SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I was considering the opposition to Federal taxation and wondered what might happen if the requirements to pay Federal taxes were optional on a state-by-state basis.
The way this would work is that state legislatures could opt the residents and businesses of their state out of paying any Federal taxes, levies and fees.
In order to make this reasonably fair, if a state were to opt out, all those in the state would no longer receive any Federal monies, including highway funds, Medicaid block grants, Superfund grants, education funds, federal government contracts (including subcontracts), Medicare, Social Security, military bases, or any other appropriations from the Federal government.
There are a couple of ways this could go. Those states who are least dependent on federal funds might opt out.
Alternatively, states with populations that are most anti-Federal taxes might opt out.
What other scenarios might drive a state to opt out?
More details:
FY 2013 Federal taxation and spending by state
Federal Tax Revenue By State
Would you support such a law? If so (or not), why (or why not)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @04:56PM (10 children)
Is this due to Trump capping SALT deductions and if so, why are those who typically call for redistributive taxation policies suddenly objecting to one?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:11PM (1 child)
Actually, that wasn't even a consideration for me when thinking about this. I was thinking more about what economic impact such a law might have on states who either opt out or don't.
In fact, the beginning of this idea for me was more thinking about those who decry Federal taxation as "theft" and what might become of such folks if they were able to opt out of such "theft." Doing so on a state-by-state basis seemed to be the best way to handle this, as the Federal government could then cut off all Federal monies to those states and their residents.
Doing so for individuals wouldn't work, as federal funds for highways, military bases and a host of other things aren't tied to specific individuals, but to states and (occasionally) municipalities.
So no. The limits on federal deductions of state taxes had exactly zero to do with this journal entry.
Thanks for asking!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:36PM
Fair enough. I didn't mean to imply anything other than noting an argument currently in circulation appears to be formulated in response to current tax policy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:30PM (7 children)
As an aside, I would not be in favor of my state opting out. I heartily agree with the sentiment expressed by Oliver Wendell Holmes (and others) [quoteinvestigator.com]:
Redistribute that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:39PM (5 children)
No problem! [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:44PM (4 children)
An interesting story. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject at hand.
Especially given that California generally sends more revenue to the Federal government than it receives.
What's more, I'm not sure what that has to do with "redistribution" either.
Please enlighten me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 11 2019, @07:55AM (3 children)
High Tax High Crime California gets plenty -- too much! They received a grant of $3.4 billion for their Failed out of control Fast Train, with no hope of completion. Often referred to as the Train to Nowhere. The cost overruns are becoming world record setting, is hundreds of times more expensive than the desperately needed Wall. I told Elaine, my Transportation Secretary, get that money back. And she's looking very closely into getting it back. Lot of legal there. But, it's a lot of money.
And don't forget, Space Force. And Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Core. Coast Guard. My brave military protects California. Protects New York -- when we don't have an idiot (Baby Bush) in the White House. Our military is very important -- and very expensive. I think you have some folks from San Diego. Ethanol-fueled, Snotnose, possibly some more. And I have a magnificent navy in San Diego. One of the biggest in the world. Our wonderful sailors come into town, it's known as Shore Leave. They get horny like anybody else. And so many times, they're going on a "date." They drink. They eat. They rent a motel room. And possibly a woman or two. If you know what I mean. It's tremendous for the economy of San Diego. But we don't call it a grant. We don't call it Federal Aid. We just call it Naval Base San Diego. Very simple name, very humble. But that base is costing our Federal a tremendous amount of money. And a lot of that money, unfortunately, is going to California, to the corrupt California government.
By the way, Wall. We're building the Wall in California, just like we're building it in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas -- many places. And again, we don't call it a grant, we don't call it aid. But it's aid. It's making the economy in those states go BOOM. Making them much stronger. By keeping out the bad people -- terrorists, human traffickers, Drug traffickers, rapists -- that are killing their economies. We call it Federal, but it's great for our states. I like to say, we're stronger TOGETHER!!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 11 2019, @12:33PM (2 children)
I don't think so. Can you spell F-35? How about military industrial complex? If you asked those people to design and build a blackboard (chalkboard for those who might be triggered), the blackboard would end up costing about $50,000,000 per square yard of slate. Worse, it would fall off the wall at every single opportunity, perhaps crushing little children in the process.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 11 2019, @02:29PM (1 child)
You like the F-35? We love F-35. Also known as F35 or F 35. Not an easy one for our spelling mavens. And not an easy one for our foes. It costs us a lot, believe me. We buy billions and billions of dollars worth of that beautiful F-35. From Marillyn Lockheed, the leading woman's business executive in this country, according to many. And it's worth EVERY PENNY, Marillyn did an amazing job on that one. And her Company did a great job -- I hired John Rood of Lockheed to be my Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. By the way, we just did Woman's Day, special day for our beautiful and very smart, sexy & successful women.
