Proposal to Amend the US Constitution: The 28th Amendment.

“The federal government did not create the States. The States created the federal government.” – Ronald Reagan

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” – Alexis De Tocqueville

********************************************************************************************************************************

The Congress shall not have power to lay and collect income taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and capitation taxes within the borders of any State. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect a revenue-tax which shall be based solely on a State’s accrued revenue. Congress shall not grant tax exemptions, deductions, or credits to any State except in cases of relief assistance for catastrophe and strain.

All provisions of this Amendment shall enact after one year from its ratification.

********************************************************************************************************************************

1) Each State government becomes the sole tax levier of all possible domestic tax revenue within its borders.

2) The Federal Government can now only gain its primary funding by taxing the revenues of State governments.

1) An adamant tax shield in the form of all the States’ governments is erected between the citizens and the Federal Government.

3) A revolutionary new tax system is born based on perpetual competition: the State governments collectively versus the Federal Government – where the voters referee.

********************************************************************************************************************************

Currently, the Federal Government bypasses each and every State government to intrude directly into the personal wealth of the States’ citizens. This Amendment interposes all of the State governments between the Federal Government and the States’ citizens. By pitting State governments collectively against the Federal Government for competitive management of tax dollars: we get a new and desperately needed check & balance on government powers.

Fifty Governors backed by their State legislatures will consistently and emphatically argue directly to their citizens that the Federal Government is too big, is wasting too much money, and is charging way too much in taxes. Obviously these arguments are not new. But what is new is the political power structure that will compel all State governments to make these unending appeals to their voters.

But here is the master key of the proposed 28th Amendment: State governments will share a crucial interest with their citizens in that they will both want to keep Federal taxes low. They will both want to have their Federal Government limited in scope to only those programs and expenditures which are absolutely necessary. And for the first time in our Republic’s history, we will see government dedicated to the lowering of Federal taxes.

To fully understand the nature of this new political power structure, it is important to highlight some key and intractable realities that will underpin it. First, the only plausible way one will be able to get elected Governor (or to the State legislature) will be to ardently promise to keep a hawk’s eye on how the Federal Government spends the money it levies from the State. Office seekers will religiously promise that they will immediately take the Federal Government to task at the first sign of an excuse to raise taxes on the States. But note: these will not be the empty, halfhearted promises that politicians routinely make solely to win over voter sentiment. Rather, these promises are certainties because every ten million dollars that elected State officeholders must hand over to the Federal Government is ten million less dollars of State money that they themselves have the power to spend. Candidates for State office will absolutely mean it when they promise to watch Federal spending like a hawk and to stridently object to any suggestion of a tax raise. – Because these Federal Government actions will be genuine threats to their fiscal power as Governors and State legislators. (Never get between a politician and his bona fide power.) Therefore, all fifty State governments will be constantly watchful for extraneous Federal programs and wasted money. Every gross Federal inefficiency will be pounced on by every Governor and State legislature. “That’s money our State could have used! Teachers we could have paid; roads we could have repaired; sanitation plants we could have invested in…” The fifty State governments will be unanimous in their outrage and speak in unison in their condemnation.

So it is obvious that to secure their own financial interests, the States will meticulously hawk the Federal Government and thereby impose lucid transparency on its fiscal practices. Sunshine will illuminate Congressional budgets before funds are appropriated – because the States (reinforced by their mutually interested and focused voters) will demand it.

This permanent transparency leads to another key intractable reality: there will be ZERO PARTY LOYALTY regarding State fiscal accountability. Any sitting US Senator who votes to raise the States Tax Rate when it is not an absolute and obvious necessity will be publicly and repeatedly denounced by the Governor and State legislature. No voting citizen will be happy with a Senator’s spotlighted profligacy siphoning big money out of the State. Moreover, by pledging to hold the line on the States Tax Rate, an election challenger will earn a continuous stream of enthusiastic endorsements from influential State officeholders and power players culminating with the Governor. Anyone who hopes to serve in the Congress for more than one term will fulfill this pledge as a matter of political survival. When it comes to protecting the State’s financial wellbeing, party affiliation at the Federal level will be wholly irrelevant. Each US Senator and House Representative will be viewed as either helping the State’s finances or hurting the State’s finances. There will be no in between.

When State public opinion prevails that an increase in the States Tax Rate is unnecessary, as a Senator you had better be on record as voting against it. But when State public opinion suggests that an increase in the States Tax Rate is warranted to help sure up a well managed Federal program, then you had better triple check the budget projection to make sure it won’t blow up in your face three months later should a gross and inexcusable oversight come to light. After all, it might be hard to find one of the better jobs in your State after being reviled and subsequently voted out of office for budgetary incompetence that hurt your State’s financial interests.

