Screwing the States

IS writes:

Had an argument with my 70+ YO folks the other day about the budget and in frustration I offered the following:

Strip the Federal Budget of all direct payments to States. That means highway dollars, medicaid, school funding, bloc grants, etc… The whole lot of them. Wouldn't there be a huge savings? It plays right into the GOP's ongoing love for States Rights and forces each State to address how they will serve their constituents. Being the political left leaner that I am, it seems like a winner to me.

What am I missing?

On the level of pure politics, I think nothing's missing here. Reduced federal aid to the states is one of the few budget cuts that polls well. People don't seem to understand how this works and think that state aid money is just used to serve lavish meals at the governor's mansion or something, so they don't realize that cutbacks would lead to unpopular cuts in K-12 education, Medicaid, etc. What's more, this idea would put every single incumbent governor and state legislator in a horrible political position, and today incumbents are overwhelmingly Republicans, so again this is a winner.

The only real problem with this idea is that it's a terrible idea. If we stop spending money on Medicaid benefits for poor people in Alabama, Jeff Sessions is still going to get treatment when he's sick. So will Jeff Sessions' donors and his voting base. That the Alabamians who need Medicaid are consistently outvoted by a richer, older, and whiter set of Alabamians is an unfortunate fact of life but it doesn't change the fact that punishing poor people for the sins of Senator Sessions doesn't really achieve anything.