“In other words, most of the federal dollars that the states receive are arguably state revenues which the corrupt feds stole from the states by means of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes.”
State revenues? And the states would have gathered those revenues from whom?
State level politicians, to the extent that they think about such things, are apparently just fine with an arrangement where the Federal government does the taxing and where states get to do some of the spending. Don’t expect them to upset the apple cart.
From the people of the state.
Let me ask you which is the preferred route: a state taxing its residents for highway improvements, or the federal government taxing the whole country and then the state has to ask the federal government for funds? The same for education?
Sure, today the states do both: they tax and they seek federal funds. Why? What if the federal funds never left the state in the first place, and there was more available locally for the state to tap into?
Why should the residents of Texas or Florida pay for a bridge in Alaska if Alaska wants a bridge?
-PJ
Presuming that a state's taxpayers want the “government” services that they are now getting from the feds, instead of their tax dollars leaving the state via constitutionally indefensible federal taxes to pay for likewise indefensible federal services, the states would take control over such revenues.
Then the states would no longer have to subject kids to federal anti-family value socialistic indoctrination in order to receive so-called federal dollars that can arguably be regarded as stolen state revenues anyway.
The important thing is that it would probably be easier for a given state’s voters to work with thair state's lawmakers to establish punitive recall laws for removing state politicians who prove that they cannot be trusted with taxpayer dollars.