Replies

>
Well that doesn’t seem very fair. Why not give each state an equal share? Take the budget, divide by 535. Each Congresscritter then brings their share of the budget back to their state, which can then raise the money how it sees fit.
>

I don’t see the low-census States, those in the West\AK or even lower-economic (lot in the South), would be willing for CA to soak them w/ the check.

Your proposal is no different than what we have today.

Since they all now wink-n-nod vs. Commerce Clause, We need to press for other ways to stem the tide of illegal/unconst. spending.

Fair? Who said anything about being FAIR? The whole contention of the budget are the fraudsters, excuse me elected representatives, each bloating the bottom-line because 49+ OTHER States will be shouldering the cost for whatever project they pork-barrel through.
...
Your proposal is no different than what we have today.

Uh, the whole point of fixing this is to be as fair as possible. Your method of taxation means that small states with no population are paying very little money, while their representatives have the same amount of influence as those from a big state that pays tons of taxes. The way I describe it makes the tax base the most equivalent based upon representation. And if it ends up causes the states to become more equal (small states combine, so less Senators mean less taxes), then that just means the states will be more equally represented, instead of dozens of small states having outsize influence compared to their populace.