33 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Here is a fascinating chart. It lists the states by federal dollars received versus tax dollars paid. What it shows is telling indeed.

Most states receive more in federal funding than they pay in. The worst ten offenders are:

1. Washington DC
2. New Mexico
3. Mississippi
4. Alaska
5. Louisiana
6. West Virginia
7. North Dakota
8. Alabama
9. South Dakota
10. Kentucky

All of these states (yes, I know DC is not a state, but it's easier to say it that way) receive far more money from the federal government than they contribute. So who is paying for them? Funny you should ask. The states that pay more than they receive from the federal government are:

1. New Jersey
2. Nevada
3. Connecticut
4. New Hampshire
5. Minnesota
6. Illinois
7. Delaware
8. California
9. New York
10. Colorado
11. Massachusetts
12. Wisconsin
13. Washington
14. Michigan
15. Oregon
16. Texas
17. Florida

So basically these 17 states are paying for 32 others plus the District of Columbia (Rhode Island is the only state whose net contributions and receipts are in parity, and therefore pays for itself). In other words, New Mexico, Mississippi and Alaska are the Greece, Portugal and Spain of our union.

I have also colored each state according to whether it is typically considered to be a red, blue or "swing" (purple) state. Notice anything? The only red state that isn't feeding from the federal trough is Texas. ALL of the others are being paid for by someone else. And most of those doing the paying are blue states.

I find it ironic that the states who are living off the blood, sweat and tears of the 17 contributing states are the very same ones from which the most ardent anti-government hysteria usually comes. But something tells me irony is lost on those people!

Maybe it's time we cut loose the deadweight. Just imagine what New Jersey or Massachusetts or Wisconsin could do with that extra money! The right-wingers want government out of their lives? Let's give 'em what they want!

[Timtacious]

Wisconsin would still be a cesspit. But yeah, that's funny.

[Thrash]

What's missing here that would make this more relevant is the median salary in each of the states. After seeing that, the reasons why some get more than others will come to light.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

So you're saying the rich people should pay for the poor people? I don't know, man, that sounds a lot like SOCIALISM to me.

I am of course being somewhat facetious here. But I do find it hypocritical of the far right to go on and on and on about "federal spending" and "liberal tax-and-spend" policies -- not to mention states' rights -- when the fact is that their states are the ones doing most of the spending. They're supposedly so opposed to government spending; but it's funny, I don't see them sending any of that money back.

[Thrash]

I'm not saying they SHOULD do it, I'm just saying that it IS already done.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

In northern Italy there is a secessionist movement which advocates that region becoming an independent nation called Padania. Their rationale is that the wealthy north has long subsidized the poorer south, and that this is inherently unfair. I'm starting to have some sympathy for them! A country made up of the seventeen "payer" states listed above (OK, maybe minus Texas) would be one hell of a place!

Also, Thrash, Padania makes me think of you because their proposed flag looks kind of like a pot leaf.

[Thrash]

Also, Thrash, Padania makes me think of you because their proposed flag looks kind of like a pot leaf.

I'm packing my bags!

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

In recent years I have found myself believing more and more that the United States is simply too big and too diverse to be a single nation. I feel no particular kinship to someone from Alabama or Texas. Their values, mores and cultural norms are as alien to me as are those of many foreign countries. I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with four or five more homogeneous regional nations than one big, clumsy amalgamation. The South wants a socially conservative nation with a hands-off government? Let them have it. The Pacific Northwest wants to create an "eco-topia?" Awesome! Utah wants to be a Mormon theocratic state? What do I care? I'd just as soon not share a country with them anyway.

My political fantasy?

The Republic of New England





This would be a nation of 14.3 million people with a per capita GDP of $44,500, roughly equivalent to Germany's. It would be the 17th or 18th biggest economy in the world, depending on what measurement you use, and would have a total gross domestic product of $636 billion. It would undoubtedly have a government that would be considered left of center by typical American standards, probably similar to Canada, New Zealand or the nations of Western Europe. It would almost certainly have nationalized, single-payer health care. In short, it would be a very progressive, very pleasant nation in which to live. In fact the only problem would probably be all the people trying to cross the border illegally from the rump United States in order to take advantage of our higher standard of living!

