[Vision2020] Red State Welfare

[Nicholas Gier]

Good Morning Visionaries:


As I looked through my files doing the final edits on my Euro Crisis
column, I came across these two articles.


Please note that national debt as a percentage of GDP went up 30 percent
under W's 8 years and 14 percent so far under Obama, who, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, saved 2-4 million jobs with the stimulus and
will make Uncle Sam a little profit on bailing out the banks and the auto
industry, which is now recovering nicely. (Even Chrysler, which paid back
its loans in full, made a nice profit this past year.)  What did W spend
our money on? Two unfunded wars and a senior drug program, with a huge hole
in it that Obamacare will wipe out.


These data make a nice addition to many of these states also leading in
Town Crier John Carlson's "socially destructive behaviors."


I say cut these slackers off!


Nick


Red State Welfare
Why the "Real America" should quit complaining about pork and earmarks.

Robert Herold <http://www.inlander.com/spokane/by-author-24-1.html>
10/10/10  The
Inlander

*When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent
* of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the
total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all
of it.

During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9
percent and public debt increased to 42 percent.

Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent had
risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had
actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1
percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9
percent.

In comes George W. Bush, and whoosh — so much for the trend line. Eight
years later, 55.9 percent had risen to a whopping 86.1 percent, the public
debt had risen to 54.6 percent … and then came the meltdown of the summer
and fall of 2008.

The spin at the Republican National Committee, when you bring all this up,
is “OK, we learned our lesson and won’t make the same mistakes again. This
time we mean business.”

You conservatives are calling for smaller government and apparently the
idea is winning you votes. So, OK, here’s an idea: How about a statute that
limits the amount of federal money going to states to the amount of taxes
paid out by residents of those same states? That would have the effect not
only of saving money, but making government smaller.



*Before you answer, consider*: America has its “productive states,” and,
well, all the rest. States that aren’t so, er … productive. The bad news
for you conservatives is that almost every one of the states on the public
dole is a red state — your states, the “Real America” states.

As a result, “Real Americans” are relying for their survival on the
godless, socialist, perversion-on-every-block blue states, such as — egads!
— California (which receives only 78 cents back for every dollar its
residents pay in) and New York (only 79 cents back on the every tax dollar
sent to Washington). And all the while, these liberal citizens have to put
up with nonstop rants directed at them by your cadre of mindless pundits.

As you might imagine, this arrangement isn’t going down well in Blueland.

You see, the 18 bluest-of-the-godless-blue states receive on average only
87 cents in federal tax dollars for every tax dollar paid. On the other
hand, the 18 reddest states average a tidy $1.37 for every dollar mailed
off to the IRS. Such a deal!

Let’s get specific: California, which we know is broke, subsidizes that
sanctimonious buckeroo state, Alaska ($1.84 on the dollar), and doesn’t get
so much as a howdy-doo for their trouble.

My guess? Even should you “conservatives” win back temporary control of the
Congress and finally face the reality of governing, when push comes to
shove you will resist any cuts to most of the so-called social safety net
(and related sources of federal largess). You pretty much have to because
if you don’t, what’s going to happen back home?

Indeed, if past is prologue, your new red state members of Congress will
use those same arcane Senate rules to keep the “good times” coming, while
voting against all social and economic policy proposals that smack of
“secular humanism” — you know, godless things, like energy legislation,
health care reform, Wall Street reform, regulation of Big Oil, Big Tobacco
and Big Agriculture, etc.



*Anyway, about my idea — I’m not holding my breath*. I doubt it would get
much support from Oklahoma ($1.41) or Mississippi ($2.02) or any of your
red states. So, OK, here’s another proposal that promises to be a whole lot
more fun anyway. Let’s each year require that your “Real America” states
send delegations out to creditor states to plead for continuance of this
hefty subsidization.

I have to tell you I’d buy a ticket to hear this testimony: “Hmm, Mr.
Foghorn, let me see if we have this straight … You have called for smaller
government, yet it seems you want all the ‘smallering’ coming at our
expense. By the way, did you actually say we were nothing but a haven for
transgender drug addicts, Muslim terrorists and former Weatherman radicals
still on the lam? Would you care to clarify your views?”

There are many reasons red states are debtor states: older populations,
limited “import replacement,” poorer residents, reliance on subsidies,
intractable social problems, more rural and small towns, weaker schools and
self-destructive traditions among them. They also have the highest divorce
rates, lowest life expectancy and lowest per capita revenue generated.

Surely you know all this. The numbers are dramatic. Of the 10 states
reporting the highest life expectancy, nine are blue. Of the 15 states
reporting the lowest life expectancy, all 15 are red. Of the 15 states with
the highest per capita income, 13 are blue. All 15 of the lowest income
generators are red. And so on.

Given the reality of the situation, frankly, I’m continually amazed that,
together with your Limbaugh and Fox News red state lemmings, you are out
bashing the federal government. Godless and liberal though it might be,
it’s all that stands between your red state constituents and “Brother, can
you spare a dime?”





* September 27, 2004*

*Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed*

*Monday, September 27, 2004*

The *Tax Foundation* <http://www.taxfoundation.org/> has released a
fascinating *report*<http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/taxingspendingupdate.html>
showing
which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which
states foot the bill.

[image: US 50 States Map]The report shows that of the 32 states (and the
District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal
spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted
for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the
most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here
are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States
highlighted in bold):


*States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid*
:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. *North Dakota* ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. *Mississippi* ($1.84)
5. *Alaska* ($1.82)
6. *West Virginia* ($1.74)
7. *Montana* ($1.64)
8. *Alabama* ($1.61)
9. *South Dakota* ($1.59)
10. *Arkansas* ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in
federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that
voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states
receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are
Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal
trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

*States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid
*:

1. *New Jersey* ($0.62)
2. *Connecticut* ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. *Illinois* ($0.77)
6. *Minnesota* ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. *Massachusetts* ($0.79)
9. *California* ($0.81)
10. *New York* ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in
the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for
each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120105/56af4ee1/attachment-0001.html>