At least one of the overall truths about the politics of red and blue states is rooted in a huge dose of hypocrisy.
If, as they generally claim, Republicans want the federal government to tax less, spend less and do less, a massive transfer of wealth and resources would flow from red (Republican-leaning) states to blue (Democratic-leaning) states.
Or, to put it more precisely, if the government taxed less and spent less, rich people and businesses predominantly in blue states would save a lot of money on their taxes, and poor people and businesses predominantly in red states would lose a lot of federal aid.
I rely for that paragraph on Paul Krugman’s latest column, which in turn relied on a just-released report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, which found that blue states pay significantly more than their per capita share into the federal treasury, and red states get significantly more than their share of the benefit of how those taxes are spent.
Why does that represent, as I said above, a huge dose of hypocrisy?
Republicans say they favor a smaller federal government, in line with general Republican fiscal philosophy, which favors both smaller government and greater respect for state autonomy or states’ rights.
Democrats are the ones always cheering on expansions of federal power and federal spending. Right? But residents of red states, as a group, get a whole lot more benefit of federal spending than do blue states.
The Rockefeller Institute’s deep dive into how the redistribution of resources via the federal budget affects each of the 50 states is full of interesting details. But the mega-finding, at least to my eyes, is that the big beneficiaries of this net transfer flows to red states (where more poor people live), while a significantly disproportionate share of the tax burden falls on blue states because that’s where more rich people live.
If, as Republicans generally say they want, Washington taxed less and spent less and allowed for more state-by-state autonomy, red states would lose, on net, gazillions in federal spending. And taxpayers in blue states would save, on net, gazillions in tax dollars.
Laura Schultz, executive director of research for the Rockefeller Institute, wrote up the results. The list of states that pay more than their pro-rata share into the federal treasury is overwhelmingly Democratic, that is to say blue. The list of states that benefit most per capita from federal spending is overwhelming red, that is to say, Republican, you know, the party that claims to favor lower taxes (perhaps especially on the rich) and less government spending in order to net more of what, in Republican rhetoric, is called freedom.
Over the past five years, the report finds, “New York taxpayers have given $142.6 billion more to the federal government than New York residents have received back in federal spending.” That’s the biggest gap of any state.
New York is a very blue state. It has given its electoral votes to the Democratic ticket in all of the nine the most recent presidential elections, including six of the last seven by more than 20 percentage points. In 2019, the last year covered by the Rockefeller report, New York received collectively $22.8 billion less in federal benefits than its taxpayers paid into the federal treasury. The rest of the list of top per capita tax-paying states is likewise dominated by blue states.
Very few blue states make the list of those receiving the most per capita benefits. (The exceptions are Maryland and Virginia, which are blue or blue-leaning states in federal elections, but which get many of those federal dollars because they surround the District of Columbia and contain many federal facilities that spend federal dollars, not because they have more poor people getting benefits.)
But, other than those exceptions, the rest of the list of biggest beneficiaries is dominated by red states. The biggest winner in receiving more in federal spending/benefits than it pays in federal taxes is Kentucky, a Republican-leaning state, which leads the list in that beneficiary category and is the home of the U.S. Senate’s Republican leader Mitch McConnell (which might have something to do with all the federal taxpayer dollars flowing into the Bluegrass State).
The list of the seven states that, according to this analysis, made out the worst by this measure, paying much more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits, are all blue states including our own Minnesota in fifth place. The top four: Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey. All blue states.
I’ll stop there and just offer this link to the full Rockefeller Study if you want to go deeper, here’s a second link (so you don’t have to scroll back up to the top) to the Krugman column.
And does anyone think that pointing out this hypocrisy is going to make the slightest bit of difference in any Republican rhetoric?
Of course not… but it should. Republicans should be hanging their collective heads in shame, for a variety of reasons, but “shame” is an emotional state foreign to modern Republicans in this context. Fox “News” anchor on-air and off-air comments regarding the January 6th attack on the Capitol are merely one of many applicable examples.
They have no shame, that’s what makes them so toxic.
