Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[kandrathe]

New York may have received 23 times the funds, but it has over 30 times the population. Since per capita measurements are the only ones that make sense I think the point stands - New Yorkers are paying out, and North Dakotans are collecting.

You are missing my point, and misunderstanding what I said. Per capita does not always make sense when the expenditures are not distributed for per capita consumption, or are not consumer usable.

I think it is senseless for the Federal government to shell out anything to the States. The revenue was collected from US citizens as a federal tax who happen to reside within a particular state. The purpose is to fund Federal needs, not to kick back benefits to other states. Now, certain Federal needs, such as missile silo's in North Dakota may require them to expend some of their federal defense money in North Dakota, but it is for a federal purpose.

But, let's for fun suggest the Federal government built equal thingamabobs in each state. New Yorkers would get much more per capita use out of their thingamabob, than would the North Dakotans. If the thingamabob was a necessary component irregardless of population, then it really doesn't matter if its in a state with 10 people or 10 million. For example, border defense.

To me it would be sensible for the Fed to stop outlays to States, and let the states fund their own needs. So, similar to our discussion about pouring money into the wilderness to build an economy where one is not forthcoming, so too, it makes little sense for the Feds to dump extra money into North Dakota.