It's stealth. Otherwise known as invisible. You cannot see it. You literally can't see that one. Very hard to fight a plane you can't see. I talked to some Air Force guys. Brave guys. I'll tell you, they don't need to be brave in a plane like that. I asked them, does it do all the stuff we see in movies? The Dog Fights and the everything else? They told me, "Sir, it wins EVERY TIME because the enemy cannot see it, even if it’s right next to it, it can’t see it." The pilot gets in, he's invisible too. And his clothes. If you saw The Invisible Man -- amazing special effects on that one. When they put the bandages on, you could see the bandages. But underneath, invisible. And if it was the other way around, it's a problem to put that movie out in the 30s. And it wouldn't be the Invisible Man, it would be The Man in Invisible Clothes. Looks exactly like a naked man, people wouldn't want to see that one. Now they would. And somebody, unfortunately, made that one. Our movie industry is very troubled. Very sick.
1930s, they couldn't really make a guy invisible, they did a special effect. Now we have modern cyber, we have graphene. We can really do it. I mean, I can't do it. You, probably, can't do it. But Marillyn Lockheed can do it. A guy gets into a plane, he closes the door. You don't see him anymore. And you don't see the plane. How much is that worth? A lot, right? But we're getting it for much less than what Cheatin' O negotiated. He called it, National Export Initiative. Pay too much for F-35, so when other countries buy it, they pay too much too. Like a phoney tarriff on our exports. And the costs were absolutely out of control, you're so right about that one. Until I talked to Marillyn. And made a much better deal for our Country. For my amazing Military. Same incredible invisible plane, less money. It's what we do. Oh, are you happy you voted for me. You are so lucky that I gave you that privilege. You're welcome!!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 11 2019, @02:39PM
Oh, no one is doubting you. The doubt is in Congress' sanity in paying that much for a damned airplane. As has often been pointed out, we could have bought dozens of very good fighters, bombers, or attack aircraft for the price of a single 35. No, I do NOT like green eggs and ham, nor do I like F-35. Nor do I like the top-heavy POS the Navy is putting to sea, which will never face a serious storm without taking the entire crew to Davey Jones' locker.
But, you and most of congress are very proud of all that tax money you waste on the military industrial complex, aren't you?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @01:50PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:27PM (16 children)
Nope, can't support it. There are a very few legitimate things the federal government is and should be responsible for and until they decide to ask me for a less tyrannical means of funding those very few things they have to have income enough to cover them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 10 2019, @05:39PM (13 children)
An interesting point. Given that it would be unlikely for all states to opt out, the Federal government would likely maintain enough revenue for those legitimate things.
The social and political consequences of such a law are what interests me. Would such a law exacerbate The great sorting [economist.com]? How could this impact our political system?
Would those why decry "redistributive taxation" support this, since there are quite a few states who send significantly less revenue to the Federal government than they receive? That seems pretty "redistributive" to me.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:17PM (10 children)
Wouldn't make much sense to use the military to protect states that aren't willing to kick in to fund them. Splitting the military into fifty smaller versions wouldn't be a good idea. A very small number of states would end up with most of the good kerblooie stuff. Ditto intelligence agencies, diplomat folks, yadda, yadda, yadda.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:40PM (9 children)
I suspect that no such devolution of power/goodies to the states would be forthcoming. I imagine that would be one of a long list of reasons states would think twice or three times before opting out of Federal taxation.
Which brings up an interesting point: What level of participation is sufficient for a state to be a functioning member of the United States?
Would not receiving any federal funds (or paying any taxes/fees/levies into the federal coffers) prevent a state from being a functioning member of the Union?
I'm trying to visualize what that might look like. I guess the impact would vary as to how dependent a particular state is on federal funding vis-a-vis the monies it pays into the US treasury.