Well it does blow more holes in their perpetual ‘more freedom’…’personal responsibility’…
‘smaller government’…talk balloons. Enough holes perhaps one day the balloons disappear?? Oh who am I kidding? The red state folks are inundated daily and by a wide variety of sources with REP propaganda. They swallow it whole without question. The rest of us choke on it:(
Speaking up & countering it is a ft job and a losing proposition. Yet we persist. Cuz I personally can’t go to my grave having done nothing. And…GA did vote in Biden, Warnock & Ossof last year! And despite all the newest gerrymandering & voter suppression efforts by Kemp & a REP-led legislature this year–which sb illegal–hopefully Stacy Abrams wb voted in as governor next year by the same dedicated DEM voters…plus a new inspired batch.
This disparity & hypocrisy are not new. While reasonable people should be able to have rational, factual discussions; it seems that pointing out this disparity triggers feelings of resentment among those who’s worldview conflicts with the facts.
And the corollary is, what would happen if Blue counties stopped paying for Red counties in Minnesota?
What would happen? Faster growth in the urban areas and increased prosperity. We’re throwing a lot of good money after shrinking returns in the rural areas.
We’d all move to Mpls. because it would get more State money? The school district gets more money…
Blue state elites have been mining, drilling, overgrazing, feedlot farming, ditching, dike-ing, land stealing, and in general looting Red States since General George Custer.
Blue states contribute more money because they have more money. Wonder how that happened.
Ah, anything to support those accusations or just ranting? It suggests that the rural areas where all this happens is also blue, is that why all of out state MN has red congressional representation?
How did the higher contributions happen, IMHO, they are more productive, invest more in their infrastructure, they are more innovative, they are more open minded, folks there care more about their neighbors, they are more highly educated, they provide more social services, they believe more in freedom and the constitution, just a starter sample.
I think that is called capitalism, right? Isn’t that supported by Republicans? Furthermore they don’t discriminate between red and blue states, hence lumber interests in OR and WA and mining in MN and MI and NM, and oil anywhere they can find it. I will grant you the biggest modern plunderers, of personal data, are from blue states. I would also say they are matched by the Waltons and Kochs based in red states.
You have it completely wrong. Its not that they pay more because they have more money. They pay more and get less. Blue states are subsidizing red states. Just like metro (blue) Minnesota subsidizes outstate (red) Minnesota.
And its not the blue states exploiting those red states. They are doing it to themselves.
Somehow I lost my comment. I’ll just say that no, the Red states aren’t “doing it” to themselves. It takes money to exploit resources. And it’s the big money from the big urban centers doing it. The dough isn’t coming from Polk County.
And as Mr. Phelan points out, it’s the red states that are screaming bloody murder at the idea of stopping the exploitation and despoiling of their states.
The inconvenient thing about the Renewable consumer society that looks more or less exactly like this society is, we have to burn all those resources to build the “renewable” one.
I have no idea what you’re getting at.
What’s new?
WHD…. You really seem to be quite confused regarding this subject. If/when we transition to renewable supplies we stop burning up the non-renewable ones… hence the term: “renewable”. You’re assumption that we can only make this transition to renewable after exhausting the non-renewables is your own error. Hence we do not have to burn up the non-renewables in order to transition to renewables.
Money is worthless until someone else wants it. (Note: this comment is meant to be in response to Ms. Wicklow’s comment about money being required to exploit resources, but for some reason it has been put on its own twice.)
Doing what to themselves? People in red states aren’t responsible for their own conditions? They don’t vote and elect Republicans? People in blue states force redness upon hapless Texans so we can exploit their resources and give them more federal dollars per capital? OK then.
Please point me to the evidence that all these hard working, salt of the earth types are only “allowing” the exploitation of their resources at the barrel of a gun. Sorry, small town raised here, those free loaders are BEGGING for the stuff you claim they don’t want. You’re simply being contrarian in an effort to appear clever, per usual.
I never said Red states are absolved of all responsibility. I said follow the money, which leads directly to Blue states.
What blue state does Florida’s money trace back to? And yeah, we know that red states are collecting more than they contribute, so the difference is made up by the blue states… what’s you point?
1. Blue state citizens pay more because they make more
2. They make more because their employers are cashing in on Red state resources
3. The whole idea Blue pays for Red sounds like a crock. Mr. Black cites partisan data generated by partisan sources resulting in… partisan conclusions. What a shock. We litigated this before on Minnpost comments, ad nauseum, regarding metro vs. outstate taxes/payments, and I’m not doing it again. Suffice to say, I still feel this is an elite vs. working class divide. Elites find themselves caring, wonderful, contributing, long-suffering, overpaying, benevolent, sainted. Of course they do.
