Simple Smart Seminar
  • Stock
  • Investing
  • Politics
  • Tech News
  • Editor’s Pick
Editor's PickInvesting

Hamburger’s Beef: State Aid Programs

by January 15, 2026
January 15, 2026 0 comment

Chris Edwards

Tim Walz Minnesota

The Minnesota fraud scandals have put the spotlight on wasteful federal aid-to-state programs. The scandals surround federal aid for food programs, health care, and day care. My new study on community development aid raises similar issues of fraud and waste.

The federal government spends $1.1 trillion a year on 1,400 aid-to-state programs. I have argued that Congress should begin phasing them out for constitutional and practical reasons.

Columbia Law School’s Philip Hamburger describes some of the reasons why in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. The US Constitution “empowered Congress to tax Americans only for national purposes: ‘To pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.’ This meant Congress couldn’t use tax dollars to provide for the states.” Even Alexander Hamilton “respected the prevailing view that Congress couldn’t directly fund the states.”

Hamburger also touches on the practical failings of aid to the states:

Federal funding of state programs creates a dangerous moral hazard. Washington provides money, but the state controls its disbursement.… It enables the federal government to subject states to regulatory conditions, undermining federalism and our ability to govern ourselves at a local level. When conditioned on matching state funds, federal spending encourages state spending, even to the point of near bankruptcy. And now we can see that federal dollars diminish financial accountability, opening opportunities for brazen fraud on an unimaginable scale.

I flesh out the shortcomings of federal aid in this study. I argue that the rise in aid programs—and the top-down regulations tied to them—contribute to today’s nasty partisan divisions by trying to force conformity on our vast and diverse nation. The federal aid system imposes one-size-fits-all policies when there is no national consensus.

Hamburger concludes that the Supreme Court should reconsider its permissive stance on federal aid programs. Meanwhile, Congress should heed the practical advantages of downsizing and start phasing out its vast entanglement in state and local affairs.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
previous post
President Trump’s “Great Health Care Plan”
next post
The Trans Athlete Question Requires Subsidiarity. The Trump Administration Just Did the Opposite.

You may also like

Trump’s First-Term Tariffs Crushed US Manufacturing

February 11, 2026

Mississippi Senate Education Committee Shuts the Door on...

February 11, 2026

President Trump’s Pardons: An Embarrassment of Riches

February 11, 2026

It Was Twenty (Five) Years Ago Today. ....

February 11, 2026

The Shield Reclaimed: How the Grand Jury Is...

February 11, 2026

The One Big Beautiful Bill Made ICE Shutdown-Proof...

February 10, 2026

Marijuana Policy Between the New York Times Nanny...

February 10, 2026

Decentralizing Public Health: From Atlanta to Geneva, Institutional...

February 10, 2026

Introducing “End Fed Ed Watch”

February 10, 2026

No Tax on Tips and Overtime: A Case...

February 10, 2026

    Fill Out & Get More Relevant News


    Stay ahead of the market and unlock exclusive trading insights & timely news. We value your privacy - your information is secure, and you can unsubscribe anytime. Gain an edge with hand-picked trading opportunities, stay informed with market-moving updates, and learn from expert tips & strategies.

    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2025 simplesmartseminar.com | All Rights Reserved

    Simple Smart Seminar
    • Stock
    • Investing
    • Politics
    • Tech News
    • Editor’s Pick