10% Highway Incentive

A state that allows persons under 21 to legally purchase or publicly consume alcohol will loose 10% of its state highway funds. This “incentive” prompted all 29 of the states that had set ages lower than 21 to bring themselves into compliance with this federal guideline.

5 Responses to “10% Highway Incentive”

  1. serge Says:

    Well that is a pretty good example of federalism.
    In other words extortion, forcing the states to basically give up their right to regulate alcohol, I am surprised that the supreme court viewed it as constitutional.

  2. Jason Says:

    It is 100% unconstitutional.The John Birch Society,is a good expert on constitution.

  3. Lew Bryson Says:

    Serge,
    Justice O’Connor wrote a very vigorous dissent on this one — even though she agreed with the idea of raising the drinking age. She predicted that this kind of federal extortion would not be limited to this one issue.

  4. Eric Gittleman Says:

    Well, given the current legislation and the Court’s ruling in South Dakota v. Dole, Mrs. Justice O’Connor’s dissent notwithstanding, this situation is probably not going to go away for a while. However, I fail to see why states are that worried about losing 10 per cent of federal highway funding. The states have been eating from the federal trough for too long; despite their sovereign nature, and their abilities to provide services for which they have powers per the Tenth Amendment, they consistently ask the Feds to bail them out. Here in my home state of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the local transportation authorities are compelled to provide increased public transportation to under-served, densely-populated communities, but the governor does not want to comply on his own; rather, he wants the Feds to do it. So what is happening? The mayor of one such community is suing the Commonwealth.

    What the public needs is a governor of a state that can institute a drinking age that is not 21 and a comprehensive anti-drunk driving program who can then prepare a functioning budget without the ten per cent. Whether it takes elimination of patronage jobs, or zero-based budgeting, or any other examination of the books, it can be done. In the grand scheme of things, ten per cent is not a ridiculously large number.

  5. Corey Says:

    I knew MADD was always getting in the way of the constitution! They’ve disrespected the 4th amendment(ex. Sobriety Checkpoints), The 5th (self-incrimination), 6th (Denial of Jury Trial), 8th (one size fit’s all and Zero tolerance penalties), and the 10th(drinking age, .08%, Bill Clintion’s Anti-Drunk Driving laws which make no sense!). If we repeal all federal Highway cut fund laws, the states will be free to choose their drinking ages, drunk driving laws, and BAC limits, Etc. Bill Clinton’s anti drunk driving laws and national drinking age are unpatriotic just like MADD. Know your rights, but designate a sober driver if necessary!