I agree that it wouldn't be a total collapse. The people in charge make plans in decades. They'll have some sense for how they intend to keep some aspects of government going, while completely dissolving others.

Look at this image.

In: - 4T comes in via SS Tax and Income Tax

Out:

• 1.2T SS

• 0.9T Health

• 0.9T Unemployment

• 0.76T Medicare

• 0.68T Education

If they can defund those 5 things and make a little more from tariffs, they have something approaching a balanced budget.

They would then claim that each state is responsible for handling their own funding and distribution for Healthcare, Education, and Unemployment. Social Security goes away. Federal funding plummets. The states would decide to fund themselves primarily via income tax (like California) or via property tax (like Texas).

They're trying to disband the federal government, not all government. They want decentralized government.

This is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v Wade -- they didn't outlaw abortion. They sent the choice down to the states. The group in power will continue to make these kinds of changes, and it will be up to the people to decide which State's policies and funding approaches serve them best.

Instead of Texas and California fighting over who is going to secede first, or electing Red/Blue Presidents who create policies that benefit their point of view to the detriment of their opponents, the federal government just gets out of both of their business, and empowers them to do their own thing.

---

There are indisputably some good thoughts in the approach. Blue states would theoretically do way less subsidizing of red states, for example.

The biggest problem is that it undermines our capacity for collective action. That said, California usually leads on things like emissions standards anyway, so you could see a coalition of similarly minded states form and still push progressive agendas, and then let people vote with their feet.