My revenue sharing slush fund

 My spread sheet split the revenue sharing budget.

I set the shares according to House Senate split of 150 billion. If the House splits 100 billion, the Senate splits 50 billion, then California gets 13 billion, Vermont a little over 1 billion.

A fair enough deal to satisfy the Gogot of proportionality. But my vote is only one, and barely that.

Nancy misses the point on revenue sharing. Or otherwise rejects the concept. In this case it is a simple problem. The initial 150 billion had one purpose, make sure none of the state capitals got swallowed in the remaining 760 billion. I presume she is advised on the subject, it has history.  

Dems are stuck.  Stuck, quite plainly, with Nancy's rejection of revenue sharing.