http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.pnghttp://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spend_gdp_populationJust a little though-experiment here. In the 2011 federal budget, non-military discretionary spending stood at $646 billion. What would it mean for the states if we cut all that spending? How about one "equal" but unrealistic scenario, and one less equal but more realistic one?
Even splitting that spending evenly among the states (an utterly unrealistic scenario, I know, but bear with me for a moment) would add $12.9 billion to every state's spending obligations if it wanted to make up the difference. That figure is greater than the amount of money that state governments spend in total in eight states, more than half of what seven additional states spend, more than a third of what four additional states annually spend, and more than a quarter of what 9 more states spend. In other words, over half the country would either have to massively increase revenues in order to replace non-defenese federal discretionary spending, which of course would mean dramatic hikes in state tax rates, or cut so many services in a state so as to cripple economic activity anyway.
But let's say, to be more realistic, we assign less burden to states with the smallest spending budgets like South Dakota, shrinking their cut of discretionary spending to the tune of, say $3 billion (since they spend 61% less than does the highest spending state in the union, decreasing their share of the burden by 75% seems like a good deal for them). The problem is that $3 billion is still nearly half the equivalent of that state's total spending of $6.9 billion. Let's say, using the same logic, we increase California's share of the burden by shrinking their cut of discretionary spending by $18 billion (since, again, that state spends 61% more money annually than does South Dakota and saddles California with only .7% more responsibility for all the discretionary cuts than splitting up the burden equally would--a good deal for them). That still takes an additional 4% out of the California state budget, which is already quite cash-strapped. The larger point is that proportionally divvying up the burdens caused by slashing all fed non-defense discretionary spending would still mean absolute murder for small states even if the larger ones might have a chance to get by. People in small states won't be able to vote with their feet, because they won't even be able to afford a Greyhound ticket after they're gutted that brutally. That's not a proposal for a strong America, it's a recipe for civil war.
The lesson is that, in order for the massive spending cuts that we certainly need to make to be bearable, we need to spread them across the entire budget, and even then in complicated ways. This is an area where platitudes will solve nothing.
