November 09, 2004

Follow The Money

One of the left's more moronic tropes is that the Blue states are net exporters of tax money, while the Red states get more tax money in than they send out.

This, of course, is yet another case where the Democrats need the American people to be too stupid to think for themselves.

It's true - in the sense that "if you line up facts properly, they add up that way, but it's still incredibly misleading".

For starters, per capita incomes in Red states tend to be lower; there's much less income to tax. And as Rocket Man notes on Powerline:

The condition decried by a "top Democrat"--"The segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government"--has existed for a long time, courtesy of the progressive income tax, under which a small minority of upper-income taxpayers carry most of the cost of the federal government. Funny, the Dems never minded this before!
Of course, in the lower-income Red states, prices are commensurately lower - so there are fewer expenditures, and less economic activity, to tax. This, of course, is why so many Blue staters are moving to Red states - why Colorado has turned into California East, and formerly-conservative Vermont and New Hampshire have turned into Massachusetts Liberal exile camps.

Beyond that? Western red states tend to be very sparsely populated - still less money to tax - and on top of that, they tend to be full of things like Federal land, military bases and national parks, Native American tribes, hydroelectric projects, water reservoirs and pipelines to feed the major cities - all of which receive tax money, and lots of it, but then I don't hear Los Angeles or New Yorkers bitching too hard about the immense, red-state tax expenditures that keep their faucets gushing.

It's another mark of a party whose desperation is slowly eating away all logic.

Posted by Mitch at November 9, 2004 10:36 AM | TrackBack

Isn't (red state) West Virginia the biggest per capita recipient of federal funds?... thanks to the pork barrelling skill of DEMOCRAT Robert Byrd?
There are several "red states" with Democratic members of Congress who bring home the bacon in a big way.
This argument about blue states subsidizing red states is idiodic. Of course if the dem's want to change this they are welcome to reduce taxes on the upper income brackets (I plan to benefit someday), reduce farm subsidies, etc.

Posted by: chriss at November 9, 2004 04:01 PM

Seems to me this is an argument that the Liberals should not want to start. Let's look specdifically at welfare spending in the "blue" metropolitan areas. New York, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. If there are geographic areas that can vote themselves a share of government largesse, it is thse cities.

Posted by: James Ph. at November 9, 2004 07:08 PM

It is not where tax money is raised that matters, it is where tax money is spent, and more importantly, what that tax money buys.

Posted by: Eracus at November 10, 2004 06:51 AM

It seems to me that the Blue States are virulently anti-military and have driven out the military bases. The military spending will skew the numbers. California is driving out bases, oil refineries, plus Boeing Aircraft. We will lose thousands of jobs.

Look at the welfare payments to slums and ghettoes, Crime, Federal Education programs in the Blue States. They get a lot of money, none of it as well-spent as the military money.

Posted by: JoeS at November 11, 2004 03:36 PM

Check out these pet supplies online for decent prices -

Posted by: Pet Supplies Online at December 3, 2005 05:23 AM

Follow your dreams, you can reach your goals. nokia6630

Posted by: prudence at June 30, 2006 07:50 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?