Saturday, September 20, 2014

The idea that red state tax dollars pay for blue state social programs, is in no way supported by the actual data.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

One of the most hilarious talking points coming from far-right Republicans and the Tea Party is that when “red states” like Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana are asked to bail out California or Massachusetts, that’s when they will finally become “fed up with socialism” and secede from the Union once and for all. 

The problem with that meme is that it has no basis in reality: the more prosperous and Democrat-leaning areas of the United States are likely to be subsidizing dysfunctional “red states,” many of which are suffering from insufficient tax revenue and an abundance of low-wage workers who don’t have much to tax. Tea Party Republicans like to point out that poor cities like Detroit, Baltimore and Camden, New Jersey are run by Democrats, but they neglect to mention that some of the most affluent parts of the United States—from Manhattan to the Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area to Cambridge, MA to Seattle to Chicago’s North Shore suburbs—are dominated by the Democratic Party. People in those heavily Democratic areas pay a lot of federal income taxes, and quite often, their tax dollars go to red states.

Raw Story then lists the ten worst offenders, including Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Indiana, Montana, South Carolina, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and of course Alaska.

Concerning Alaska they have this to say:  

Alaska didn’t become part of the U.S. until 1959, and since then, it has gone Republican in every presidential race except 1964 (when Alaska favored Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater). A bastion of hard-right politics, Alaska is the state where Sarah Palin was elected governor in 2006. But when it comes to “small government,” Alaska Republicans don’t practice what they preach: according to WalletHub, Alaska receives $1.42 from the federal government for every dollar it contributes. Tax Foundation’s research showed Alaska receiving $1.93 from Uncle Sam for every dollar paid in. Alaska Republicans love to rail against the federal government, but the reality is that Alaska needs federal tax revenue badly in order to function. 

Alaska is infamous for its harsh winters, which put considerable wear and tear on the state’s infrastructure—and the money for that much upkeep and maintenance has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is Boston, Santa Monica, Brooklyn, Seattle and all the other places that are full of upscale Democrats Palin considers “un-American.”

Still burns my ass that my state is now synonymous with Sarah Palin, and Tea Party politics.  However they are not wrong that we are indeed parasites feeding off the largess of America's tax payers.

And in years past we were well aware of that fact, and grateful for the support.

Ted Stevens did not typically rail against big government, but instead made sure that when money was doled out that Alaska was at the top of the list. In fact for a time he was the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and made sure that Alaska got more than its fair share of federal moneys.

He was famous for working the system, not working against it. And in those days Senator Frank Murkowski, and Rep. Don Young were working right along with him toward that same goal.

However it must be remembered that this state is only one year older than I am. So it is, by comparison, only in its infancy. (Much like I am.) Hopefully when we reach our teen years we will become more capable, and finally get off our lethargic asses and start contributing a our fair share to this country.

However until then, much like Tennessee, Mississippi, and Montana we need to shut the fuck up about reducing the size of government and start demonstrating more respect for our federal sugar daddies.

18 comments:

  1. Anonymous12:33 PM

    I would also like to point out that by population each Alaskan citizen gets more than all other red state citizens, though they are all being supported by the blue state tax payers. IN the most basic terms, red states are takers.

    In all the talk about our countrys debt, you never hear these red state politicians coming up with the simplest of simple financial plan to get our country's debt under control. And than plan would be simply than no state would receive more than 80% of what their tax payers pay into the federal government. For some blue states( that are long tired of supporting red states like some Baby Mamas) it would actually mean a raise so to speak, for many others, namely the red states, they would have to start to live within their means.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:47 PM

    OT … Eric Thompson

    I worked construction my entire career and know hundreds of guys just like Eric … salt of the earth, honest and hard working type folks. Most only have high school degrees (if that). They have street smarts …not book smarts. You could probably give Eric ten tries at spelling “electrician” and he would not be able to do it.

    When Eric said he was naive in dealing with the press … he is admitting to a true fact. Most civil site superintendents (craft supervisors) never deal with local press, let alone national press (ABC). Hopefully Eric will go back and ask ABC to give him some payment … they got the story and he got fired.

    Actually hope the craft workers that Eric supervised will lobby to paving company to give him his old job back … maybe wear “Bring Eric Back” buttons.