I also imagine that it would be quite telling if a state did attempt to opt-out. Especially if it was based on some wacky libertarian fantasy [lp.org]. It would be fun (at least until neighboring states start getting lots of refugees) to watch such a place implode.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:51PM (8 children)
If you're receiving military protection or any number of the other things the feds provide, you're receiving federal funding. Opting out would essentially be seceding as things stand now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 11 2019, @12:02AM (7 children)
Yup. That's kind of the point of the exercise. Not to mention the brain drain from such places, since there would be no federal funding for research at universities, no ROTC, etc.
On the other hand, there are a whole bunch of landlocked states who have no borders with Canada or Mexico. I suppose they could take advantage of their location if it meant they didn't have to pay federal taxes, since invaders would have to go through actual, functioning states to get to them.
In those places, the question then becomes, "Can we do better with just our own resources?" I posit that the answer would be a big "no."
Even in a state like California (leaving aside the water border and land border with Mexico for the moment), which sends more revenue to the federal government than it receives, the downsides would be much greater than continuing to pay the feds.
It seems to me (and to the founding fathers after the debacle the Articles of Confederation turned out to be) that we're much better off with a central government that is the supreme law of the land, but which leaves a great deal of leeway to the states. While the federal government has, in the eyes of many, exceeded the limits originally placed on its power, states and municipalities have wide latitude in most respects.
In many cases, federal involvement has been warranted, especially when the rights of individuals have been impinged by state and local governments. cf. the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, the civil rights act of 1964, the voting rights act of 1965, Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergfell v. Hodges and on and on.
That's not to say that federal involvement, like the controlled substances act of 1970, federal use of civil forfeiture and revenue sharing with state and local law "enforcement" groups and other stuff hasn't gone too far.
I guess that's where real involvement of an informed electorate comes into play. Sadly, too many folks don't understand why their involvement and participation in the political system is so important.
Those who don't wish to participate in our society, whether that be paying taxes, voting their conscience, having a positive influence on their community or a raft of other things should have somewhere they can go where they can live out their "I Am A Rock" [youtube.com] fantasy.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @12:39AM (4 children)
I don't disagree but most of those needed to be amendments because they unarguably violated the powers explicitly granted the federal government. It's not supposed to have any powers not explicitly granted to it and every time we allow it to bullshit its way into more illegal power, it just makes it easier for them to grab another bit tomorrow.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 11 2019, @01:56AM (3 children)
Which of the items that I mentioned (above) exceeded the authority of the constitution?
Not the 13th and 14th amendments (obviously). Not The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Enforcing the rights of all citizens in the several states -- as the 14th amendment requires). Not the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (cf. the 14th amendment again). Not Loving v. Virginia (there's that pesky 14th again). Not Brown v. Board of Education (once again, that "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment). Not Roe v. Wade (which, admittedly, there is some sleight of hand, but it is absolutely in line with the ideals of our republic). Not Lawrence v. Texas (the 14th again -- and just as with Loving and Griswold vs Connecticut, what the hell are states doing in people's bedrooms? Ick!). And finally Obergfell v. Hodges which is absolutely an equal protection (14th amendment) decision -- If the government is going to record marriage contracts that confer benefits on the spouses (being considered next-of-kin, parental rights, tax benefits, etc.), then those laws should be applied equally and without prejudice.
You said that "...most of those needed to be amendments because they unarguably violated the powers explicitly granted the federal government." I am arguing that it is not the case. Although you don't seem to realize it, the 14th Amendment explicitly grants the federal government (in that all protections of the constitution are binding on the several states, and equal protection under the law is required by that same amendment) the power to do every one of those things, with the possible exception of Roe v. Wade, which has a murkier constitutional basis.
As such, I'd say "...most of those are the government using its explicitly defined powers, codified in the 14th amendment to protect the rights of minority groups." I'd be happy to clarify and/or argue about the constitutional basis for any of those decisions -- even Roe v. Wade which, although its constitutional provenance isn't pure or clear, was still the right decision.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @03:05AM (2 children)
That's a well thought out position but it's based on one premise that simply is not true. You assume prohibitions stated in the amendments apply to the states. That is false. They started out not applying to the states in any way but over the years SCOTUS has explicitly taken a pick and choose approach whenever they collectively thought "I know what it says but what it should say is...". Until SCOTUS specifically misinterprets a bit of the constitution or amendments meant for the federal government to apply to the states, they do not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 11 2019, @03:33AM (1 child)
Not so much, Buzzard. I mentioned the 14th amendment [wikipedia.org]. Can I assume that you consider the 14th amendment to be the law of the land, as it was passed by congress and ratified by the states?
