Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Red State Welfare

Why the "Real America" should quit complaining about pork and earmarks.

Robert Herold

When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all of it.

During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9 percent and public debt increased to 42 percent.

Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.

In comes George W. Bush, and whoosh — so much for the trend line. Eight years later, 55.9 percent had risen to a whopping 86.1 percent, the public debt had risen to 54.6 percent … and then came the meltdown of the summer and fall of 2008.

The spin at the Republican National Committee, when you bring all this up, is “OK, we learned our lesson and won’t make the same mistakes again. This time we mean business.”

You conservatives are calling for smaller government and apparently the idea is winning you votes. So, OK, here’s an idea: How about a statute that limits the amount of federal money going to states to the amount of taxes paid out by residents of those same states? That would have the effect not only of saving money, but making government smaller.


Before you answer, consider: America has its “productive states,” and, well, all the rest. States that aren’t so, er … productive. The bad news for you conservatives is that almost every one of the states on the public dole is a red state — your states, the “Real America” states.

As a result, “Real Americans” are relying for their survival on the godless, socialist, perversion-on-every-block blue states, such as — egads! — California (which receives only 78 cents back for every dollar its residents pay in) and New York (only 79 cents back on the every tax dollar sent to Washington). And all the while, these liberal citizens have to put up with nonstop rants directed at them by your cadre of mindless pundits.

As you might imagine, this arrangement isn’t going down well in Blueland.

You see, the 18 bluest-of-the-godless-blue states receive on average only 87 cents in federal tax dollars for every tax dollar paid. On the other hand, the 18 reddest states average a tidy $1.37 for every dollar mailed off to the IRS. Such a deal!

Let’s get specific: California, which we know is broke, subsidizes that sanctimonious buckeroo state, Alaska ($1.84 on the dollar), and doesn’t get so much as a howdy-doo for their trouble.

My guess? Even should you “conservatives” win back temporary control of the Congress and finally face the reality of governing, when push comes to shove you will resist any cuts to most of the so-called social safety net (and related sources of federal largess). You pretty much have to because if you don’t, what’s going to happen back home?

Indeed, if past is prologue, your new red state members of Congress will use those same arcane Senate rules to keep the “good times” coming, while voting against all social and economic policy proposals that smack of “secular humanism” — you know, godless things, like energy legislation, health care reform, Wall Street reform, regulation of Big Oil, Big Tobacco and Big Agriculture, etc.   


Anyway, about my idea — I’m not holding my breath. I doubt it would get much support from Oklahoma ($1.41) or Mississippi ($2.02) or any of your red states. So, OK, here’s another proposal that promises to be a whole lot more fun anyway. Let’s each year require that your “Real America” states send delegations out to creditor states to plead for continuance of this hefty subsidization.

I have to tell you I’d buy a ticket to hear this testimony: “Hmm, Mr. Foghorn, let me see if we have this straight … You have called for smaller government, yet it seems you want all the ‘smallering’ coming at our expense. By the way, did you actually say we were nothing but a haven for transgender drug addicts, Muslim terrorists and former Weatherman radicals still on the lam? Would you care to clarify your views?”

There are many reasons red states are debtor states: older populations, limited “import replacement,” poorer residents, reliance on subsidies, intractable social problems, more rural and small towns, weaker schools and self-destructive traditions among them. They also have the highest divorce rates, lowest life expectancy and lowest per capita revenue generated.  

Surely you know all this. The numbers are dramatic. Of the 10 states reporting the highest life expectancy, nine are blue. Of the 15 states reporting the lowest life expectancy, all 15 are red. Of the 15 states with the highest per capita income, 13 are blue. All 15 of the lowest income generators are red. And so on.

Given the reality of the situation, frankly, I’m continually amazed that, together with your Limbaugh and Fox News red state lemmings, you are out bashing the federal government. Godless and liberal though it might be, it’s all that stands between your red state constituents and “Brother, can you spare a dime?” 

Also in Commentary

The Loyal Opposition

Taking the debate to Cathy McMorris Rodgers and her cutting crew is fair game.

Robert Herold |
Wednesday, May 16,2012

Trail Mix 05.17.12

Does the president have any control over job growth?

