The States, the Stimulus, and Federalism's Prisoners' Dilemma

The stimulus is but the latest chapter insocietal tax burden on your citizenry. It is central
federalism's prisoners' dilemma. For thosegovernment compulsion at its finest and a text
unfamiliar with the concept of the prisoner'sbook example of the classic modern-day
dilemma, it is a logical tool of individual choice.Washington modus operandi - one must trade
There are two prisoners who are individuallyprinciple, no matter how central to our nation's
isolated and arrested for committing the samefounding, for money.
crime. There is no other solid evidence againstIndeed, perverse is the only way to put it. The
either of them other than their own prospectiveDepartment of the Treasury could do no worse if
individual and collective statements. If neither talks,its bureaucrats drove a fleet of windowless white
both walk. If one talks, he walks, and the othervans across the country asking the people if they
prisoner suffers full punishment. If they both talk,would like some candy. What we need is a
they are both punished, but less than if they didsecond nullification crisis that moves to constrain
not talk at all.the supremacy clause to its true constitutional
So what is the rational position? Unless you havelimits, challenging the tenet that the federal
full and complete trust in your fellow prisoner (andgovernment can force state action by withholding
who would?), it is to talk because you figure hefederal funds.
will do the same.An appropriate constitutional amendment would
So it goes with federalism. You do not have to torequire that every funds transfer to individual
lower your speed limit or raise your drinking age -states by the federal government that required
you just have to forego matching federalor restricted state action or policy to receive said
highway funds. You do not have to operate yourfunds be approved by a majority of state
Medicaid and Medicare systems per federaldelegations to Congress. The reason to do so by
regulations, you simply have to forego billions indelegation being that that if the states are to be
federal dollars, etc., etc., etc. If you do not complyconstitutionally extorted by the federal
with the federal mandate, you are at agovernment, they ought only be able to do so if
comparative disadvantage to other states, andthe majority of the states themselves making up
your citizens are still getting taxed by the federalthe Union agree to it. It is not rape if there is
government at the same absurd rate. What is aconsent.
rational state to do?So, should Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana
Like prior Constitution-extorting funding programs,and others take the stimulus money? Under
which have sadly been legitimized by the Supremepresent circumstances, the answer is yes, though
Court over a series of progressively badthere is nothing wrong with making some noise
decisions, the "stimulus" bucks also put principledwhile doing it. The prisoners' dilemma suffered by
governors in a bind. Sure, Governor Mark Sanfordthe states mandates it. That being said, we must
of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisianamove to close the ever-expanding circle of rot
would prefer not to take the money, but itsthat allows the central government to compel
money their (unborn) citizens are footing the billstate action by witholding or mandating the
for anyway. Don't take it, stand athwartacceptance of constitutionally filthy money. That
federalism's bulwarks, take your oath seriouslyis, we ought to if we are determined to preserve
and defend a basic founding principle of the Unitedboth the Union and the Republic. Disappointingly,
States Constitution (a principle without which thetoday many in power are too intent on forging
United States would never have come intothe former in steel. The latter...well, I really don't
existence, by the way), and you increase the netthink many of them know what the latter is.