Ms. Wicklow, I hate to tell you this but your own bias is preventing you from comprehending and processing this information and subject matter.
The fact that red states like Texas get more federal dollars per capita than blue states is an economic fact documented by the Congressional Budget Office and the US Office of Management and Budget every year, it’s part of the standard federal accounting regarding expenditures, this is the source of the article Eric is referencing, it’s not a partisan study.
Beyond that your making two more bias assumptions that are in error. First, blue states aren’t necessarily wealthier or more affluent, and the calculation here doesn’t suppose that they are. Texas and Florida have much larger economies and “wealth” than most blue states, they pay more federal taxes than New York and Massachusetts for instance. Wisconsin is pretty much equal to MN. Sure some red state like Mississippi, Kentucky, and West Virginia are the poorest States in the country, but that’s not because they’ve been impoverish by blue states.
Beyond the false assumption that red states like Texas and Arizona are poorer than blue states like Oregon or Massachusetts, for some reason you’ve decided that a state like Texas get more federal dollars per capita BECAUSE they put less federal dollars into the federal budget. In fact Texas is the second largest economy in the nation and puts more tax dollars into the budget than 47 or 48 of out of 50 other states.
This information is readily available to anyone who want’s to view it, you don’t need to rely on Eric or anyone else, you can look it up for yourself.
Those in Blue states have much higher incomes. That’s why they pay more. Your statement “blue states aren’t necessarily wealthier or more affluent” is not accurate. They most certainly are.
I’m honestly curious as to what you think the cause of that might be. I imagine it’s some variation on the conservative theme that but for the interference of some malicious “them”, in your case the ephemeral “elites”, everyone would be successful and prosperous. Conservatives insert “government” in that box. Of course what really drives the divide you observe is that human beings don’t generally wallow in despair, given another option, and those folks making higher incomes in blue states moved there due to fact such higher incomes were available, and that movement continually reinforces the trend. I hate to break it to you, but folks like me abandoning the decrepit and dying economies of the red and rural areas we were born doesn’t make us”elite”, nor does it make those who choose to remain any more or less noble, it simply is the way of the world, and has been long before you or I took up residence upon this sphere. It will remain so, long after we leave.
“I’m honestly curious as to what you think the cause of that might be.” –Greed.
So you suggest that folks leaving their small town environs, where they are mired in desperate poverty, with little hope of relief, are motivated solely by greed? That’s quite the worldview. Thankfully one that will limit its adherents to shouting admonitions from outside the windows of civil society for the foreseeable future, to be sure.
I wasn’t using the word in a pejorative sense.
It doesn’t have a non-pejorative sense.
Really? There’s no law against it. It drives a great deal of our economy. Those we most admire would fit nicely into the definition of greed.
Ok Gordon Gekko, its true, some people revere moral failings of all sorts, some don’t.
It made the Blue states rich.
Do you really think the rural areas have a dying economy? What is your basis of that assumption? As far as this argument goes, no state is truly red, or blue, they are all a mix. And the red-er states tend to be raw material suppliers (agriculture, mining, oil and gas, electricity, etc), the blue-er states tend to be finished goods and services providers (financial, manufacturing, refining, etc). You also need to consider where the government expenditures are going, Social Security (Florida is high on the list), Armed Forces bases (many in the more rural states) and government payrolls (Virginia). Lots of things skew this data that is not so simple as it appears. Again, the states with higher wages will be paying more direct taxes. The whole basis of this article is provocative clickbait anyway. States don’t decide what where their money goes, or where it comes from. So, there is no state vs state rivalry.
My basis is being from such an area, and having friends and relations that live there currently. YES their economies are dying, if not already dead, particularly those built on maintaining a small, family, farm economy that no longer exists.
I am from such an area too. Dying, no. But declining yes. Farms have gotten bigger, it takes less to support them. The boost has been the manufacturing jobs added. There are beacons of light in the rural areas, but certainly not everywhere. Every acre is still getting planted, agriculture is still the biggest contributor to the economy in Minnesota. Just because it has declined doesn’t mean that the need for services goes away.
