That’s what I said, but from the other end. I started with fixed Federal subsidies (which actually transfers money from wealthy states to poor states) then individual states can optionally set higher limits by adding their own money too.
People are then going to ask why they are sending the money instead of lowering federal taxes and increasing state taxes.
The truthful answer “we’re taking money from your state and giving it to another state to subsidize them” is going to tick off the rich states and lead to resentment.
Further, they will still be left asking “why do they need my money?” and “what are they spending my money on?”
Saying “we’re making sure all kids get a decent education” Is much more palatable than “whatever they feel like” even though the money no longer allocated to education is then spent on whatever they feel like.
You can make up stories about voters objecting to almost any good idea, if you need an argument for why a second best idea is preferable.
> The truthful answer “we’re taking money from your state and giving it to another state to subsidize them” is going to tick off the rich states and lead to resentment.
So you are suggestion it's better to mislead people in a democracy?