The 14th Amendment states:
Each of the actions of the federal government I mentioned, whether they be acts of Congress or Supreme Court decisions (via Marbury v. Madison), with the exception of Roe v. Wade, are the federal government rolling back state laws that "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" or "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [wikipedia.org]
Since the 14th Amendment is a part of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land (you do believe this, yes?), the federal government has been well within its powers under the 14th amendment to take the actions I listed, with (as I previously mentioned) Roe v. Wade having a murkier provenance.
Or has there been a 28th amendment ratified while I wasn't paying attention which rolls back the powers of the 14th? I know some folks would like to go back to just the first twelve, but as far as I am aware, that hasn't happened. Yet.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 11 2019, @03:53AM
Yes, I'm well aware of the 14th amendment. I'm also equally aware that it is one of the very few that were written with anything but the federal government in mind. Roe v. Wade is a horse-shit decision though. It essentially says fuck if we know but you're not allowed to override our "fuck if we know" and since we don't know and we just kind of feel like going this way, that's what you have to do as well. Worst bit of jurisprudence ever. Yes, even worse than all the commerce clause decisions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 11 2019, @12:43PM (1 child)
'A state of disobedience' by Tom Kratman. It explores one scenario in which one or more states might "opt-out". And, it's amazing how real-to-life the story is. It could easily be sparked by the next Waco. And, yes, Texas is the most likely place for something like this to happen. If you have a Kindle and/or Prime account, the book is available at Amazon for zero dollars.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 11 2019, @03:23PM
Thanks. I have both. However, I do not allow my kindle to talk to the mothership. Because fuck Amazon.
No matter. I have a copy of the book already. Thank you for the recommendation.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 11 2019, @01:54PM (1 child)
Unless, of course, all the states opt out because the federal government is a huge money sink. One of the reasons the federal government does so much entitlement spending in the first place is because states can't choose to opt out. If states can, then more and more of the cost of those entitlements will fall on the parts of the US paying the taxes.
For example, Social Security is a pay as you go program with huge liabilities. The federal government would still be paying out to the older generations even if they choose to live in the part of the US that doesn't pay federal taxes.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 11 2019, @03:37PM
As I mentioned here [soylentnews.org]:
As to your other point:
I said in the journal entry itself:
That would, of course, lead many, many people to flee to a state that hasn't opted out. And those that didn't would reduce the liabilities you mention. We are a nation. And despite regional differences, most of us believe that we're better as a nation together.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:56PM (1 child)
And what, pray-tell, is the "less tyrannical means of funding."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:18PM
Exactly what it sounds like. Voluntary = less tyrannical.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @06:43PM
It's supposed to level out the spikes that are harmful to sensitive electronics, and prevent arcing across the points.
Taxes?
As long as we're stuck here with each other, we should just pick our poison that goes down the easiest. Choose the path of least resistance, even if it meanders. Everything is as easy as we want it to be.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Sunday March 10 2019, @08:41PM (3 children)
Under your proposal it seems that states which opt out could still use their members of Congress to influence the policy which applies only to other states. Doesn't sound very democratic.
Whether the goal is redistributing power from the feds to states, or just trying to shift tax burdens, I don't think an all-or-nothing approach is the way to go. How many additional bureaucrats would be needed to make sure that federal spending only happens in the right states? How many additional loopholes would be created where people/corps could dodge taxes and regulations in one jurisdiction while receiving benefits in another?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:21PM (2 children)
So...It would only be democratic (small 'd') if those elected were allowed only to weigh in on issues that directly affected their constituents? And if their constituents are not specifically impacted, such representatives should have no say at all?
What would make that calculus any different with the way things are now? Should representatives from landlocked states be prohibited from any deliberations about the Coast Guard? Should elected representatives from states that have no foreign borders be prohibited from deliberations around border control issues? For your argument to make logical sense, you'd need to include those sorts of prohibitions as well.
If that's the case, we must already live in a very undemocratic place here in the US. Fortunately, it isn't.
What makes us democratic is that we elect representatives to make policy for us, not who is filling the government's coffers.