Currently, when an incumbent is voted out of office, it is not usually based on genuine and lasting hard feelings. For the most part, the voting sentiment is far more generalized. Perhaps a Senator’s national party is perceived as taking the country in the wrong direction. Maybe he gaffed in an unscripted moment handing his opponent a marginal but decisive advantage at the polls. The challenger might simply be more likeable or have a significant campaign funding advantage. Rarely is a US Senator or House Representative tossed out of office because the voters angrily concluded that he had directly hurt their State’s financial interests. Those are hard feelings. And politicians will work extra hard and be extra careful to avoid instigating those hard feelings among the fellow citizens of his State. In the process of throwing away his cushy job in the nation’s Capitol, a House Representative could cause his future, private-sector prospects to be somewhat diminished. The scrutinizing mechanisms of the proposed 28th Amendment will especially incentivize elected Federal officeholders to heed their State’s voters.

Naturally there will be occasions when raising Federal taxes will be warranted. But the Congress will feel compelled to openly and coherently present its budget projections to the States well beforehand so that the necessity for an increase is clearly demonstrated. Merely as a matter of political survival, Congress will automatically give the States ample opportunity to review the Federal budget prior to the enactment of a tax increase. Additionally, the Congress will go out of its way to prove that there are no special-interest earmarks laden with pork-barrel waste hidden somewhere in the bill. Sunshine transparency will be the only way members of Congress will feel like they can give themselves political cover with their State’s voters. If it should happen that a fiscal projection turned out to be way off, maybe the voters will give Congressional members a pass this time since everyone (including the Governors) had carefully analyzed the same numbers and arrived at the same conclusions. Only if they and their budget are perceived as being upfront and transparent will they have a shot at political survival when the inevitable mistake is made.

This new political power structure will necessitate that: clarity, concision, honesty, and advance notice are automatic Federal budget prerequisites. – So as not to openly insult the States or harm their interests and thereby incur their ousting fury. Indeed it will be in the immediate financial interest of all State governments, as well as the citizens they represent, to insure that theirs is a transparently efficient and competent Federal Government. To this mutual interest, the fifty States will likely form a National Auditing Association (acronymically pronounced “nah”) dedicated solely to the constant and exacting audit of the Federal budget for telltale signs of waste and corruption.

Summation thus far: In that citizens and their State governments will share the mutual financial interest of keeping Federal taxes low, voter awareness will be sharply raised against every Congressional member who might vote for a wasteful or excessive budget. – Because such budgets will always directly harm every State’s financial interests. And this of course means that there will rarely be a Federal budget that is significantly wasteful and excessive. And as rare as such a profligate budge will be, its propagating members will be all the rarer as they become politically extinct in the next election cycle.

But now realize that the Federal Government will also pour over each of the fifty States’ budgets to verify their revenue collections & expenditures. The Fed is always going to make absolutely certain that it is getting its fair share. We will no longer need an IRS dedicated to the futile and harassing “service” of auditing hundreds of millions of working Americans. Instead, the Federal Government will focus its exacting auditing practices on each of the State’s budgets and revenue accruals. And where there are discrepancies, inefficiencies, waste, and fraud in a State’s budget: these will be glaringly exposed. US Senators will sustain long careers and launch Presidential bids based on aggressive committee investigations into State budgetary waste and malfeasance. Congressional Representatives will give their Congressional service real purpose and distinguish themselves in the media glow by naming names (even in their own party) of State officeholders who have irresponsibly squandered their State’s largesse on fat, sweetheart contracts for exorbitantly overpriced favors doubling as State projects.

So yes, the new political power structure of “government hawking after government” works for the American people in both directions. Transparency will go from bogus campaign rhetoric to competitive reality. The Federal and State governments will impose transparency and accountability on each other because exposing fraud, waste, and inefficiency in the other entity will be necessary to secure each of their own financial and political interests.

