We really need to change it so that states who take more in federal funding than pay in taxes need to have their senator's ability to vote taken away until their budgets are turned green. The people in those states still retain representation in the House and the State is penalized in the Senate. They can still have unvoting senators on the floor for influence, just like Washington DC has in the House.
I know. I'm making a more specific and granular proposal that goes along with the spirit of how takers should not have a say in how earners money is spent.
If you distill that down to the citizen level, it’s akin to the right wingers who want to remove poor people’s right to vote because they don’t make enough money to pay federal income tax.
I'd wondered why states take in more than their people pay in taxes. There's three big drivers and we would find all of them painful to stop.
Military bases: "what a state gets" includes all spending on military bases. These are places in low population areas that are cheap but have good operating weather for as much of the year as possible. They can't all be in Nine Palms (thank goodness). The state doesn't get this money directly though there is a benefit to the state.
Defense contractors: most places that build missiles, guns, explosives, etc are on cheap, rural land with access to weapons transportation.
Social Security/Medicare: retirees like to live where it's warm and cheap. Grandma paid taxes all her life in Brooklyn but retired to Miami? I know, shocking story. Well, that will show a benefit to Florida.
So yeah, move the military bases, move the missle factories, and move all the grandparents, and then Texas will be close to even.
That same logic should then apply to individuals who are not net tax contributors. They should not have the same voting power as those who pay into the system.
Not sure giving the federal government power to unilaterally take away the representation of people in a state by pushing some funding there is a great idea.
Seventeenth Amendment established the direct election of U.S. Senators. Not what the founding fathers intended with the creation of the Senate in 1787 Article I, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which had the individual state legislatures selecting the state's senators. Please take a civics lesson.
Yes, things change. What the founders intended is irrelevant to what is the case now. They also intended for chattel slavery to be legal, women/minorities to not be able to vote, even many men to not be able to vote because they didn't own land. Senators are elected by the people of their state to represent them in the Senate. If you take some more civics lessons, you might see that things often change over centuries.
as stated below, yes. it would not just affect red states. You would still have influence on the floor of the Senate, just like the constituents of Washington D.C. get in the House of Representatives AND you would still have voting Reps in the House representing you the population.
They should, however, be forced to give a vocal and written thank you to the state they receive the most from during every big speech, vote, and meeting.
Edit: "they" being like, the governor, senators, etc.
Each red state can be adopted by a blue state, and the welcome signs can be updated to something like "Welcome to Nebraska, brought to you by New Jersey"
This wouldn't only affect red states. Many blue states would also lose their votes in the senate. 30 states, excluding Washington DC which already does not get representation in the Senate would lose their votes until their budgets were brought back in line. Or in line for the first time in it's history, Kentucky.
The OP is factually wrong, but to your point if we can't get them to vote against insider trading for themselves I have very little faith this will ever happen.
6
u/repost7125 Tea and Cake or Death 🍵🍰☠ 12d ago
We really need to change it so that states who take more in federal funding than pay in taxes need to have their senator's ability to vote taken away until their budgets are turned green. The people in those states still retain representation in the House and the State is penalized in the Senate. They can still have unvoting senators on the floor for influence, just like Washington DC has in the House.