Replies

I'm amazed there were not 57 labratories identified given that Barry thinks there are that many od 'em. In any event...this article is interesting, and my interest in the topic sprang up do to a debate I'm having with a progessive who posed the exact question the Reason article asks. First, is it true? It seems to be on the surface of things. Can red states justify this without compromising conservative values? The Reason article does seem to be able to intelligently explain the why of it in theory. My problem and question to my fellow Freepers is this: How can we stop this spending trend and reverse it? If federal spending is to be contained...it will have to be as contained with red state spending as it will with blue state spending. Should we give up or reduce farm subsidies? Reduce the number of military bases? Transfer funding of maintenance and repair on interstate highways to the States? There is little doubt that for border states illegal immigration and smuggling are huge problems that demand federal dollars be spent. Your thoughts?

The explanation for this is very straightforward. About 2/3 of all federal income tax is paid by the top 10% in household income. Nearly all of these households are two-income professional couples living in liberal states like NY and California. They mostly vote for the Dems, and set the political tone in their states.

It is these couples who vote against their financial interest, up to a point. If they tried to raise taxes on the $150-400K band substantially, however, there would be pushback.

I don't get a readable article at the link. It's all redacted, maybe because I'm not a subscriber. But from what I see in your comment, I don't understand classifying military bases or highway maintenance as a subsidy.

I have a friend who farms in eastern Washington and actually campaigned against subsidies in the last election. He explained that it is a program out of control and the way it exists now causes everyone to take the benefits because they would not be able to compete without them. The only way to stop it to kill it all in one blow.

Curbing military bases may be a laudable goal. However, if it compromises our national defense, then the answer is no. Defense spending as a percent of the overall budget is approaching pre-ww II levels which IMO is not good. I agree about farm subsidies. The federal government should not be in the business of giving out farm subsidies just like any other subsidy. As for federal highways, well that’s one I would have to see some more debate on. I would say that the federal government does have a role in interstate highways.

All of this is small potatoes in the overall budget. The big piece of the budget is medicaid, medicare and social security. Until we tackle these three big issues, we won’t get anywhere with getting our budget under control.

I may be wrong...but I seem to recall that, a decade or so back, the MSM had the Dems. as RED and the GOP as BLUE on their maps. I guess the use of red for the Communists was hitting too close to home.

If I’m recalling this incorrectly...never mind and go about your business.

Welcome to the United Soviet States of America..where the Pravda State Media “vet” the candidates to the pleasure and needs of the RinoCrat UniParty.

This “election” will be a non-election...featuring the state approved “candidates”-whose only distinction is whether they are black or white.

The “two-PARTEY” system merely means that the R & D in DC gang up on Flyover Country....and laugh all the way to the bank as they do so

>> I’m amazed there were not 57 labratories identified given that Barry thinks there are that many od ‘em <<

Actually, there are only 56 laboratories, not 57. They are as follow:

1-50: The fifty states

51. Puerto Rico

52. Guam

53. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariannas

54. American Somoa

55. U. S. Virgin Islands

56. District of Columbia.

Laboratories one and all! Moreover all hold Democratic primaries, and all send voting delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Now what about the 57th? Unlike the 56 above, it’s not a piece of U. S. territory. And it’s by no stretch of imagination a “laboratory.” Rather, it’s a voting jurisdiction recognized by the Democratic Party and called “Democrats Abroad.” Its rationale is to represent U. S. Democratic voters living in something like 200 foreign countries.

This 57th jurisdiction holds its own Democratic primary and — just like the other 56 jurisdictions — it sends delegates to the Democratic National Convention. For example, it sent 14 in 2008. (Dunno how many they’ll have this year.)

The basic error in this article is the assumption that for each individual state, federal spending should be equal to federal income from that state.

If that were the case, then what would be the point of sending that money to the federal government in the first place? I'm sure it would be more efficient to just keep that money in the state.

The second problem is that with a federal deficit of about 20-25%, more money is spent than is taken in. By necessity then, some (or even ALL) states will get more than they pay in.

This statistical fluke is in large part attributable to 20 or 30 zip codes in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California where a concentration of stupendously wealthy individuals pays a stupendous amount of tax. When a Democrat moans about blue states paying and red states collecting, I remind them of this and say “Surely you are not saying progressive income taxation is bad?”. That usually shuts them up.

Also worth noting is that lots of people earn their money and pay taxes in the North, then retire and collect their Medicare and Soc Security in Florida and Arizona. I fail to see how this is unfair to anyone in any state.

Finally, keep in mind that spending in flyover country benefits the country as a whole more than spending in the big cities. City dwellers benefit from having subsidized agricultural products watered by federal dams and irrigation systems, brought to market on interstate highways, and from military protection based in the heartland. Folks out in the sticks get essentially no benefit from the Big Dig or new housing projects in the big cities built with Federal money.