Actually, I don’t think specifying that _would_ be ideal. Part of the problem with the present state of American government is its uniformity. Specifying what portion of non-federal taxes should go to “state” and what portion should go to “local” presupposes a specific sort of organization of the state government. Perhaps this organization is not optimal. Perhaps it is optimal in some states and not others (due to differences in the distribution of population and resources, for example).

The majority of the federal budget gies to redistributive programs. Effectively an over extended intergenerational insurance company relying upon external uncompetitiveness, internal growth, and internal population

The problem with turning programs over to the states is the lack of competence in state and local government. Especially the higher incidence of corruption in local government.

What troubles the poorer states despite their receipt of cash benefits is priority given to urban density, urban political gains from immigration, debt expansion., bias against lower productive but self supporting non urban groups, and cultural tyranny.

The soution is to limit the federal government to non social programns, to return money to the states as you suggest, and to privatize all possible government services, while increasing audits of the private sector companies.

People do not hate government. They hate the necessary corruption that comes with human behavior in a bureaucracy whenever the limits of the bureaucrat’s knowledge are exceeded, and the necessary contrivances of bureaucrats who are intentionally isolated from the market and the pricing system, become a predatory liability to the freedoms of the citizens under the rubric of efficiency and practicality – a failure of bureaucracies but not private sector business that is entirely at the service if the pricing system.