As it stands, Governors and State legislatures have no motivation to scrutinize and argue against the Federal budget. When the Federal Government reduces income taxes on US citizens at large, the Virginia State treasury does not gain spending power. And why would the Governor of Texas want to wade chest deep into relentlessly scrutinizing the Federal Government’s budget? He would make countless political enemies (even within his own party) which would preclude him from ever being able to run for President or the US Senate. Worse, he would provoke a reciprocal and aggressive Federal investigation into his State’s budget and into his Governorship. (It is not that some State Governors are never publicly critical of Federal waste in the most general sense. But it is that such rare public criticism is unexacting, without priority, and without the unanimously concerted effort of the fellow forty nine Governors.) Likewise the Federal Government does not bother inspecting the States’ budgets because it also does not want to provoke reciprocal scrutiny from the States. And not only does the Federal Government already have vastly superior fiscal power; but any waste it would discover in a State’s finances would not redound to more money in the Federal Treasury. So when it comes to matters of taxation, expenditures, and budgets: it is essentially in their mutual interests to stay out of each others' business. – Which is business as usual. However, under the 28th Amendment they will be forced to investigate and compete with each others’ business.

The proposed 28th Amendment necessarily establishes a salutary competition between the US Congress and the collective State governments such that they contest each other over marginal increases of access to citizen tax dollars. It creates a zero sum game such that when one side wins the argument in the form of elections, the other side loses power in the form of tax dollars. Obviously, regardless of which side wins, the tax dollars ultimately get spent on services for taxpaying citizens. The question will always be which side is most competent and trusted to spend the margin of tax dollars in question. As a result, their budgets will become increasingly concise and balanced.

Fear of each others’ scrutiny will generate a permanent state of transparency. And why shouldn’t the elected members of the US Congress have to fear the wrathful and influential condemnation of our State governments regarding how citizen tax dollars are spent? And why shouldn’t the elected members of State governments have to face intense Federal scrutiny regarding how they spend their resident citizens’ tax dollars? And why should citizens have to serve two tax masters? Why not just one?

Consider that at any given moment, a majority of US citizens have the general impression that their Federal Government is wasteful and inefficient. And yet only rarely does this general impression become so inflamed that it results in serious political change at the Federal level. – And then only temporarily and never sufficiently. Here is why. There are always ninety eight US Senators and four hundred and thirty four House Representatives that every single citizen in this country has no vote over. As individual citizens, we have absolutely no say over whether the vast majority of these wasteful lawmakers stay or go. The permanent political effect is that responsibility for federal legislation utterly disappears into anonymity. The Federal Government as an entity has a voter constituency so diffuse and unconnected that this constituency is fundamentally ineffective until well past too late. As an analogy, imagine that the only way the human body could detect pain was when its skin caught on fire. Our Republic’s voting citizenry is virtually numb to its Federal tax collection and expenditures system. The body politic does not detect the serious damage being done to it until it is engulfed in horrible fiscal crisis. Then the ‘solution’ is instinctive and without precision. The only lasting result is that deeper scar tissue forms and the body politic is more numb than ever.

Is it any wonder that the Federal Government passes laws that are thousands of pages in length and that include grossly excessive pork barrel earmarks wholly unrelated to the purpose of the bill and to the exclusive benefit of special interests? Is it any wonder they are thoughtlessly crushing our country with trillions of dollars of debt and deficit spending? Is it any wonder they have amassed one hundred and eight trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities? And we are only just starting to feel the heat.

These insane fiscal practices have been going on for nearly a century, and it has long since been obvious that they will never stop. It does not matter who we send to Congress. As a group they will always abuse their power because of the structure of the Federal tax and spend system. Generation after generation of college educated US Senators and House Representatives (the majority of whom have been accomplished and highly competent lawyers) have constantly wasted staggering amounts of money, run huge deficits, and thereby generated colossally unsustainable debt. – Specifically because it was not their money they were spending. Alexis De Tocqueville said, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” But they stopped bribing us with our money years ago. They are bribing us with our children's money!

Fellow Americans, we must Constitutionally change the structure of our Federal tax collection system (make it truly competitively representative) or the Federal Government will continue to crush us with malfeasant debt until our economy totally collapses. The concept contained in the proposed 28th Amendment will establish that very needed change and so preserve and advance our Republic. It does not favor a political party; it does not favor an ideology; it does not favor a social agenda. It favors fiscal sanity regarding trillions of American citizen tax dollars. It favors safeguarding our long term financial solvency as a Republic. It favors preserving the American legacy for future generations. And it unfailingly mandates transparency, accountability, and efficiency by compelling government to compete to demonstrate its competence to the citizens it represents and serves.