    Eric should never have been fired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:13 PM

      ABC didn't get anyone fired, the Palins did and the McKenna's should be ashamed. Also, just because someone doesn't have a degree doesn't mean they are intelligent.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous12:48 PM

    Seems to me that the permanent fund monies should be used to get Alaska off the "Big Government Teat" and pay back the lower 48 blue states. Let's start with those who make/have too much to really need it - $carah?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous4:23 PM

      The PFD is built into our State Constitution. We are an "owner state" meaning that a portion of all of our mineral rights, leases and extraction royalties is put into a fund that is then invested and the returns from that investment is divided amongst the population that applies for the dividend. A Constitutional Amendment would be required to attempt to change or negate the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend. That being said, hello, it's not a lot of money in any given year and the purpose of it is to make residents feel like they are invested in this state where we live and makes us feel part of the process. This year I will give up nearly half of the amount in taxes for my bracket. I end up with $700 dollars. That fills up my car for a couple of months. It's not as if we are "getting anything over on anyone" in the lower 48, we get a few bucks annually for living here based on our Constitution.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:59 PM

      So change your Constitution.$700 after taxes means that you already make a nice hefty income when the starting amount is over $1800. I live in an oil and gas state that also has a lot of Federal owned land. We also have some state owned land that produces oil and gas,and those funds go to pay state bills,not into a socialist fund to be doled out to state residents.Instead of a big screen tv,we pay for infrastructure instead of sticking our hands out to the Federal government,begging them to hand over money paid in by hard working residents of other states.

      Your little paradise is the most socialist state in the union,as well as being the child incest,battered women,and other wonderful capitols of the USA. Fix your problems,stop making excuses for them.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous7:17 PM

      Anon at 4:23 PM
      Good, because as the "owner" you are responsible for the debts, start paying them.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous12:59 PM

    As a resident of one of those blue states, I do find it particularly irksome that Alaska won't use its oil money to pay its own bills, but instead returns it to citizens as cold hard cash. Then they accept the funds from Uncle Sam to finance many of their needs, while proclaiming what rugged individualists they are. It's Sarah's grifting writ large.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:11 PM

    Shanynn Moore once explained Alaska, for every $1 in Fed funding they give they get $1.75 in return vs. Cali who for every dollar get .75 in return.
    Also since Alaska has no self supporting business except oil which they pay themselves instead of putting that money into social services, roads, libraries etc. the expect the the Fed gov to pay that! Yep like the Bridge to no where.
    "bring home the pork" they used to tell Stevens.
    Secede my ass! without fed funds, holding their ass they would be lost and Obama care is not even in that mix yet as SP v 2.0 won't expand the medicare (just another reason to vote blue you Alaskans aren't getting your OBAMACARE!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Caroll Thompson1:30 PM

    In my opinion, this is more about richer states vs poorer states. The poorer states are usually rural and more republican. But that can change (think Kansas which is about to turn a blue shade of red with a possible Democratic Senator and Independent Governor - who knew?).

    Here in Maine, we have become accustomed to the richer states helping us out. We get back about $1.80 for every $1 we sent to the U.S. Treasury. Of course, that figure includes social security payments and Maine has the most SS recipients per capita than any other state (we are the oldest state in the nation).

    Whatever the case, I am happy for the help and think we get a good return for our money from the Massholes (that is what we affectionately call people from Massachusetts, mostly for their horrible driving skills) to the south. They have a negative return on their investment getting back less than $1 for every $1 sent to the Treasury.

    Full disclosure: I was once a Masshole; I cut my teeth driving in Boston.

    As someone who leans toward socialism, I say it's great that rich states help out the poorer ones. Take the money and run Alaska. My only regret is that Maine is not in the top 10. I guess we have some work to do.

    But point taken. It is very hypocritical to run on a platform of not taking assistance from the Feds on the one hand and then letting all the money come through the back door.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:38 PM

    Red states take more in assistance than they return in taxes. Blue states return more in taxes than they take. Blue states subsidize Red states. Period.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous1:39 PM

    AKns gets greater than 100% return on federal tax dollars, have some 6 military bases which boost the state economy, pay zero personal state income tax, and get an annual payment from a state fund.

    But what really irritates me is that your 2 senators, representing 600,000+ people, have the same actual legislative power as my 2 senators who represent 38 million.


    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2:04 PM

    My delightfully liberal family in California and Washington point this out to me all the time. Alaska is the dump for suspicious sometimes environmentally scary military endeavors I tell them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous3:25 PM

    Maybe because I grew up in a progressive area of the country and currently live in a rather large metropolitan area on the east coast I already knew that blue states tend to get less back from the federal government than they give. It never bothered me because I figured the states receiving the money really needed it more because they were trying to catch up with the rest. It still doesn't bother me. What bothers me are politicians who know this and still criticize the federal government for what they call excessive and wasteful spending, people like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and others. It is extremely irritating!

