The feds frequently punish states by withholding highway funds. This is why we have a seatbelt law here. The feds said we implement it or lose funds. I understand there are a lot of laws like that. I’d imagine there are federal lunch funds or after class care and the like that would put pressure on the state from voters if suddenly people had to feed or care for their own kids.
Perhaps, Mr. Duncan, you might consider taking a remedial course in
vocabulary selection and syntax before making pronouncements of this type.
Thats also why the federal government should not be allowed to raise funds at all period, have all states wih balanced budget ammendments, any leftover may be used for federal projects with the states permission..
Starve the friggin beast..
That, plus MADD, is how we got the uniform minimum drinking age of 21.
Good point.
Yet another illustration of why this country needs a Second Party, a political party whose common denominator is to reduce Federal government on all fronts, to remove it from places where its role is superfluous. Axing the Fed back 60 percent would do wonders for the freedom and prosperity of America. People want to vote FOR that kind of approach, but both major parties offer the opposite.
“The feds frequently punish states by withholding highway funds. This is why we have a seatbelt law here. The feds said we implement it or lose funds. I understand there are a lot of laws like that. I’d imagine there are federal lunch funds or after class care and the like that would put pressure on the state from voters if suddenly people had to feed or care for their own kids.”
It’s long past time when the blue states told the Fed Gov to piss off. This idea that they use tax dollars that they’ve taken from the state taxpayers then threaten to not return any of the money unless the state does what it’s told is simply blackmail.