To see how the proposed 28th Amendment kills Congressional Vote-Trading for Pork-Favors and thereby sharply reverses the trend of Federal deficit spending, link to:

To see how States’ Rights are augmented under the proposed 28th Amendment, link to:

To see the argument as to why a Balanced Budget Amendment is impractical, link to:

Regarding the status of cities and counties under the proposed 28th Amendment, link to:

Regarding the status of business corporations and visiting foreigners under the proposed 28th Amendment, link to:

The body of the above content (the document in toto) is posted on Google Docs at:

In order to revise Congress’s Constitutional powers of taxation, it is neither necessary nor desirable to repeal the 16th Amendment. In many (but not all) ways the proposed 28th Amendment will supersede the 16th Amendment. Consider that the 17th Amendment superseded various portions of Article I without making explicit reference to those portions. Moreover, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress the authority to levy income taxes. Congress already had that authority via Article I section eight. Rather, the 16th Amendment clarified the broad extent of Congress’s power to levy income taxes. This was necessary because there had been some confusion over the intersection of apportionment, enumeration, and direct versus indirect tax sourcing – all of which are stipulated by the Constitution.

Since under the proposed 28th Amendment, the US Congress will still have the power to levy income taxes (as well as any other taxes) in the District of Columbia and the US Territories, the clarifications provided by the 16th Amendment are still necessary.

Ending the power of Congress to levy income taxes on State inhabitants is only one important part of the proposed 28th Amendment.

Fair assessment. But constraining the federal government in paramount. I would like to see this declaration of catastrophe limited to voting on for each state. In other words, if there is another Katrina disaster. then Congress will have to vote on each state getting this special treatment - no blanket, unlimited authorization.

I could see a Dem controlled congress giving special tratment to a Dem state such as Maine or Hawaii. Call me paranoid.

Slowhand,

The new system is not a matter of being infinitely hopeful that Congressional representatives will do the right thing and refuse buy offs. This is about the simple math that there will never be enough money to buy them off with. Deficit spending is based on huge amounts of money the Fed Gov does not have. Unlike now, under the 28th Amendment they have to take this money out of State treasuries. If as a Senator from the same State you say “Look Governor at the great pork deal our Sate is getting in return!” The Governor says, “Yeah, and look at how much money our State has to payout to fund all the other States’ pork projects. It’s a huge net loser, Senator. I’m not going for it. And if you dare for it, I’ll make damn sure the voting citizens of our State know you severely hurt the State’s interests to the tune of several billion dollars.” - Do you not see how the deficit spending scheme is strikingly revealed under this tax system? You will not be able to buy the Governor of any State off because they will clearly see that their Senators are trying to bribe them with their State’s money. This does not rely on the good sweet heart of the Governor. It relies on him not wanting to lose State power.

Now you mentioned that it would only take the “last few” Federal level politicians like “Landrieu, [and] Nelson” to get the wasteful budget bill over the hump in both chambers in Congress. Okay, just explain to me how many of these Federal level politicians are going to be willing to throw away their cushy careers and be one termers. Because there will be no escaping their constituencies knowing that they voted DIRECTLY against their States’ interests. Please just answer that.

It was not meant that the people pay 90%. It was meant that states would pay 90%. A state that collected no tax would pay nothing.

A 90% tax on the wealthy was accepted because the “little guy” thought he was getting some of it. A 90% tax on states would be accepted for the same reason.

If they want a percentage of the deficit, the more they take from the people, the more they get back from the feds. The deficit inflates the currency and states with low taxes see net outflows of wealth to high-tax states in inflation.

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide,

I agree with you that the billions do not go up in smoke. They go to fund pork projects in _other_ States. Any money that comes back to a State from the Federal Government in the form of any sort of benefits must by MATHEMATICAL NECESSITY be less than what the State paid out in taxes. Otherwise there would not be TRILLIONS of dollars of nightmare national debt. Obviously, all those trillions must eventually be paid for by taxpayers. But under the 28th Amendment, the State governments and their financial interests are directly taxed to pay for the trillions in bad promises and wasted pork projects. Every time a State looks at a proposed Federal budget and adds up all the pork projects of the other States COMBINED and does the simple calculation to determine what its portion of the bill to fund those projects will be; that State will then look at the value of the pork project for its State and say, “No fuckin’ wonder the national debt reaches into heaven!” And that’s when the bribery with our future taxpayers’ money (our children’s money) comes to an end. Because State governments will feel the blood blistering pinch immediately.

You have backward. The federal debt comes from spending more in the 50 states than it takes in. They don’t spend it all in Guam. This is why there are military bases in every state - and contractors too. They pay SS and other welfare benefits in every state. It all comes back and then some and the recipients are happy and sufficient in enough states. “And then some” is the federal deficit.

