Does it make sense for the federal government to subsidize flawed state constitutions?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

We have to transfer money from the federal government to state governments because most state constitutions/laws require a balanced budget...

WTF?

If a state has a set of laws that spell disaster for the state then maybe, just maybe, they should change the laws or amend their constitutions.

Why is it the proper role of the federal government to save states from their own dumb laws? And I say "dumb laws" because those laws put the states on the brink of disaster needing a federal bailout, so the dumbness kind of speaks for itself.

The states are full of American citizens. If they are in distress, by all means help them.

But we are subsidizing these state constitutions. In the real world they obviously don't work but the natural pressure to change them is bled off by federal intervention.

Put another way, I have sympathy for California but that sympathy is tempered by the fact that the people of the state of California have voted for a host of ballot initiatives saying they shouldn't pay taxes, and the needs of the state be damned. Those initiatives are the will of the people (devised and promoted by a generation of the worst sort of wing-nuts), yet the chronic budget shortfalls are attributed to mysterious extrinsic forces. The people of the state of California have voted many times on propositions that boil down to, "Should te state of California be in a perpetual state of fiscal crisis?" And the people voted YES by wide margins.

I don't say "screw 'em." I say let's at least acknowledge that many of these state fiscal crises are not acts of God. And nobody will change the policy if the state is shielded from the inevitable downside of its own laws.

If the states were auto companies we would say, "We'll give you the money but you have to change your antiquated, destructive policies." Goose meet Gander. "Here's some money, but you really need to put your state government on a sound, modern financial footing. This isn't 1850!"

__________________

ON EDIT: as noted in replies, there are plenty of sound reasons for the federal government to assist states. My compliant is with state constitutions' balanced budget provisions being offered as a reason for state budgetary messes as if those constitutions were religious dogma or Newton's laws of gravitation, rather than flexible works of man subject to revision.

[frazzled]

1. The federal government places mandates on the states

regarding education, medicare and medicaid, etc. To meet those obligations in this economy, the states will need aid. It's a partnership. Besides, if the states have to cut back enormously on their commitments due to budget shortfalls in a bad economy, thousands of jobs can be cut: at universities, health facilities, etc., causing the economic situation of the people to worsen.

States like Nevada have just announced something like a 36% cut in aid to higher education: think of the ramifications.

Final thought: states can't borrow money as easily as the federal government (like, big time): therefore, the federal government must step in to help.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Not arguing against assistance. Merely arguing against the excuse that states "cannot" do things

Yes, there's a world of unfunded mandates and assistance is proper in all sorts of instances.

My objection is to arguing that states "cannot" do things when the reality is that they "will not" do things.

The idea of amending these state constitutions never seems to come up in these discussions, as if they were historical treasures to be preserved at all cost, rather than political documents subject to amendment if they prove to have terrible results.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Balanced budget laws are so idiotic

It's nice to have a balanced budget. Even better to have a surplus. But the purpose of a budget isn't to be "balanced", it's to meet the needs of the people in the state. Meeting those needs might require the state to go into debt for a time. So be it.

[hedgehog]

3. It's a complicated issue. Possibly a state with an economy as large

as California's could run a deficit, but what about the little guys like Delaware? Then again, if the large states start running deficits, it may screw up the entire fiscal system. I don't know enough about the issue to have more than questions. On the other hand, I live in a high tax state, New York, and it is just about impossible to get a teaching job here because teachers are well paid (see New York, high taxes). It drives me wild to see federal dollars going to hire teachers for low tax states that advertise their low tax status to corporate execs looking to relocate.

[jwirr]

5. From what I understand much of the debt is regarding Medicaid

which is a federally mandated program. This at least should be a fed problem. I think that you are correct in pointing out that some of this debt is due to bad decisions. What we need is for the feds to take a look at each state individually and support only the areas that include federal spending: roads, mass transit, schools, medicaid and the like.