# Why Does The Federal Government Extort The States? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2003, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690 "2003-09-30T14:09:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/21 "2003-09-30T23:37:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chicago Faucet \* > \*\*In my opinion, the only way to shift some of the power back to the states is for the Govenors to start saying, “No. Keep your damn 12 million dollars. I don’t care if it is for a good cause such as lowering the DUI limit. It is about the principle. We’ll lower it ourselves when we want to.” The only problem is that this issue never comes up at the annual Governor’s convention. The first Pennsylvanian who proposes such a move will get my vote for Governor. \*\* I agree with you. But previously you also said you were upset that the money was being withheld: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chicago Faucet \* > **Because the funds that the federal government is threatening to withold originally came from the taxes of the citizens of this state. They are threatening to withold our own money from us.** You can’t have it both ways; civil disobedience, even at the state level, exacts its price, and the loss of federal funds is the price of freedom in this case. Your taxes were ceded to the federal government with your permission (through your elected representatives), and the law allowing the feds to withhold those dollars was also passed with your permission. You live in a representative society, but that doesn’t mean you always get your way. And when you don’t get your way, you just have to grit your teeth and try to do better in the next election. God knows I’ve been doing that since the 2000 election. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/22 "2003-10-01T14:05:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Voodoochile \* > \*\*Same thing with any Fed social programs; the Fed gov, unless Im mistaken, does not have the choice of not implementing them. Id love the Feds to go to court and say “well we didnt pay this money to this state for these social programs because they wouldnt lower their legal drunk driving limit like we wanted them to”. That wold be hilarious. > > Im waiting for the day when a state just up and says, well screw you then. Keep the money, and we’ll take you to court for not carrying out your obligations. > > Id love to see a state call the Feds bluff. \*\* It’s been done, quite a while ago. [_South Dakota v. Dole,_ 483 U.S. 203 (1987)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=203). The result was the rule of law I quoted in my post above. ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Faucet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chicago_faucet/32/13910_2.png) [@Chicago\_Faucet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Faucet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2003, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/23 "2003-10-01T16:52:24Z")
Pravnik, thank you for the link. That’s what I’m looking for. Fear Itself, you are missing my point. ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/24 "2003-10-01T21:39:32Z")
**Chicago Faucet** , _you_ are missing the point. Here’s how a contract works: Party A says to Party B, “B, if you do X for me, I’ll give you Y.” B says, “OK, A, sounds good to me.” B does X and gets Y. If B doesn’t do X, then B doesn’t get Y. How is A extorting B in this scenario? Similarly, the federal government says, “State, lower your drinking age or DUI limit and I’ll give you some money.” The state can either lower it and get the money or not lower it and not get the money. Louisiana took the latter option for several years. You’ve never fully explained your reasoning on this fundamental point. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/25 "2003-10-01T22:13:43Z")
It sounds like **ChicagoFaucet** is arguing that because the tax money comes from his state originally, that the federal government is obligated to use it for the benefit of the people of the state that gave it to them, no matter what. OTOH, one could argue that the tax money they’re withholding is actually Alaska’s or something. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/26 "2003-10-02T00:33:24Z")
MEBuckner > [@](#): > > Nope. This is a good example of the subtle difference between a link and a cite. Taking a bunch of quotes out of context and implying the opposite of what was said isn’t much of an argument. TaxGuy > [@](#): > > Here’s how a contract works: Party A says to Party B, “B, if you do X for me, I’ll give you Y.” B says, “OK, A, sounds good to me.” A better analogy would be “Hey, you want this back that I took from you? You’d better do what I say.” ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/27 "2003-10-02T01:04:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\*A better analogy would be “Hey, you want this back that I took from you? You’d better do what I say.” \*\* An even better analogy would be, “You want me to give back what you told me to take in the first place? And now you aren’t going to do what you promised?” Representative government, and all that. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/28 "2003-10-02T01:13:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TaxGuy \* > \*\ ***Chicago Faucet** , _you_ are missing the point. > > Here’s how a contract works: Party A says to Party B, “B, if you do X for me, I’ll give you Y.” B says, “OK, A, sounds good to me.” > > B does X and gets Y. If B doesn’t do X, then B doesn’t get Y. How is A extorting B in this scenario? > > Similarly, the federal government says, “State, lower your drinking age or DUI limit and I’ll give you some money.” The state can either lower it and get the money or not lower it and not get the money. Louisiana took the latter option for several years. > > You’ve never fully explained your reasoning on this fundamental point. \*\* For what it’s worth, I think the OP has a point here. Let me pose a reductio ad absurdum. Let’s suppose that the government raises everyone’s income tax by 10%. (Certainly the government has the authority to do this.) Then the government announces that the 10% will be refunded to any taxpayer who agrees to allow his or her house to be searched without a warrant and who agrees to not criticize any government policies. It’s purely voluntary of course. You can keep your rights by paying extra in taxes. Is the above scheme proper? Of course not. It’s totally outrageous. It’s for the same reason that government “blackmail” of states is troubling. See, for better or for worse, the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government. So it’s troubling when the government does indirectly what it cannot do directly. Of course one can argue that a central government with plenary power is better policy than a limited central government. But that ain’t what the Constitution calls for. ---
**Author:** ![Voodoochile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/898d66/32.png) [@Voodoochile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voodoochile)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/29 "2003-10-02T01:32:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pravnik \* > \*\*It’s been done, quite a while ago. [_South Dakota v. Dole,_ 483 U.S. 203 (1987)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=203). The result was the rule of law I quoted in my post above. \*\* Well, that shut me up! 😉 Youre right, that does address exactly what I posted. But I think the OP is talking about something subtly different. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/30 "2003-10-02T02:04:21Z")
Gee **Chicago Faucet** I think you are a step or two ahead of most of those responding to your questions. Please allow me to join your ranks. * * * **Captain Amazing** “It’s federal money, and the federal government can decide what the requirments are for getting that money.” * * * There is no “federal money” \*\* Captain\*\* , money only comes from the people. And the net amount that is returned to the people from the federal government is always less than the net amount that is returned to the people from the taxes that are gathered by the states. So-called “federal money” is largely used to ingratiate the voting public and to coerce dissenters into a state of placation. May God save us all from the comet and from the governments benevolence. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/31 "2003-10-02T02:52:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lucwarm \*\*\*Let’s suppose that the government raises everyone’s income tax by 10%. \*\* First of all, the government is not some black box that folks from Pennsylvania have no say in. I took a moment to look up the actual bill that imposed the .08 requirement (PL 106-346 - I can’t link to temporary files on [thomas.loc.gov](http://thomas.loc.gov), sorry), and it appears that all of Pennsylvania’s elected representatives, save one - Joseph Pitts of the 16th District – voted for the bill. I’ve seen other links on Google to the effect that 32 states had to adopt tougher DUI laws to comply with the requirement, and yet there was only minimal opposition to the bill - 50 dissenting votes in the House (mostly from Texans) and 10 in the Senate. If this .08 restriction were so onerous, I wonder why it seems that no elected representatives really seemed to make a fuss about it. > [@](#): > > There is no “federal money” Captain , money only comes from the people. And the net amount that is returned to the people from the federal government is **always less** than the net amount that is returned to the people from the taxes that are gathered by the states. Huh? As far as I can tell, the Government is [returning](http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0) about $401 billion back into the economy this year without having taken it from the American people. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/32 "2003-10-02T03:22:16Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Milum \* > **There is no “federal money” \*\* Captain** , money only comes from the people._\* Likewise, there is no federal government, there is only the will of the people as it is expressed at the ballot box. And currently, that will says we will take some of your money, and we will spend it as your representatives decide is prudent. The fact that you do not approve of every tax, or every expenditure does not mean you are being coerced or extorted. If you don’t like it, campaign to elect representatives that will express your views. That is the power you have to change “the government”. Everything else is just the whining of sore losers. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/33 "2003-10-02T04:56:36Z")
Let’s connect this with the libertarians in NH thread. What would happen if New Hampshire decided to refuse federal money and change some of the laws that they are entitled to under the 10th amendment? I would imagine that another creative reinterpretation of the Constitution would take place, much as it always does when the government wants to do something forbidden to it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/34 "2003-10-02T06:36:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > \*\*An even better analogy would be, > > “You want me to give back what you told me to take in the first place? And now you aren’t going to do what you promised?” > > Representative government, and all that. \*\* And an even better analogy would be “You want me to give back what Bob and John agreed you should give? And now you’re not going to do what Bob and John promised you’d do?” > [@](#): > > The fact that you do not approve of every tax, or every expenditure does not mean you are being coerced or extorted. Conversely, however, the fact that an act is approved of by the the majority does not mean that it is _not_ coercive or extortive. ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/35 "2003-10-02T10:35:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ravenman \* > \*\*First of all, the government is not some black box that folks from Pennsylvania have no say in. > > I took a moment to look up the actual bill that imposed the .08 requirement (PL 106-346 - I can’t link to temporary files on [thomas.loc.gov](http://thomas.loc.gov), sorry), and it appears that all of Pennsylvania’s elected representatives, save one - Joseph Pitts of the 16th District – voted for the bill. \*\* IMHO, my constitutional rights should not be subject to modification by majority vote. What should be necessary is 2/3 of the federal legislature AND 3/4 of state legislatures. > [@](#): > > If this .08 restriction were so onerous, I wonder why it seems that no elected representatives really seemed to make a fuss about it. The question is not whether .08 is onerous, the question is whether the federal government is improperly overstepping its bounds. ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Faucet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chicago_faucet/32/13910_2.png) [@Chicago\_Faucet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Faucet)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/36 "2003-10-02T11:47:06Z")
To address TaxGuy and Fear Itself, I feel that I have fully addressed my point of view over my first few posts here. I have stated some facts, then I stated my opposition, and why. The last part of my OP was a fact finding mission for anything that I may have missed, since I am not a government scholar. I feel that I have covered all of the bases and looked at all of the angles. Fear Itself and TaxGuy, if you still disagree, please reread my original posts in full. ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/37 "2003-10-02T14:36:19Z")
I think here is where we disagree: when the federal government gives money to state governments, you regard that as “giving back” money that the federal government took in the first place. I don’t see it that way. I think that once the federal government collects the money in taxes, then that money belongs to the federal government. What it does with that money should be examined from this point going forward. So to your statement that “the federal government is threatening to withhold our own money from us,” I would respond that no, it’s not “our own money” anymore once we give it to the federal government through taxes. (And I admit that “give” isn’t the best word here.) It’s the federal government’s money, and it can spend that money in any way that’s constitutionally permissible. One such way to spend the money is to enter into contracts with states. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/38 "2003-10-02T15:41:17Z")
Those federal taxes were taken from individual citizens all over the USA, put into one single big pot at the US Treasury, and a part of that pot is then offered, with strings attached, to the Government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by the federal Government of the United States of America. They were not taken from the Government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s coffers, and they’re not being offered back specifically to the actual Penn-resident persons they were taken from. Or at least that’s the legal situation. The answer, of course, is as someone mentioned for the governors and state legislatures to grow spines and say “no, thanks, keep the cash”. But that’ll only hold if the _people_ in those states be themselves made of stern enough stuff to accept that yes, that means the Interstate is not getting widened and the subsidy for heating fuel in winter won’t go as far. In the alternative, we could give up the notion of a union of sovereigns and submit to the “Several States” having been long ago castrated into mere subordinates… just a thought 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/39 "2003-10-02T16:48:41Z")
Maybe a blackboard diagram would help… \*\* Money from people who live in States ---------------\> FEDs $100 Amount of money FEDs offer to return to selected States -----\> $75 (If the recipient states agrees to conditions outlined by Feds) $100 collected by a State returned to people of State ---------\> $85 \_\_\_$100 taxed by FEDs \_\_\_\_ 75 services to public \_\_\_\_$25 service charge by FEDs \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$100 taxed by state \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ $85 services to public \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$15 service charge by state \_\_\_ **\>\>\>DUH?\<\<\<** \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2003, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690/40 "2003-10-02T17:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **And an even better analogy would be "You want me to give back what Bob and John agreed you should give? And now you’re not going to do what Bob and John promised you’d do?"** Exactly! And this is as it should be. A representative government makes decisions for the good of society that frequently demand sacrifice from all. This necessarily means it will be against the will of some, but that does not make it unfair. Imagine the chaos if individuals were allowed to opt out of paying for programs they disagreed with. The occupation of Iraq would collapse, for one thing. This has very troubling implications for society. Do you mean you believe that all laws passed without your approval are patently unfair? Should you be free to withhold taxes from programs you do not support? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-federal-government-extort-the-states/204690.md?page=3)