Maff
Stop if you’ve heard this one before.
Via Guav, Red states get more than $1 in federal money back for every dollar they spend on taxes. Unsurprisingly, this map also correlates pretty well with population. Wow, you mean if the denominator is bigger then the result is lower? Who knew?
April 13th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Balloon Juice?
Noooooo thank you. I’m trying to limit my daily intake of Bug-Nuts-Crazy.
April 13th, 2010 at 9:15 am
It also correlates with average income. So they’re essentially complaining about how progressive our tax system is.
April 13th, 2010 at 9:24 am
it’s also skewed by DOD contracts, which are huge and a lot are in red states.
April 13th, 2010 at 9:46 am
They’re complaining about conservatives who are complaining about paying taxes and socialism when the most conservative-leaning states are the direct beneficiaries of federal monies taken from states that are the most liberal.
Population is a factor (blue states, for now, have more people usually) as well as skewed higher incomes (CA has Hollywood, the left coast has CA refugees, the Great Lakes have some well-paid union members left, the Tri-State area + New England has Wall Street and the financial firms) while the south has a lot of northern retirees (Medicare, SocSec, VA bennies), and military bases (and troops who get VA bennies) as well as the seat of government itself (VA/MD are getting a lot of indirect subsidy from stuff that goes on in DC).
Of course, things are changing. The states that have lost more people than any other are CA, NY, MA, PA, MI, and the federal District of Columbia. As more people move into the sunbelt I don’t imagine that the situation is going to stay the same for long.
Still, maybe the Tea Parties should tone down the rhetoric a bit.
April 13th, 2010 at 10:12 am
It was my impression that democrats and the left loves to take from one group and give to another. I guess they don’t like it when the red states are the beneficiary of their tax-largesse.
April 13th, 2010 at 10:30 am
So, let me see if I get this straight.
You tax the f#*@ out of me in order to bribe me with my own money. I don’t like this and call for you to stop taking so much of my money. The state I live in happens to suck up that money I don’t want taken out in the first place and that’s somehow invalidates my position that you shouldn’t be taking my money to begin with?
I don’t really care if the thief returns my TV with some extra DVDs thrown in for the hassle, I want the SOB to stop entering my house and taking my shit in the first place.
April 13th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I didn’t say it was a good argument. Just that it was wrong. So, it’s both wrong and a bad argument. Both of which are necessary to qualify as progressive 😉
April 13th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I’m guessing it’s also influenced by our bicameral legislative system. The House of Representatives is apportioned by population, but each state no matter how small gets two Senators. Small states therefore have a disproportionate amount of influence in the Senate and they use it to get federal pork. Farm subsidies, anyone?
April 13th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Heh.
This is why I try to instill in EVERYONE that it’s not in their best interest to grant government any more power.
For example – to all the progressives who think the Health Control Bill is helpful – How will you feel when the Republicans take over (and, that’s a pretty safe bet now) and then change the law to not cover those icky homos, minorities, and women? (That’s hyperbole for the humor impaired).
Just like Republicans are now griping about all the power Obama has…. SINCE THEY GAVE IT TO HIM.
Every power you entrust to your guys eventually get used by the other side. Best to give neither nuthin’ and affect your community locally.
April 13th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Uncle, Yeah, it correlates roughly with population—the places where most Americans actually live generates more tax money, obviously. But wouldn’t it make sense, if that’s where everyone lives, that they’d be getting more of that back to pay for programs and services and infrastructure?
I think Les hit the nail on the head.
Drake, they don’t have any problem with red states being the beneficiaries of federal monies, they’re pointing out the irony of the situation, that’s all.
Robb, I tried to make that point to so many conservatives I’d frequently argue with during the Bush years when they were defending every power grab and expansion of govt—”Do you guys really want ‘Hitlary’ to have this power?”—I think they just assumed that no Democrat would ever be president ever again.
April 13th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
I don’t see many of those red states disproportionately receiving funds because of their smaller populations (wouldn’t these numbers inherently be akin to per capita numbers anyway, since they’re a measure of dollars spent per dollars taxed on income?) dealing with this awful injustice by sending the money back and telling those defense contractors to pack up and move in a northeasterly direction…