Texas Insider Report: DALLAS Texas President Lyndon Johnsons War on Poverty taught us what happens when well-meaning (to give them benefit of the doubt) politicians & bureaucrats create a welfare system that rewards those who shun work while punishing those who take responsibility for themselves. So why dont we recognize that the same system when directed at states rather than people will also create a state cycle of dependency?
Those perverse incentives create a cycle of welfare dependency that grips the poor and their offspring for decades.
Washington has become little more than a sugar daddy to the states handing out money for a whole range of needs -- health care welfare highways and other infrastructure needs education environmental concerns and most recently bail out dollars. But those funds come with strings -- strings that give the feds indirect control over state policies.
For years the states were willing to embrace their sugar daddy to get the funds and accepted the conditions ... until recently.
When President Obama came bearing stimulus funds a handful of states-South
Carolina Texas Mississippi and Louisiana -- pushed back at least against part of the funds. Some were concerned that new federally imposed mandates on unemployment benefits would eventually cost the state more than it was receiving.
Now Washington has passed a $26 billion handout to the states for education and unemployment and states are thrilled.
Ironically the states embrace of the handouts comes at a time when many of them are trying to reassert their rights and independence under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They want Washington to quite bossing them around even as governors plead for more federal assistance. The two cant co-exist.
It would take tremendous political courage at the state level but wed love to see a movement from the state legislatures that summarily rejected federal handouts including the matching grants for Medicaid recipients.
Step up states and break that cycle of dependency.
And if Congress werent handing money back to the states it wouldnt need to extract those funds from taxpayers in the states.
Less money from taxpayers and more independence for the states; a win-win for the states and the taxpayers.
Todays TaxByte was written by IPI Resident Scholar Dr. Merrill Matthews.
Carolina Texas Mississippi and Louisiana -- pushed back at least against part of the funds. Some were concerned that new federally imposed mandates on unemployment benefits would eventually cost the state more than it was receiving.
Now Washington has passed a $26 billion handout to the states for education and unemployment and states are thrilled.
Ironically the states embrace of the handouts comes at a time when many of them are trying to reassert their rights and independence under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They want Washington to quite bossing them around even as governors plead for more federal assistance. The two cant co-exist.
It would take tremendous political courage at the state level but wed love to see a movement from the state legislatures that summarily rejected federal handouts including the matching grants for Medicaid recipients.
Step up states and break that cycle of dependency.
And if Congress werent handing money back to the states it wouldnt need to extract those funds from taxpayers in the states.
Less money from taxpayers and more independence for the states; a win-win for the states and the taxpayers.
Todays TaxByte was written by IPI Resident Scholar Dr. Merrill Matthews.
