled by the national government. But, many things that may be funded by individual states will national impact. Why should 49 states benefit, or suffer, from something funded, or not funded, by the 50th? If a stem cell breakthrough in California delivers an Alzheimer's vaccine, should the other states be allowed to use it, or should its benefits be confined to the state that paid for it? (I hope the absurdity of that notion is readily apparent. That's where "state's rights" and "government as service provider" take us.)

BillG keeps referring to the US as a democracy.
In my high school classes on the constitution , my understanding was that the US is a republic not a democracy.

And your point, Duane, would be....? What did your high school civic class teach you that enables you to rebut my argument?

Or, am I supposed to exclaim "My God, I forgot that U.S. citizens don't vote directly on every issue of their governance, so it isn't a democracy!" That would be a lie, but it might allow you to score a point, which seems the primary purpose of most blog posters and commenters.

Bill G,

You're right that we, as citizens of the UNITED STATES, have certain obligations to go with our rights, and we can't pick and choose which of those obligations to honor. And, as reasonable people, we can disagree about what those obligations are. But I think that you forget that the "reality" (your word) of those obligations depends on us to shape it. "We the People" rule, not Washington.

And in our capacity as citizens of the states as INDIVIDUAL states, we really should be thinking about how much money we send to Washington, and how much power we let our supposed servants there wield.

So, it's fair to ask just why it is that we send so much money to Washington to be spent on stuff that is a local responsiblity, like police forces, or fire departments, or schools, and so on and so forth. Better to keep that money at home rather than lose a "cut" to the bureaucrats who are only going to send it back to us anyway.

And yes, the idea that "blue" states should withhold tax monies intended for federal activities that they don't like is absurd. But it is foolish to justify such a notion by countering that Congress and the Administration routinely divert funds from politically unreliable states or regions. It would be better to ask just why the Hell it is that Washington has the power and the money to do such things in the first place. Or, to put it another way, politics in Washington would be a lot cleaner if they didn't have so much money and power-- why bribe (or suck up to) a politician if he has neither the power nor the money to grant you the favors you seek?

And as for the borders of the states being artificial constructs, I remind you that the states have an existence independent of that of the federal government. If for some reason the federal government were to cease to exist (heaven forfend), the states would still exist as independent countries. I don't like that idea any more than you do, but there it is. And those "artificial constructs" you pooh-pooh help preserve local option. If you don't like Maryland's high and progressive taxes, move to Pennsylvania for lower and flatter taxes. Don't like Arkansas' meager social programs? Move to Minnesota. And so on. America isn't about uniformity, Bill. It's about liberty and freedom.

I'd write more, but what I call "political Taylorism" (as in Frederick Taylor, the father of industrial engineering) raises my blood pressure, and I want to relax tonight, not blow a fuse.

Later.....

Reducing participation in a democracy to that of customers seeking the cheapest or most efficent provider of services absolves each "customer" of those obligations. The concerns of others that are not perceived as bearing on an individual's incentive to maximize the services he receives from government will be ignored. Ultimately, the right to vote itself would be threatened, because an incentive would exist to disenfranchise people whose interests oppose yours.

Sorry, but that does not follow. An incentive, or temptation, to disenfranchise whose interests oppose yours always exists -- an existence of competing jurisdictions with varying degree of taxations and services will not affect that fact. I should say does not affect, because as Hale Adams pointed out, such competition, to a degree, is a fact of life: "If you don't like Maryland's high and progressive taxes, move to Pennsylvania for lower and flatter taxes. Don't like Arkansas' meager social programs? Move to Minnesota." If anything, such competition lowers the temptation to cheat on elections by giving one an opportunity to move to a more agreeable locale.

Why should 49 states benefit, or suffer, from something funded, or not funded, by the 50th? If a stem cell breakthrough in California delivers an Alzheimer's vaccine, should the other states be allowed to use it, or should its benefits be confined to the state that paid for it?

The fact that you see this as "absurd" only shows how little you thought of the matter. California just invested $3 billion in stem cell research -- in the form of grants to California-based biotech companies. If the investment pays off, these companies will reap profits, and the state of California will reap tax revenues. Citizens of other states will pay for the resulting drugs (as will California citizens -- I seriously doubt they will get these drugs for free), but California citizens will benefit from increased state revenue and state services. If you think that's absurd, I have news for you -- that's how the world works. It's not a matter of "being allowed to use", but of paying and being paid. Sorry, but again Hale Adams pointed out, states ARE real entities, and they provide real choices in both lifestyles and public spending priorities.