Givers and Takers

New York Times ^ | 31 January 2004 | Daniel Pink

[tdunbar]

Juxtaposing these maps provides a new perspective on the political landscape. (Interactive moment: Color in the blue and red states — then you'll get the full picture.) Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party — their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states — the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers — are left to carry the load.

For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution — and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It's shrewd politics.

And it puts the eventual Democratic presidential nominee in a bind, should he try to rally those who believe they aren't getting a fair shake from Washington. If the Democratic candidate won all 16 Giver states plus the District of Columbia in November, he'd collect only 254 electoral votes, short of the majority needed to capture the White House. The electoral votes of all the Taker states, by contrast, add up to 273 — two more than Mr. Bush won in 2000.

Is there a way out for Democrats? Maybe not. With Republicans holding the purse strings, it's the Democrats who are being taken.

[2banana]

I'll make a deal with democrats, I will stop paying taxes and I will not take any handouts by the government. By the logic of this article, the US government should readily agree with this deal. Of course, this article only looks at states, if you broke it down by counties, it would clearly show republican counties supporting (with big tax money flowing) the democrat counties of any state.

[yoswif]

People in Idaho get mean, vicious, hate-filled government bureaucrats destroying our local environment and economy with their "more trees we burn, more green we earn" forest management operations while people in New York City get free food, housing, and medical care. I can see why people in New York City would think that's fair.

[CSM]

Something seems horribly wrong with the article. I can't put my finger on it, but somewhere a huge twisting of facts has given the author some ability to use a false logic.

[KantianBurke]

Actually there's some truth to the article. During the Lazio campaign for Senate one of the rationales he put forth to vote for him was that NY was getting back something around 75 cents on the dollars that they sent to the IRS. And then there's state's like Wyoming who, since it has so few people, its almost inevitable that they recieve more benies.

[beckysueb]

Is this guy calling people welfare bums? He must be one mad liberal. LOL

[Winston Smith Jr.]

Is spending on military bases and weapon-building counted? That's not any kind of "charity" to the states.

[Alberta's Child]

The author's basic premise is correct, but he neglected to point out two very important facts:

1. The difference between the "giver" and the "taker" states is a function of two basic factors: A) The disproportionate number of military facilities in the "taker" states (and lack thereof in the "giver" states); and B) our multi-tiered income tax system, in which many middle-class people in many "giver" states are in high tax brackets simply because the cost of living is so much higher there.

2. The "giver" states that he describes have nobody to blame but themselves, because these states consistently elect representatives in Congress who are adamantly opposed to the most effective means of making the "Giver vs. Taker" situation more equitable -- a compression of the tax brackets (ultimately to the point where we have a flat income tax rate) through a reduction in the top tax rates and an increase in the lower-bracket tax rates.

[wizardoz]

Well, there aren't any *facts* in the excerpt, just vague statements about "largesse". There may be some stats in the full article (doubt it) but I'm not signing up for NYT to get it. If someone posts the whole thing, we'll see. Otherwise...

[CSM]

Thanks. You hit the nail on the head pointing out the fallacy in the claim. I guess I need more coffee to turn the brain on.

[Alberta's Child]

With regard to my second point -- the advantage for "giver" states of reducing the top income tax rates is precisely what motivates even a corrupt, hard-core Marxist like Senator Bob Torricelli of New Jersey to support President Bush's 2001 tax-cut package. He took a lot of sh!t for it from the lilberal media in New Jersey, but he was no fool -- New Jersey is one of the worst "giver" states in the U.S., with a return of something like 62 cents for every dollar they pay in Federal income taxes.