A path to federal savings!

Montana’s own Rep. Denny Rehberg and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., deserve credit for teaming up on worthy, common-sense legislation that would reverse to some extent the perverse incentives for states to take federal funding regardless of the wisdom of doing so.

States are frequently concerned about accepting federal funds because of the obligations they might incur as a result, but if they reject appropriated money it will currently be directed to other states for similar purposes.

Thus, no savings to the federal government.

That was the case this year when Montana lawmakers had reservations about taking approximately $100 million in federal funds for programs such as food stamps and home energy assistance. Legislative Republicans were concerned that “federal maintenance” rules would restrict the state’s ability to cut its related costs in the future.

But Gov. Brian Schweitzer correctly reasoned that the money would simply be redirected to other states and there would  be no “savings” in federal spending. So he threatened a veto until the budget was changed, and the federal money was restored.

That’s not how things would work under the Rehberg and Rubio “Incentive to Save Act,” which would require the federal government to dedicate unspent state grant funds to federal debt retirement.

“If a responsible state like Montana tightens its belt to save tax dollars, we shouldn’t be rewarding irresponsible states like California by adding those savings to their take,” Rehberg said.

Right on. It’s not hard to imagine cases where federal funds would be put to frivolous, wasteful use, the kind of spending that state leaders would be more than happy to reject if not for the nagging notion that the money would be wasted elsewhere at the expense of all of us.

That was the case in Florida this year when Gov. Rick Scott rejected $2.4 billion for a high-speed rail project between Tampa and Orlando, largely because it had many drawbacks and the state would have been on the hook for substantial future costs.

As it stands, other states can now apply for that healthy chunk of money for a project that, who knows, may or may not be worthy.

Hopefully the Incentive to Save Act is airtight in strictly requiring that rejected funds go to debt retirement, and just maybe wisdom at the state level will lead the way in curbing the trend of unsustainable federal spending.