Replies

Item: "Blue" America is financially bankrupt, and California is a glaring example.

This is, from my understanding, a counter-illustration. California sends more money to the federal government than it gets back - a trait shared by many of the "blue" states. The heartland states - the "red" ones - tend to be the opposite, getting more from the federal government than they send in. In effect, California is running a deficit in order to support the heartland.

There was a big analysis recently - it was on the web, but I can't find it at the moment - but it showed that per capita income, and money sent in taxes, was higher in the coastal (blue) states. This could be an example of liberals practicing what they preach, perhaps. Still, it is interesting that the more liberal states, the ones we like to make fun of, tend to also generate more money.

It makes the picture slightly more complex than you presented above.

Drew Garrett

California sends more money to the federal government than it gets back -..... The heartland states - the "red" ones - tend to be the opposite, getting more from the federal government than they send in. In effect, California is running a deficit in order to support the heartland.

This is true. California gets back from the feds 72 cents of every dollar sent to D.C.

Common fantasy and dead wrong. In 2001, Massachusetts Liberals had placed on the MA state Income Tax form a line allowing any taxpayer to voluntarily pay more taxes than he owed. The Liberals were SURE that the huge surge in extra giving would show that most people believe the pernicious Liberal lie that they are undertaxed and wish to pay far more for the general good.

When the results were tallied, the Boston Globe went full-bore to suppress the outcome. A total of .04% of MA taxpayers voluntarily paid more taxes than they owed. I'll bet not one overpayer was a Liberal. Liberals insist upon OTHER people paying more, never themselves. Right now the Liberals are consumed with stopping the placement of wind electrical generators in Nantucket Sound. You see, Liberals insist that OTHER PEOPLE put up with "alternative energy resources," but, oh, no! Not Kennedys or Cronkites, who would actually have to LOOK at these unsightly towers fromm their ocean-going yachts...

Still, it is interesting that the more liberal states, the ones we like to make fun of, tend to also generate more money.

Could be because those areas (esp. on a county-by-county basis) tend to be more densely populated, i.e. cities and other heavily developed areas, than the areas that voted for GWB in 2000. More people=more money in a raw sense. Why do those urban areas tend to be more liberal? Simply put, they're denser, and rely more on government regulations & services.

It makes the picture slightly more complex than you presented above.

< sarcasm > Fool! You think this isn't necessarily a black-and-white issue? You must be a Communist or DU disruptor or something!< /sarcasm>

Snidely

Still, it is interesting that the more liberal states, the ones we like to make fun of, tend to also generate more money.

I would think that a large part of this effect is due to each state having two Senators. The Blue States tend to be high density and high population. The North Dakota's have hardly any population, but two Senators who can help steer largesse to their States.

Agriculture spending is a prime example.

California sends more money to the federal government than it gets back - a trait shared by many of the "blue" states. The heartland states - the "red" ones - tend to be the opposite, getting more from the federal government than they send in. In effect, California is running a deficit in order to support the heartland.

Another view is that the Blue counties (forget the states) are all coastal ports/industrial centers or the Mississippi River (think barge traffic). So, it isn't unreasonable to expect the big revenue generators to be located near the ports. The heartland is either the farmland that feeds the rest of the country or remote protected national parkland.

-PJ

In effect, California is running a deficit in order to support the heartland.

For 50 years it was the other way around. CA's economy and infrastructure was built on federal government spending. It is not really the fault of the federal government that CA doesn't manufacture much of anything anymore. The governement has needs and puts out competitive bids for goods and services in an unbiased manner.

The things that the government needs consist of durable goods like trucks, planes, steel, and such. CA has taxed and regulated themselves into a position where they are uncompetitive in almost every area of durable goods manufacturing. Energy intensive industries such as wafer manufacturing are increasing manufactured overseas or in the heartland because CA halted power plant construction.

When it comes to social spending CA recieves a lions share of the funds. However this produces nothing of lasting value and only increases the demand for more social spending. The demand for fruits and nuts is an internal economy of CA and I see no reason why the producing states should be forced to pay for it.