There is no such thing as a State that collects no taxes. There never has been one. And there never will be one. The State has the basic services it must provide to its citizenry in order to function as a State. With exclusive access to the tax pasture in its borders it’s going to bring lots more revenue into its coffers - because that’s the nature of government. But as said, State governments are far more sensitive to its voters because it is easier for the voters to quickly effect change at the State level than at the Federal level. (-Way less anonymity of responsibility for taxing & spending at the State level - which is why State income tax is always strikingly lower than Federal income taxes.) But the State will obviously know that it will have to pay some amount of taxes to the Federal Government just like all the other States. So it will adjust its tax policies to this reality.

Now notice how much easier it is for the Fed Gov to tag a 90% tax rate onto wealthy individuals under the current system than it is to tag it onto a State under the proposed 28th. The Fed Gov is not just taxing the rich in that State; it’s taxing the whole damn State. - And because of the equal protection clause it can’t target just one State. Any more than it can target just one rich man under the current system. The Fed Gov has to tax ALL of the States based solely on their accrued revenues.

It should be OBVIOUS how much harder it would be to raise taxes to 90% on States than on to a category of high income individuals. Do you really not see it?

I am trying to understand if you really think that State pork projects distributed from the Fed Gov are funded based on balanced budgeting?

So let me just ask it plain: Do you think that most States in the Union receive more in Federal pork favors than they pay out in taxes to fund the Federal pork favors in other States?

Actually - far from backwards - that is exactly the point I have been emphatically making for post after post: that the Fed spends a huge amount of money on the States that it does not have. (Otherwise known as “money it is not taking in.”)

Now that you see this point, do you understand that this money the Fed Gov does not have must eventually come from somewhere? - Like maybe future taxpayers?

What I see is the federal government takes $1 in and pays (now) $1.40 out. For a 40% return guaranteed, I could see states begging the feds to take 100%.

Yes, you can argue that equal protection means the tax rate must be the same. But it still doesn’t mean it has to SPEND THE SAME in each state.

So a high-tax state plays ball and gets the road projects, the big education dollars and the military personnel and materiel contracts. Low-tax states get a big sucking sound from the Federal Reserve inflating the currency and that’s about it. The Feds can play one state against the other for spending all day long. So the tax rate means nothing.

The Articles of Confederation specifically DENIED the Congress the power of taxation. Congress could only “request” money from State governments.

Therefore, you must not have understood the second sentence in the proposed Amendment. It explicitly gives the Congress the POWER to tax State revenues.

I see.... and how is the Federal Government going to compel compliance? Suppose a state runs a budget deficit ... what then? Are the taxes apportioned equally among states? What portion of the state budget would be exempt from Federal taxation? Who's gonna pay for all the lawsuits?

It won't work, FRiend.

No, it comes from you today in decreased purchasing power, i.e. inflation, or in unemployment if the Fed keeps churning it instead of monetizing it. They can only juggle the current number of dollars for so long, especially if foreigners won’t sit on more and more of it.

This debt will never BE paid because it has been paid in T-Bills they can’t spend because we have nothing to sell.

Now maybe we’re getting somewhere.

You admit that under the equal protection clause Congress will have to impose the same tax rates on States. And if Congress has never had the political will to raise the tax rates on all earners to 90%, we can be certain it will never have the will to raise the tax rate on all States to 90%. So, as is now obvious, it will be much harder to raise the tax rate on States.

But now you make the argument that just because States pay the Fed Gov the same rates in taxes, the Fed Gov does not have to spend the same on States.

Here’s the lynch pin. How can members of Congress survive politically if they vote for budget spending(that obviously must be paid for by taxes collect from ALL the States) that only benefits a few States? That is, if you are not one of the few Congressional members from one of the few lucky States getting all that fat Federal money, why on earth would you vote for the bill? There’s nothing in it for you! What, the vast majority of Congressional representatives in both chambers of Congress are going to vote to pass a bill to make a few States fat and sassy with Federal wealth? Of course not.

These are reasonable questions. Let me try to answer.

