The largest ten states own a majority of the House. The senate is controlled by the states with five or less districts, about 20.
In any revenue or earmark sharing, the broad middle comes out best, and they want a full third of the budget devoted to revenue sharing as they maximize it.
This is not going to be an even split of the sharing pot. The large state occupy most of the quantization levels, seven states have one, five have tow on the small end. Small states see no path unless the sharing is about equal to noticeable change as if they had an extra half district and the large states had one half less. Thus your granularity.
But the total amount of granulatity to get a senate majority is about 35 districts, count from the left backwards to get 20 senate vote. That is about 6 maybe 10 billion, out of a 100 billion dollar sharing budget. The long term tendency is to get the states crowded around the center of gravity, that point where the states are equally voiced in senate and house. So, on net, we are losing maybe 30 billion in inefficiency to partially correct the senate/house imbalance. It is small because we enable the hedges to cancel out the known imbalances. The large and small have ex ante liquidity to act more like the middle state with 10 districts.
Cold hard cash. Newsome, Cuoma and Pitzer all got earmarks, not cash. They have to go through a level of account aggregation and switching. They should have paid the net costs of 14 billion to the small states, and taken the cash.
No comments:
Post a Comment