Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
I don't really know. Part of me feels it's because The federal government has been allowed to grow much larger and stronger than intended over the years.
The federal government (unconstitutionally IMHO) is in a position of being able to control and withhold funding given to the states. States are scared to lose funding or to otherwise alienate the feds.
I don't believe the framers ever intended for the federal government to be funding the states, I think they fear this very thing.
Constitution wasn't quite strong enough in its limitation of power to the executive but that's a different story altogether.
I think the Founders were well aware that the federal government might be "funding the states" if some project that spanned,/benefited multiple states was undertaken. The Erie Canal comes to mind as an early example. There was also a federally funded (partially or fully) road that crossed the Cumberland Pass and went to the Ohio Valley. And of course later, the Transcontinental Railroad. That couldn't possibly have been funded by the individual states. Like: what if Nevada had refused to fund its portion?
I think that any federal government setup where the feds can tax the states would naturally result in federally funded projects and support of all kinds. And there's no way in hell we could have had the Westward Expansion without that.
