Replies

This guy may not know his head from his hindquarters when it comes to tax policy, but frankly, I'm glad someone has the guts to point out how Americans in profitable industries are subisdizing unprofitable farmers while those welfare queens claim moral superiority for spending all day in the fields (on our tab). Politicians of both parties are to blame for this mess.

Krugman's comparison of "social indicators" is very misleading. Per-capita rates for almost anything will be lower in the "blue" states than the "red" states simply because the "blue" states are more urbanized (which means they enjoy more police protection, more hospitals, etc.).

He can quote all the statistics he wants. What I do know is that if my car breaks down in New Jersey I will have about 2.2 million people driving past me complaining about the inconvenience. If I break down in Montana the third guy to drive up the road would stop to help me out, and he'd apologize for the other two.

Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America's rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.

You would think that these states would support tax cutting, spending cutting, reduce the size of government fiscal conservatives, but sadly the opposite is true.

It's also worth noting that this large-scale subsidization of rural America by their Northeastern counterparts was one of the main themes of FDR's "New Deal." Maybe Democrats will end their idiotic love affair with FDR once they realize that Republican states are the primary beneficiaries of this policy.

One thing that is clear is that we Northeasterners tend to be a fairly ignorant lot. The same people who would complain to high heaven if the price of a loaf of bread rose from $1.50 to $2.50 would gladly pay $1 in wheat subsidies just to keep the price at $1.50.

Krugman could have made the comparison even more stark if he concentrated just on southern states, rather than including the more sparsely populated rural midwestern states. Since his focus was on farm subsidies, it muddled the stark contrast between regions like the south and the northern coastal states in particular:

Let's Ditch Dixie - Slate Mag March 14, 2001

More people live below the poverty line in the old Confederacy than in the Northeast and Midwest combined. You are three times more likely to be murdered in parts of Dixie than anywhere in New England, despite a feverish devotion to "law-and-order" that has made eight Southern states home to 90 percent of all recent U.S. executions. The South has the highest infant-mortality rate and the highest incidences of sexually transmitted diseases, while it lags behind the rest of the country in terms of test scores and opportunities for women. The Confederate states rail against the tyranny of big government, yet they are the largest recipients of federal tax dollars. They steal business away from the North the same way that developing countries worldwide have always attracted foreign direct investment: through low wages and anti-union laws.

On the topic of divorce, the new england states of Massachusetts and Connecticut have the lowest divorce rates. THe highest divorce rates outside of Nevada are found in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennesee. Since these are not "depopulated" states of the Great Plains, like Wyoming or Montana, it's not just a statistical blip.