“Because it focuses on giving states power to veto (e.g., taxes) without their shouldering responsibility for asserting it (trimming appropriations because of lost tax revenue), the unintended consequences would likely be at least as important as the intended.”

Fascinating how the Times can forsee those unintended consequences, but not those constantly and continually caused by Govt’s meddling in social and economic matters, powers which were never granted to it.

We will see how well option #1 works when the money they use is worth less every day; how well option #2 works when the electorate is far more intelligent than the elected, appointed and annointed.

That does of course leave option #3 and that does worry me a bit.