Replies

His argument that what bribery there is would be shifted to the local legislation misses what would really happen, which is, there would be bribery at BOTH the local and national levels. Although, if the repeal of the 17th amendment would allow the removal of a senator by the state he represents the added potential level of corruption would be more than mitigated by the increase in ability to rein in corrupt senators who are no longer representing the interests of the state. Additionally, he is correct that it's more likely that local bribes would be more likely rooted in state issues. Also, with another layer of potential bribery it would also potentially increase the costs of bribing a senator because one would have to not only bribe the senator but also be careful to watch how one does it so they wouldn't run afoul of the state's power structure.

Actually, I think it needs to be two-pronged approach...repeal the 17th amendment giving power back to the states, but then ALSO repeal the 16th amendment. And then have the feds collect their tax revenue from the individual states, rather than from the individual citizen.
Two bonuses to this...a state could then have any tax system they want...fair, flat, sales...whatever. Also, the costs of the benefits reaped by a state would not be spread out over the entire nation. If North Carolina wants to get 100 billion from the Feds for bat guano research, the citizens of NC can get taxed more heavily by their own legislature and the state would then pay that money back.