Who says there has to be a goal other than not wishing to submit to what amounts to armed robbery by a bunch of thugs in Washington, DC? Who says there needs to be any other rationale?
Or maybe the goal could be not subsidizing a bunch of inbred hicks with the hard earned money of others.
Perhaps there is no goal. Only the precept that 'Gub'mint bad! Bad Gub'mint!' but the rolled-up newspapers just aren't cutting it any more.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday March 11 2019, @12:07AM (1 child)
It would make it worse. That's all I'm saying. You are free to argue that it would make it better, if you believe that.
Nobody can evaluate a policy proposal without knowing what its purpose is. You offered a proposal. Are you saying the only point of it is to pay zero federal taxes? If so then I guess "opting out" may be slightly more attractive than simply declaring independance and leaving the union, but is likely to be met with strong opposition (see Brexit, or the US civil war). I personally won't try to stop you.
I'm more interested in how the tax obligations are calculated, what the money is ultimately spent on, and how it's all decided rather than the question of eliminating the whole thing on the basis of an ideological opposition to taxation. Although I'd also be willing to hear any plans to fund necessary government functions by means other than taxation, which is a possibility. After all, a large portion of federal spending is currently not funded by any tax revenue, but by a metaphorical (perhaps in some cases literal) printing press.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 11 2019, @02:32AM
Yes. The idea that got me thinking about this were the folks who decry any federal taxes as "theft." And so I wondered how, within our current system, could this be implemented.
I never said it was a *good* proposal. I never even implied that I was for such a proposal. In fact, I actually said that I wouldn't support such a law for my state. [soylentnews.org]
In fact, I think it's a really dumb idea. My "proposal" was more a device to discuss the impact of federal taxation, and the redistribution of funds received from that taxation, than it was a serious policy proposal.
I also wondered if those who really believe that taxation is theft convinced their state legislature to pass such a bill (with the caveat that they'd need to get the congress and the president to sign off on it first), what a state would look like and what the impact of cutting off of federal funds to the state might be.
It's pretty clear, based on the discussion, that the several states are, in Ambrose Bierce's definition [gutenberg.org] an alliiance with both each other and the Federal government:
And for all of the US' flaws, it is, comparatively, a pretty good place to be. Even in a world that is the most peaceful and prosperous than any time in human history.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Sunday March 10 2019, @09:04PM (2 children)
If we must have taxes, here is what I want. You get a letter in the mail that is in the form factor of a survey. You put the amount you made in the prior year at the top. You go down the survey and list the agencies you want your taxes to fund by percentage.
Military: 10%
NASA: 30%
Social Security: 10%
DoE: 25%
DoT: 25%
All the rest can f off, at least for FY19. It makes budgeting hard but fuck em
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @10:57PM (1 child)
Problem is that people will not want to fund programs they aren't beneficiaries of.
My biggest problem with the federal tax system is that the power to tax the people directly and ability to redistribute the funds *discriminately* allows the federal government, against the spirit of the constitution, to hold the states as slaves to federal policy.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday March 11 2019, @12:24AM
That doesn't really sound like a problem. The real issue is that votes would be replaced by dollars and we would have a plutocracy without even a pretense of anything different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 10 2019, @11:44PM (1 child)
So someone who is near retirement age, who has paid into Medicare and Social Security their entire working lives, now would get nothing from those programs if their State opts out of continuing to pay federal taxes?
Would said individual be able to move to a state that hasn't opted out and get the benefits they supposedly paid for? Or should they march to the state capital and burn it to the ground, hopefully with the legislature inside?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 11 2019, @12:08AM
Given that this would need to be approved by the state legislature, each individual would need to weigh the pros and cons when voting for their state representatives, don't you think?
It might be a shame if one chose poorly.
I imagine that the former would be no more difficult (and more frequent) than it is now. I'm sure there are those who would prefer the latter. That would likely be no more difficult than it is now either.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 11 2019, @05:41AM
Congress/Fedgov already uses grants to influence states eg. why the drinking age is 21 everywhere. Letting states opt-out of federal money would also be stepping back into Articles of Confederation territory, and they failed for a reason. A federal government that can't levy taxes has no power, can't support a standing military, can't pay the people who work for it etc. If you made a lot of federal programs discretional though, that would be cool. It would also make taxes more difficult than they already are, and probably require expansion of the IRS to handle the overhead.