I agree with you. But previously you also said you were upset that the money was being withheld:
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.
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.
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.
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
A better analogy would be “Hey, you want this back that I took from you? You’d better do what I say.”
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.
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.
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, 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.
Huh?
As far as I can tell, the Government is returning about $401 billion back into the economy this year without having taken it from the American 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.
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.
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?”
Conversely, however, the fact that an act is approved of by the the majority does not mean that it is not coercive or extortive.
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.
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.
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
** 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
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?