You assume manufacturing is a good fit for every area. Take a drive through Western WI, from LaCrosse north and find me all these areas that are more than 5 miles from I-94. The “services” you cite, the Co-ops, the implement dealers, the local dairies, they’re consolidated at best, gone for years at worst. The big farms handle those things themselves, they don’t NEED anyone or anyplace else, and without their inputs, there is literally no other purpose for small town rural economies than tourism (if an area is even attractive for such) and providing basic services for an ever dwindling population. Are there exceptions, of course, but as a whole there isn’t any reason for most rural population centers to exist, outside of tradition and the stubbornness of the few who remain.
And what do you propose we do? Herd them small town folks into busses, or better yet, planes in the middle of the night and fly them to the big cities? Wait, that’s already being done at our southern border.
Well no, that would be silly. But rejecting their requests to subsidize their existence, cease allowing them to continue to hang on, well past the point where more sensible folks have seen the writing on the wall, by siphoning off funds from areas where there is actual productive purpose to society, would be a start. Kind of the point of the article in fact.
Again, its not about about making more. Its comparing what you pay in and what you get back. And there is no disputing that blue states subsidize red states, just as within Minnesota the Metro subsidizes the outstate. Liberals have to work extra hard so that their taxes can go to freeloading conservatives.
No Republicans in the Metro, or Representatives or Senators. Interesting theory.
Having lived in both & just for starters: blue states have stronger work ethics and believe in both early & higher education. So they draw successful companies in who pay highly qualified residents better salaries w great benefits (healthcare!) and room to continue to rise. They hold these companies accountable so they adhere to regulations so the air & water & ground aren’t horribly polluted. They run their state agencies better, esp child services and debts of health, etc. They have better public school systems and colleges. And on and on….. There are exceptions to every rule of course but by and large living in a blue state is a far better experience in a wide variety of ways!!
“They hold these companies accountable so they adhere to regulations so the air & water & ground aren’t horribly polluted. ”
That doesn’t explain MNPCA. That agency is like the girl with the bad reputation all the boys want to take to prom. Like the boys, corporations know the PCA can’t say “no”.
“blue states have stronger work ethics ”
Bet the farmers and ranchers would love to hear that. Have you ever watched Yellowstone?
In the real world, most farm/ranch acreage is owned and operated by large corporations.
“Today, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that at least 30 percent of American farmland is owned by non-operators who lease it out to farmers.” per The New Food Economy.
“The vast majority of farms and ranches in the United States are family owned and operated.” per the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
I think that you are mistaken. Feel free to provide cites for your position.
Are you of the impression that “family” owned operations cannot be incorporated? What do you think Wal-Mart was for the majority of it’s history?
How about the farms? Cites please.
Uh, any farm with the LLC or Inc. in the title? Would you like me to get a phone book or something?
Am I correct in assuming that you oppose the Twin Metals and Polymet projects? That’s not Blue urban elites plundering rural wealth, it’s foreigners doing it!
Yes, I absolutely oppose those projects. And yes, multinationals are behind them, with blue state approval.
Well then, you best high tail it up there and convince all those red voters that us elitists are trying to pull one over on them. Because your argument is not with us.
It’s with you. And them.
Yeah, while blue states do all that mining and grazing and drilling, Texas just sits there being eco-friendly and sustainable. It’s an outrage.
this is why Democrats should stop the hystrionics and virtue signalling and get behind restoring the SALT deduction to the pre 2017 state, which had been in place as long as the federal tax code. The changes in 2017 was a naked attempt to further exaggerate this discrepancy as “blue state” taxes went up for many in 2017 while “red state” taxes fell across the board.
Everyone should pay their –proportionate– share, including the wealthy and the corporations. We miss on on vast amounts of revenue (the county’s ‘income’) by not getting a proportionately larger amt from the well off. Plus they transfer wealth, write it off, hide it off shore…or like Trump rob Peter to pay Paul in ever moving shell games. The wealthiest in this country used to pay about 90%. Now its closer to 9%. Who on here pays that little?? Most prob average about 26%.
Kentucky, huh? The place from which congresscritters vow to never help anyone else, and yet we all know we’re going to help them after the tornado disaster. Honestly, we shouldn’t. I’m very sorry to those who didn’t elect the Twin Destroyers of Democracy, but it might be time to make it very, very clear that elections have consequences. Maybe y’all should convince your fellow Kentuckians (I have no idea what they’re called) that they should stop biting the blue hands that feed them.
