Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Prawfs
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: PrawfsConditional Spending and the Australian Experience
By Dan Markel, Ethan Leib, Rick Garnett, Matt Bodie, Paul Horwitz , Steve Vladeck, and Orly Lobel
Following up on my prior post on conditional spending grants, I would like to note a closely analogous experience in another country. In Australia, which also has a federal constitution with enumerated powers (with unenumerated powers reserved to the states), the states are basically the slaves of the federal government. The reason is that the federal government has almost plenary control using conditional spending grants.
The neatest trick is that one of the conditions of federal grants in Australia is that the states do not levy an income tax. In 1942, at the height of the Second World War, the Australian federal government increased the federal income tax by the highest level levied by the states at the time. The federal government then offered to reimburse states this extra revenue -- on condition that the states do not levy an income tax. After the High Court of Australia upheld this scheme, all the states capitulated.
To this day, I remain surprised that Congress has not attempted to replicate this trick in the United States. I'm sure that some pretextual benefit to the general welfare (e.g. to prevent people the paperwork of having to file state taxes) can be conjured up.
Full post as published by Prawfs on December 27, 2010 (boomark / email).

Wick on Conditional Federal Grants, the Spending Power, & Independent Constitutional Bars
Conditional sentencing hits the fan
DO CREDIT CARDS REALLY INCREASE SPENDING Apparently not. Thats my experience, too. I used to
Appleby on the federal spending power in Australia