As stated in the proposed 28th Amendment, the revenue-tax levied by the Congress will be based _solely_ on the State’s accrued revenue. So, no, the Congress will not be levying any taxes that require apportionment among or within the States.
Similarly, the revenue-tax is not based on a State’s budget - but only on its accrued revenue. Though other political realities garnered by the proposed 28th Amendment make it very unlikely, a State could still run severe deficits just as California does today. However, the US Treasury will already received the taxes it is owed via wire transfer. Any time a State accrues revenue, just like every State it owes a percentage of that revenue in Federal taxes. There is no reason not to pay this money immediately because the money is immediately available in accrual; and the 28th Amendment gives the Congress the power to collect that money in the form of taxes. So while a State may still find a way to mismanage itself, it will never be behind on its taxes. And don’t forget: ALL tax pasture within the borders of a State are now the exclusive province of that State. So the State will have direct and immediate access to all those tax dollars that the Federal Government was getting before. That’s HUGE money that stays in the State. All tax dollars must first come into the possession of the State government before the Fed can get its bite.

The same people will pay for the lawsuits as always pay for them: the filers and the defenders. But who’s gonna sue? And what for?

By the math that you and I have already established and agreed upon (-and we worked hard on that) it MUST be not more than a few. If any.

You and I have already established that the Fed pays out WAY more to States than it takes in. We both know that is the very definition of deficit spending.

When each and every Governor looks at what the Federal Government “pays out” for the sum total of pork projects for ALL the States, they will do the simple division necessary to come up with a huge number per State to fund all of the pork. (You don’t need to be concerned with the foreign aid of Guam and the like here. Just the pork projects.) Each Governor will then look at the dollar value the Federal Government will be spending in the Governor’s State. [Now please tell me in your next post if you do not understand or agree with what I write next.] That value that each Governor’s State will receive in Federal pork will be starkly eclipsed by what it must ultimately pay to fund the pork in other States.

This mathematical reality should be obvious enough from the fact that the Fed Gov is engaged in monstrous deficit spending. Yes, some of it goes to Guam. But do you believe that there is any Federal pork given to any State that is based on balanced budgeting?

If not, there is obviously no 55% of the States eating the other 45% of the States.

Rather there is obviously 100% of the States paying way too much for Federal waste and inefficiency that 100% of the States are going to have to pay for in higher taxes to the Federal Government. State Governors don’t want to lose even a smidgen of their State’s power on that dumb scheme. It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for them as Governors. There is no motivation for them to support it. And every motivation for them to rail against it.

Like I said in #72, the feds take their thick percentage off the top. (This is sounding more and more like STAR TREK “A Piece of the Action”.)

So the feds take 90% and return 110% to states with a 50% tax rate on the people. Big boon to that state.

The feds take 90% and return 40% to a state that taxes the people 10%. Big sucking sound. And that state has to work on 1% that it kept plus 4% that comes back (including direct payment to individuals.) That state is going to have to raise taxes $10 to keep $1 and play ball. Maybe the feds give them 110% when their taxes are in line.

When you say “the Feds” will do this and the “the Feds” will do that, we should come to an agreement that “the Feds” are members of Congress with cushy jobs that have to stand for re-election. And the this and that in percentages that you’re saying these officeholders will send to the States in the form of taxes and benefits, we should come to an agreement that these are specific public bills that must be voted on by the members. “The feds” don’t just return “40%” to some of the States. Whatever the members will return to a State in the way of pork has to take the form of a pork bill.

Assume you are a normal US Senator hoping for re-election to your cushy, prestigious seat in Washington. It’s budget proposal time and being the crafty politician you are, you have managed to tuck a sweet piece of pork into the bill for your State. Boy, will you ever be popular for bringing home the bacon that funds the $200 million dollar bridge to nowhere in your State. It’s even going to be named after you.

But a week before you vote on the bill, every major newspaper in your State runs the splash headline that the bill is going to cost your State billions of dollars to fund the collective pork of all the other States - in exchange for a $200 million dollar bridge. The Governor calls you personally and tells you this is a major detriment for the State. He calmly explains that he and the entire State legislature plus will be endorsing your election challenger if you vote yes on the bill.

So, UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide, please answer the simple question: which way would you vote?

UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide:

Let’s face it. You can’t answer that last question in post #79. Because the answer TOTALLY COLLAPSES your argument.

The only plausible answer is that as a sitting US Senator hoping for re-election that there is no way in hell you’re going to vote for a bill that demonstrably harms the financially interests of your State. You wouldn’t even survive the primary.

And you’ll not that I intentionally did not name the State you hypothetically represent in this scenario. – Because it doesn’t matter. This scenario would play out identically in every State where it is announced by the local press and the Governor that the bill was a billion dollar detriment to the State.

This makes it clear that under the proposed 28th Amendment, the members of Congress (“the Feds” as you term them) will have ZERO political will to pass pork laden bills.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.