Here’s some choice nonsense from CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere:

You’ll presumably have noticed the use of the phrase “to come home to them,” which, whether Dovere knows it or not, undermines his core insinuation. There is, of course, nothing even remotely hypocritical about people who did not want the federal government to take more money out of the states in the first place (or, if the money was borrowed, to borrow it in their names) subsequently involving themselves in how that money is spent. The idea is ridiculous — as silly as suggesting that someone who believes that healthcare is a state issue, rather than a federal issue, must be quiet about healthcare policy once the federal government has taken over.

Let’s assume that I, a taxpayer in Florida, do not want Congress to pass the Lots of New Bridges Act of 2023. Maybe this is because I think that building bridges is the job of the states. Maybe this is because I want that money to stay in Florida. Maybe this is because I think federal taxes should be lower. Maybe this is because I think that the federal government should be paying down its debt instead. Maybe it’s because I think that the federal government isn’t good at building bridges. Whatever — the reason doesn’t especially matter. The important thing is that I oppose these federal expenditures.

But I lose. Despite my best efforts, Congress passes the bill, and, duly empowered, the executive branch announces its intention to start building bridges around the country — including in Florida. At this point, I’m supposed to shut up because that’s not how I wanted my money to be spent during the previous stage?

Obviously, that’s absurd. That I didn’t want my money to be spent in this way does not mean that it won’t be spent in this way. It will. And, at the point at which it is being spent, I have only two choices: (1) To try to influence how my money is being spent by the federal government, having lost the argument over whether it will be spent by the federal government, or (2) To watch my money being spent silently. To propose that I am under an obligation to take the second course is to suggest that political dissenters are obliged to exile themselves the moment a political dispute doesn’t go their own way.

So, pretty typical for CNN, then.