(while getting the benefit of those state services) and the other guy doesn't. As it stands, there is a 10K cap on that now (and a reduction in the top rate to cover the left's new found concern for the "rich" in high tax states), so you'll still get some subsidy over those below the 10K level, for those still itemizing. If your beef is that your state demands more than that 10K to fund its services you benefit from (and I'm not saying that's not a valid approach), then perhaps take it up with the folks in Albany about their efficiency and breadth of services.

If your beef is with the redistribution of those Fed dollars, and want it to be more tied to inflows, then take that up with your Congressman or Senator. That argument doesn't usually go over well when all the high income NoVa folks whine about how much money goes to schools in Petersburg and Pulaski County. Nor did I hear the left bitching when Sen. Byrd turned WV into a Fed cash cow. And that argument loses validity when you guys want to include things like defense spending (in VA that happens to have an inordinate amount of facilities) when comparing outflows by state. Again, if you're issue is with the cost and breadth of those Fed programs with their "unfair" distribution to states, you'll get little argument from me.

You're trying to conflate two issues, when both layers can be addressed.