This follows right in line with income. Why is this a surprise? Most of the federal gov’t is funded by income taxes. Individual people pay income taxes, blue states or red states do not. So what is the point of bringing this up?
What are you even talking about? People in red states pay the same rate of federal income taxes as people in blue states. State income tax has nothing to do with this. Blue states subsidize red states. Just like in Minnesota where the blue parts subsidize the red parts.
“Individual people pay income taxes, blue states or red states do not.”
Can we apply that reasoning to voting? Individuals vote for President, states do not.
The grouping by state is an interesting statistical tool. Where does federal money go? Answer: To individuals (mostly) who live in states with elected officials who den ounce federal spending as waste.
A cursory look as to the locations of U.S. military installations and you’ll see why “money flows” out of Washington into Red states. It goes to pay the wages and capital expenditures of the U.S. military and other related federal bureaucrats. For example, there is ONE military base in Minnesota. There are NINE in Florida and THIRTEEN in Texas. Think about that the next time you get into a hypothetical discussion about the next civil war.
Why would the location of military basis have any impact on a hypothetical civil war? Putting aside the fact that polling showed most service members preferred Biden to Trump, I am not sure why you would equate even conservative servicemembers with sedition. The un-American pretend military groups like the Oath Keepers who were involved in the capitol insurrection don’t have anything to do with the actual military.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054024084/capitol-riot-suspects-had-more-ties-to-oath-keepers-than-previously-known
Here you go, as they say read and weep or read and celebrate. Last check Wallet hub doesn’t have much of any political affiliation, but suspect some folks will say otherwise.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
Wallet Hub edu?
The economist Paul Krugman (see today’s NYTimes) quotes the Rockefeller Institute on Federal spending:
“In Virginia and Maryland a lot of federal spending consists of the salaries of government workers. Elsewhere, however, it’s mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, plus some military spending.”
“Topping the list of net beneficiaries was, yes, Kentucky”
Oh no, not that, anything but that. Next you’ll tell me to quit stereotyping you military types, right? Spare me the histrionics, and accept that in such a scenario, the red states would devolve into internecine anarchy, with the residents killing each other for what scant resources remain, LONG before they could think to threaten the rest of us. Looking out for ol’ #1, it’s what conservatives DO.
Most of the military budget goes to the private sector, not military bases. Hundreds of billions of dollars of military hardware might be based in Pearl Harbor, for example, but the money went to General Electric, Boeing, Electric Boat, etc.
Wikipedia has a very extensive article on federal tax collections and spending by state. If you want to understand the topic rather offer simplistic descriptions, I recommend reading that and other sources. I’m pulling a couple paragraphs, shown below:
History of federal monitoring of taxation and spending by state
The monitoring of federal spending and taxation and its variation between states in the United States began in 1977 under a query run by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democratic senator of New York. The query was designed to determine whether the state of New York was paying more in taxes than it was receiving in federal spending. The determination is made by looking at an individual state’s balance of payments (BOP), which is total income minus outlays.
Initially, many thought New York was a net gainer, receiving more funding than it was paying out in taxes, because of large payments to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, but in actuality, those payments were interest payments on the United States federal debt, which were distributed to foreign individuals and governments for purchasing of US Treasury bonds (Leonard and Walder, Page 9). After separating those expenditures from actual expenditures in New York, it was found that the state was actually a donor. This event stimulated more controversy over the topic of spending and taxation.
After the Federal Community Services Administration noticed the flaw in the balance of payments in New York, it revised its data and provided the revised data under the title The Geographical Distribution of Federal Expenditures, which was used in determining the expenditures for this analysis. This is now entitled “the Fisc”.