Ted S. McGregor Jr. |
Wednesday, May 16,2012

Please, Please Dream

Excerpts from Gonzaga University’s 125th commencement address.

Bishop Desmond Tutu |
Wednesday, May 16,2012

Flights of “Conspiracy”

Why did the Coeur d'Alene Press give nearly 3,000 words to a three-part op-ed series about 'chemtrail' conspiracies?

Daniel Walters |
Wednesday, May 16,2012

Rehab Candidate

America's fallen and it won't get up without enacting five surgical reforms.

George Nethercutt |
Wednesday, May 9,2012

Also By Robert Herold

Bring Back The Racks

Robert Herold |
Thursday, January 9,2003
Commentary

Roaring Back

Conservatives are hoping history repeats itself. Robber barons, ho!

Robert Herold |
Wednesday, September 15,2010

From Brahms to "A-Punk"

Forget the BBC’s Desert Island Discs. Let’s have Spokane Symphony musicians pick their favorites in Palouse Valley Playbacks

Robert Herold |
Wednesday, January 20,2010

Learning from 9/11

Robert Herold |
Thursday, April 8,2004
Commentary

Leaking Laissez Faire

“Strong government” requires clear mandates and authority to carry out those mandates.

Robert Herold |
Wednesday, May 19,2010


I´m not surprised at all. Pitiful, poor excuses of human life... Oct 22, 2010 | Reply to this comment

 

Mr. Herold, I´m a blue stater and i honestly feel that we blue states should´ve seceded back in 2004. It was the right idea at the right time, but we wussed out. However, your perception is one of pure propaganda. In a recession, EVERY state is a welfare state. The blue states, unfortunately, are worse off than the red states right now. The red states may get more federal money, but they spend more of their share creating jobs. That´s one of the main reasons red states have lower unemployment than the blue states, which are now on the verge of collapse. That and the fact that the red states have far fewer illegal immigrants. If the red states seceded, we blue states would be stuck with even higher unemployment, higher taxes, more poverty, more illegal immigrants, huge populations for which we do not have enough farmland to feed and much more debt as a result.

No, Mr. Herold, the blue states are hurting too. We could´ve avoided this quagmire if we had only done the right thing in 2004. But we didn´t. Also, consider that it is the conservatives who made it hip to hire illegal immigrants over Americans. Granting illegals amnesty will only increase the burden the blue states carry, since virtually all blue states are now sanctuary states for illegals. Give them citizenship and their employers will give them the pink slip. They´ll no longer be that huge source of cheap labor. Their employers will then be required by law to pay them the same wages and benefits as an American. And what will those employers do? They´ll lay them all off and replace them with a whole new batch of illegal immigrants! That means more Americans on welfare! That thing about being careful what you ask for? It´s still good advice, hope ya know.

I supported blue state secession back then, but it may not be a sound choice anymore. The scenario has changed quite a bit in the past six years, so don´t think I exaggerate when I say that the red states are holding a better hand of cards than we are in this round. Be careful how many chips you toss into the pot, because winner takes all. Oct 23, 2010 | Reply to this comment

 

I find all of this interesting. I would like to have some links to go to so that I can verify these facts since my conservative friends will undoubtedly say it is wrong. Republicans have such short memories when it involves their own party and the deficit. All congressmen spend, that is their job and if it is done well the state benefits. I often wonder if blue states get less because during the Bush years the congressmen in control (the republicans) locked us out of many opportunities. I don´t want dems to do the same thing back but I do want the money to be evened out. Should not matter if a state is red or blue. We are all Americans and deserve to be treated equally.
Thanks for an interesting article. Oct 23, 2010 | Reply to this comment

 

I did some data checking and the numbers check out . Below are just a few links, but if you do just a small amount of research, you can confirm the same.

For data around the amount of federal tax dollars received by state, see:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
and
http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tax.jpg
and (basically same as:)
http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

For income per capita data: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/spi/2007/spi0307.htm

For data around life expectancy: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2006/db20060913_099763.htm

more to come on the federal deficit data, but I figured this was a good start :) Nov 12, 2010 | Reply to this comment

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close