Ah, to dream...

[Evil Rudekker]

This is what I've been saying. If Wisconsin were an independent state, then we could finally put that wall up along the Illinois border

[Thrash]

The South wants a socially conservative nation with a hands-off government? Let them have it. The Pacific Northwest wants to create an "eco-topia?" Awesome! Utah wants to be a Mormon theocratic state?

Makes sense to me. I know where I'm going.

[Lance Uppercut]

I'm not sure Wisconsin by itself would be enough. What about a Wisconsin-Michigan-Minnesota entity?

[Evil Rudekker]

THOSE DRUNKS???

[Invicta]

I've long been an advocate of localism, NOT because I in any way believe in states rights (or any other form of rights) but because I don't believe that pluralist cultures are stable enough to function effectively, or survive long-term. It's not a matter of cultural superiority, just the idea that a government should only govern one unified cultural group.

[Timtacious]

THOSE DRUNKS???

Your beer, your fault
Actually, that'd be fine.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Haflinger]

I just hate borders.

Ahh, to be an anarchist at heart.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Heh. Yeah, something tells me anarchism would be very, very ugly in practice!

[Altheus]

Perhaps a European perspective would help

I think half the problem is the concept of nationhood. It's easy to think of nations as entirely sovereign entities who are in complete control of their governance. It hasn't been that way for a very long time and due to the increasing ease of communication & benefits of financial globalisation nations are becoming less and less sovereign as time goes by.
The classic example of course is the UN, but then that's only a highly visable example of globalisation and no way as influential as the financial markets or the more insidious "cosy relationships" between world leaders.

The end result is when talking about independence it's important to underline in what. Fiscal independence? Military Neutrality? Political Freedom? etc.

I've come to the conclusion (based on the EU's successes and failures) that a united foreign & military policy is very desirable as it gives it's component parts more clout (the US does it well, the EU badly) that non-financial lawmaking should always be in the hands of those at ground level to cater for differing cultural norms (the US does this badly, due to it's one size fits all; the EU does it right) & that the bigger the financial entity is the better, due to common markets, but financial unity must equal fiscal unity. (the US in it's vastness makes for a richer US, the EU tries to copy but fails because they can't agree on how much to spend per capita).

In the example of the Republic of New England, the RNE would ultimately become poorer (as would the US) if it became financially independent and would become less influential if it didn't stick close to the US in terms of military & foreign policy...however that shouldn't stop it from creating such non-financial (and typically more liberal) laws as suits them and not the US.

[Invicta]

I think you're confusing nationhood with statehood, but otherwise I see what you're saying. I don't agree with all of it, but it definitely makes sense.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

There are examples of states with very diverse populations succeeding. The Roman Empire comes to mind. Similarly the Persian Empire, Mongol Empire, etc. But of course in many ways those entities matched the description that Altheus gave, above, of states in which the national entity conducted military and foreign affairs, and all other matters were left to regional authorities.

Similarly, successful modern states comprising multiple nations usually follow a similar model. Think of Switzerland or Belgium. But in order for such a system to work, each nation has to trust that the others are not hostile to their interests. That is why I believe the state of Iraq is doomed to fail. And I believe that is why the United States is so polarized and dysfunctional today. We have too many groups who view with contempt anyone whose opinions and priorities differ from their own. How do you reconcile people whose goals are mutually exclusive?

[Invicta]

Ironic you mentioned Rome, most of political science professors would argue that it was, to a large degree, Rome's pluralist society that was its downfall. But such is life. But largely I think you're right; there are ways to improve the stability of a pluralist society. I still don't believe a pluralist society can be as stable as a mono-cultural one.