Politics and controversy of unequal contributions by states to the federal budget
The US Constitution requires that direct taxes be apportioned to the states according to their population, so that per capita revenues from the states would be equal. Indirect taxes do not have this restriction. After a US Supreme Court case held that an income tax on income derived from property was in the same category as a direct tax on property, the 16th amendment was passed to allow indirect taxation on income in proportion to their income, from what ever source.[4] Since that time, taxation as well as spending per capita has ranged widely between the states. (See table below). At the same time, one of the great controversies of national politics has become whether to increase or decrease federal spending and the size of the federal government, with Republicans largely in favor of decreasing its size and Democrats pushing to keep it the same or increase it.[5]
Several commentators have pointed out that the states that benefit the most by federal spending are the very states whose populations tend to vote for leaders who promise to reduce federal spending, while those that benefit the least from large government vote for politicians who promise to make it even larger at their expense. In other words, Democratic-leaning states tend to be net contributors to the federal budget while Republican-leaning states are more often net recipients of federal spending. Various explanations for this seemingly contradictory situation exist.[6][7][8]
The biggest driver of expenditures is social security and Medicare to retirees. Money these folks have contributed all their lives. You would take it away from since they have left a high tax cold state for a warmer lower tax state?
Compassion of the left on full display
Just FYI, multiple studies over the years show that the vast majority of retirees spend their contributions to Social Security in the first 3 years of retirement. After that, they’re spending money contributed by someone else, probably someone who’s still working. To the degree that it’s for tax reasons, and not just to stay warm, the philosophy behind an elderly retiree moving to a lower-tax state is essentially “Screw you. I’ve got mine,” which is not exactly a “love your neighbor” sentiment.
But thank you for recognizing that the people on the political left are far, far more likely to show some concern for their fellow-citizens than the current libertarian “You’re on your own” thinking of this generation of people who like to call themselves “conservative.”
“But thank you for recognizing that the people on the political left are far, far more likely to show some concern for their fellow-citizens than the current libertarian “You’re on your own” thinking of this generation of people who like to call themselves “conservative.””
Dude! This whole thread is leftists saying that we should cut the Red states and counties off at the knees!
Nobody moves to Kentucky to retire.
Considering there’s a whole wing of bluegrass dedicated to folks from Kentucky working themselves to death mining coal, it’s safe to say no one RETIRES in Kentucky, full stop.
Everyone retires. Some people retire the day they assume room temperature.
I would say that’s a problem of semantics.
Put in a banjo solo, and that line takes you half-way to a ballad.
“The states with the highest rates of disabled beneficiaries—7 percent or more—were Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, and West Virginia.”
Social Security Disability is difficult to get in some states, easier in others.
Dude, the “left” invented and created Social Security, and we want to expand Medicare to everyone. We’re not the ones trying to privatize and dismantle this stuff. Sure, that’s our compassion on display.
Just “Paying Their Fair Share”. The system is rigged. So sad.
Well, West Virginia has been destroyed and polluted to feed the East Coast energy markets.
I supposed too the Red States could not send their energy products to Blue States?
Does anyone here believe in the Union?
Dude, the entire state of West Virginia is mad as hell that the libs want to stop coal mining. It’s not like the Blue states are forcing them to continue to level their own mountains.
Look to the north her in MN. They want us to allow them to open sulfide mining, and those of us who don’t want their water to be polluted are mocked and ridiculed.
They were leaveling mountains in West Virginia for many decades before liberals decided coal is a bad thing. And guaranteed not everyone in WV is happy about the valleys filled or the water polluted. Same with northern mn.
And of course I’m just pointing out, the Rockefeller study likely does not consider the resources mined, logged or harvested from Red States sent to Blue States.
So again, the Union?
Dude, to whatever extent WV has been devastated that was done to enrich WV mine owners who export their coal to whomever will buy it. This is capitalism, not colonial exploitation of the red states by the blue states.
Well, anything from Paul Krugman won’t have a slant. And the Rockefeller Institute of Government looks into pot and gun violence issues so I’m skeptical of their “non-partisan” status, kind of like NPR. Instead of looking at all issues from a political viewpoint, what if we noticed that Federal money moves from the West Coast inward, and from the Northeast Coast inward. The center of the country could provide shelter to millions except for the thousands of acres taken up providing food for the world. North Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Texas could be richer if the Federal government quit keeping the oil and gas industry down. States having major ocean ports seem to have money but if a state doesn’t have an ocean nearby is that a character fault? We could be a country where the rich keep their money and the poor suffer, but then maybe we’d have to change our name. Wait a minute, I thought that taking from the rich and giving to the poor was the leftist motto. Why doesn’t it apply in this instance?
“And the Rockefeller Institute of Government looks into pot and gun violence issues so I’m skeptical of their “non-partisan” status, kind of like NPR.”