    On a different topic, I love Alaska and people who live there and I don't hold any of you responsible for Tea Party politics and Sarah Palin. Tea Party politicians and Sarah Palin are liars and some Alaskan citizens fell for their lies and support them.

    So, stop beating yourself up. When I think of Alaska I don't think of Sarah or her clan or the people she pals around with. I think of the great people of Alaska who are trying to make the place better for everyone despite Sarah and her ilk.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous4:12 PM

    I live in New York - one of those blue giver states. I am more than happy to contribute my taxes towards education, infrastructure maintenance, social programs, veterans' benefits, and helping out the places that are struck with natural disasters. I willingly contribute to the federal funds necessary to keep the FAA and EPA running smoothly and Yellowstone accessible to visitors. I realize there are some states whose lower population and business base make it hard to raise the funds necessary to support their economies.

    What I DON'T appreciate is the people in those red states that I help to support complaining about us lazy, librul, commie blue states while cashing their gubmint checks. I also have a problem with the politicians in those red states deliberately keeping wages low to help out their corporate masters, and winning elections by continually cutting taxes so that they need more and more support from the very people they vilify.

    Don't keep your people poor and cut your state and local taxes in order to win elections and then put your hand out for more money because you can't pay your bills!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:38 PM

      I Agree & Your A 100% Right While I'm An INEPENDEDNT What I Also Hate Is When The GOP Complain The Dems. TAX & Spend While The Rep. CUT TAXES (Mostly For The RICH) & Spend. Things Have Only Got Worse Since BUSH Sr. Said NO New Taxes & Had To Raise Taxes So PPL Like Chris Christi Instead Of Raising Taxes Or Getting Rid Of Loop Holes On The Rich In His First Term He Canceled A Tunnel Project NJ Needed & Wanted & Had Just Started After Finally Getting The Money To Do It. It Would Have Created Jobs Plus A Return On Investment But He Used The Money To Fill His Budget. Now He's Robbing PPL's Pension's To Fill His Budget Rather Then Raising The Gas Tax A Few Cents. Even Worse Is In His First Campaign He Complained About Previous Governors Do The Very Same Thing & Promised Not To Do The Very Thing He's Now Doing Because Raising Taxes Could Hurt A Republican Presidential Bid. hen He Has Much Bigger Problems Like How He Gave Hurricane Sandy Money To His Corporate Friends Who Didn't Need It Rather Than The PPL Who Did & Still Do. Then There's Bridge Gate & The Rest. The Only Good Thing He's Done Is Gone Against Other Republicans When asking For FEMA Aid After A Natural Disaster Which All Republicans IN Congress & Governors Are Against Until Something Happens In Their State.
      But Thy Do The Same Calling PPL Takers When Its Red States Who Have The Lowest Minimum Wage & Another 1/2 Dozen That Have No Minimum Wage While When It Comes Down To It The Majority Of Red States Are Not Only the Poorest In The Union But Also Receive More Money "FROM The Go." Than They Give & Also Have The Highest Population Percentages On Some Gov. Plan From (Unemployment, Food Stamps, SSI, Ect.)... http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

      Delete
  12. Anonymous4:29 PM

    It's interesting, too, to consider that many of those Red states have consistently had conservative governance for the past twenty to thirty years (some much longer). If conservative economic policies actually worked, shouldn't they have at least one example to point to by now to illustrate that? These states should be bubbling over with jobs and they should be crying for people to come fill them. (See how this works, you Socialists!!) Instead, those states are welfare states with high unemployment, high income inequality, high teen birth rates, high infant mortality, high levels of uninsured, high levels of poverty, low education rankings, and the lowest income rankings among those who have jobs. You can't build a healthy economic base on the backs of people who can't generate a demand for goods and services. When, out of every hundred people, you have two who can afford a hundred houses and seventy-nine who can't afford one, what's a good Conservative to do? That's obvious, isn't it - it's time to raise seventy-nine people's rent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous6:52 PM

    The Money Each Alaskans Get From The Oil & Minerals Are From The State Gov. That's Onto Of The Federal Money Were Talking About Here Since They Get Back More Than They Pay So That Means Some Of That Money Is Coming From those In The Lower 48 That Pay More Than They Get Back In Which A Majority Are Blue States...

    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.