To me the problem is, even with federal funding, local and state actions weren't matching what the federal government expected. Can anyone doubt that the public school system gets worse as more money goes in? The failure isn't at the federal level, yet the gov implements a new program and everyone screams unfunded mandate.
But I don't want to argue that. I'm trying to say this: it cost less to educate a child in Wyoming than California for all the obvious reasons, FREX cost of living. Does it benefit the country if a child is "educated more"* in Cali then Wy? *(Don't compare the cost on a per child basis, but if some program is available in Cali but not in Wy; a state program not a federal mandate.) I'd say no. So why should Wy send more money to the feds than it receives, while Cali gets more then it pays.
That may be a simplification or just wrong; it may be hard to quantify whether Cali gets more money per child after other factors are removed. I'm going to assume that Cali does get more money over and above what can be directly accounted for. If I'm right, then Wy is paying for programs that Cali decided to add to it's education system. My contention is Cali should fund these extra programs on it's own. Unfortunately money is fungible, Cali could be taking funding from a basic program and spend it on a state initiative, then turn around and complain the federal gov isn't giving them enough.
I feel the same way about cities complaining about homeland security guidelines. I know cities have problems, the tax base eroding while the costs go up; that should have been resolved before 9/11. If a state isn't asking the suburbs to support the city it surrounds....my point is the fed shouldn't be taking money from Wyoming so Miami can buy it's police an updated communications tower.
Again that may be simplistic, yet this redistribution of federal money just supports a level of bureaucracy. We are losing money trying to spend it better.
The other side is the highway bill. PA has more road miles than NJ, NY and the rest of the NE combined. (I don't believe that, but Rep Tim Holden D said it.) You cannot drive from the rest of the US to the NE without going through PA. (Assuming you stay in the country and don't use a ferry.) So should PA receive more highway money, since other states benefit from better roads in PA? I say yes, but there is a problem with that. This federal funding supports projects that are local in scope. Again, if a local project was funded fully at the state level, then it would take away money to help support big federal projects.
I support the pres in vetoing the highway bill; saying he won't support an increase in the gas tax. Both the senate and house versions are pork packages.
Maybe Brin's transparence would solve this. Heck, the gov could already provide the numbers but it's nigh impossible to pinpoint where money is being spent poorly. Congress already admits it doesn't know what it's voting for on most budgets. Course, they never miss the vote allowing for a pay raise.
Kevin T. - VRWC
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