Because no one but a leftist would be concerned about gun violence, or marijuana?
Tell me, what should a truly non-partisan research institute be looking into?
Crime, and who commits it? Education and why so many don’t seem to receive a quality one? Children born into families that can’t afford them? Performance of government?
Have you ever been in a social setting where one person insists that the conversation revolve around what they happened to be interested in? We all have, and I think we all know how we regard those people.
Everything you mentioned is, arguably, worthy of study (although I detect more than a hint of the already-arrived at conclusion in the way you frame them). Does that mean there are no other issues worthy of study, even if you’re not interested?
Nope. Just tried to answer your question.
Gratefully, I have not been involved in such a conversation as you described.
I am way more concerned with folks from Blue states flooding Red states and bringing their politics with them. Nothing better than chatting with a couple who just moved into the neighborhood (down here in a bright Red state) from New York, Minnesota, California or any other Blue state and the reason they left was taxes, safety and general demise of their previous state. I always ask them if they are going to vote for the state you just moved into values or the state you just left values? Interesting feedback.
I imagine you don’t speak much with the neighbors after that. Nothing worse than a loudmouth interjecting politics into every conversation, strange that they always seem to be conservative…
“I am way more concerned with folks from Blue states flooding Red states and bringing their politics with them.”
Yes, the “conservative” dedication to preserving their “purity” has been noted. Problem is you live in a free country where people are allowed to live where they want not just where you want to put them. Unless of course authoritarians take over and put an end to all of that.
Perhaps we can begin this conversation in earnest by dispensing with the phrase “big government” and similar labels that distract us from the real issues. (These would include “socialism”.)
When we do that and ask people whether they support specific tax-funded efforts we get a surprising degree of agreement. One of the most notable examples of this was seen in the effort to repeal the ACA. The simple fact was that most Americans wanted most of its features. The least popular, the personal mandate, affected a relatively small percentage of the population and was used by certain politicians as a call to arms against a necessary component of the program.
Along with this, we need to disabuse ourselves of the idea that unless the Constitution specifically authorizes an action or a program it is invalid. The document is more a road map than a detailed description of a route to be taken. Congress is given broad powers in a great many areas, powers that have been called upon more often as the nation had evolved from a federation of largely agricultural interests into a major hub of international trade and movement never specifically anticipated by those who negotiated its terms, including its ambiguities, two centuries ago.
We, as a nation, are largely free to craft whatever programs we wish through our congressional representatives, providing only that we do not significantly impair any of the rights and privileges reserved to the people or the states. We were intended to become a nation. We should learn to act like one.
If Republican economics worked as described then shouldn’t Mississippi and Alabama be the economic engines of our nation and shouldn’t New York and California be the states with their hands out? Odd that it’s the reverse.
What do you do with people who simply cannot be taken seriously?
The disproportionate red state reliance on federal funding is nothing new, it’s been an economic fact for decades. And with the exceptions of Texas and Florida the fact that red states are the poorest states has also been a fact for decades.
So the fact-challenged among us who simply cannot abide their own dependence on tax revenues manufacture a narrative of victimhood to explain their own dependence on welfare? They’ve been forced into relying on so much more federal spending by liberals who exploit their resources? Not only is this factually and historically daft, but it’s more than a little comical coming from a group that’s been whining about the liberal culture of “victimhood” for decades. Suddenly they embrace their own victimhood at the hands of dastardly liberal States when just a few short months ago they were bragging about their patriotic independence and superior strength! The champions of parasitic capitalism are not the victims of said capitalism and the economics of extraction and exploitation they’ve been promoting for decades have now enslaved them?
OK then.
This whole argument of state vs state is irrelevant. There is no mechanism to track commerce from state to state. Many of the red states are producers of raw products (oil, nat gas, agricultural, mining, metals, etc) and many of the blue states refine and value add to those raw products. In most cases, the bigger corporations in the blue states have control over what is paid for the raw products. The loaf of bread has a few cents worth of wheat, and $3 worth of value add in refining the flour, shipping, baking, packaging, etc. The loaf of bread doesn’t exist without the wheat, yet the raw product is just a tiny fraction of the end value. One doesn’t exist without the other. Simply looking at taxes and govt expenditures do not tell the whole picture.