Federal ‘aid’ or federal control?
Years ago, in a small North Dakota town, a well-known local citizen sported a well-read bumper sticker on his car stating “Federal aid ‘bleep’ (expletive deleted), it’s Our Money!”
While a good reminder that all tax dollars, whether federal, state or local, must first come out of each taxpayer’s pocket before they can be deemed “aid” to someone, somewhere (after Washington first takes a huge chunk out for administering whatever program the dollars flow through), it should also make us think a little deeper.
With the government shutdown dragging on, although few have noticed a real difference in their daily lives, as we’ve written, some are now warning of looming problems ahead.
As should be expected, North Dakota’s reaction is the commonsense approach, with the Bank of North Dakota floating a new loan program to help any federal workers living in our state who may be temporarily without a paycheck. Leave it to our great state to be unfazed by the hysteria we hear around us and simply step up to help our neighbors. Good for us!
“Federal dollars” often spell federal control
As American Experiment’s Martha Njolomole recently wrote, 31% of North Dakota’s spending is made up of federal dollars. That’s just under the national average of 34%. What does that mean, as a practical matter?
Virtually without exception, it means federal strings are attached.
When states accept “federal money” to start, sustain, or subsidize a program, Washington bureaucrats typically attach enough conditions, controls, restrictions and penalties to make your head swim.
What’s even more dangerous is the federal government’s propensity to tread where it has no business meddling, in order to work its will and expand government — even on the state and local levels.
The United States Constitution clearly spells out the role of the federal government and its powers are not only enumerated, they’re quite limited. How, then, has Washington, DC slipped its tentacles into so many areas which are clearly out of bounds for the federal government’s involvement? With the almighty dollar.
The feds have crafted a simple formula—they lay out some wonderful-sounding program, like “more cops on the street”, for example, (a favorite a few decades ago, when police were still popular with both parties) which sounds great. They then dangle dollars for state or local governments to take the bait and start the program. A couple of years later, they yank the funding back and state and local governments are faced with the unenviable decision to either scrap the program the feds once paid for or to tax you, their local taxpayers, to continue it — a no-win proposition.
What’s worse than the fiscal and operational dilemma is that fact that the federal government has just wormed its way into a policy area in which it has no constitutional authority and, in some cases, created a new program (most far worse than the one used here as an example) which will go on, and on, and on.
A federal “government shutdown” is an excellent time to be reminded of the degree of our dependence upon federal dollars and also to build resolve to resist expanding it in the future. Self-sufficiency for states, to the extent possible, is a laudable goal.
The moral of the story?
State and local governments should beware of federal officials bearing “gifts.” As Ronald Reagan famously said, the most frightening nine words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help!”