I understand what you're saying about the difference between federal and state monies, bb. And to a point, it makes sense to me. Let states decide how much and on what they will spend on their people.

However.

When one state's resources are far, far greater or smaller than those of another one, who is to level the playing field?

Oregon, which I consider a fairly progressive state, has vast discrepancies in the school system, for instance. The amount paid per child in the Jewel area of the Pacific Coast Range is far smaller than the amount spent per child in the cities. In what way is that acceptable?

Alaska, on the other hand, has great resources - and billions in savings - but still pursues the federal dollar as though she were starving.