Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The Myth of Red State Welfare

A common liberal talking point which some patriots have swallowed is that traditional "Red States" receive more Federal money each year than Blue States. Of course truth is in the eye of the beholder and all that and depending on how you present the data (Enron accounting anyone?) this theory can be presented as factual.

Much like the feminist myth of men being paid more than women however the truth is something a bit different in the real world.

For one thing let us keep in mind that the current form of trickle down taxation is basically unconstitutional and gives the Federal government almost tyrannical control of how our money is spent. This is important because it completely masks the actual producing wealth of the individual states. As preppers we know in the end the only thing that really counts is your productivity. Liberal ideology however needs to hide as far from productivity acknowledgment as it can or their talking points fall into to dust. It is also important to keep in mind that through years of manipulation and legislation the Federal government in truth determines how much tax money each state retains and how much of that tax money goes to which programs. They usually accomplish this by matching Fed money with State revenue spent but they get tricky by not always declaring the percentage of matching they are doing. This is also an important fact.

So let us look at a few other points. When Liberals point out the spending, they are actually referring to total spending not simply welfare or entitlement spending. This means things like roads and other infrastructure, bankrolling child support services and departments along with other initiatives and Federal money matches. Educational grants and spending. Military bases and posts. Well the list is endless. Infrastructure spending is one of the most efficient tools of coercion the Federal government has over the States. How many of you remember the old 55 mile per hour speed limit or when some states allowed 18 year old teenagers to purchase alcohol? Well now you know how these states were "convinced" to change their laws. You may also remember that Nevada (I think) bucked this coercion for a while because they had low infrastructure maintenance costs.

In a way welfare sending and educational spending are the two best examples of Federal control as they manage to coerce the states into spending what they want the states to spend. This is one reason in order to determine the true magnitude of educational spending one must look at total government spending into the area and not simply take the Federal budget number.

Basically the Red States are the producers and source of natural resources while most Blue enclaves are the financial office areas. In a very real sense Red states end up transporting the vast amount of their taxable revenue to the Blue enclaves to actually act as middle men and collect the money in sales. Along with, you guessed it, the actual tax money. While I admit this explanation is very simplistic it gets the point across. The real reason Red States receive more total Federal trickle down money is due to the tax and income base which is transferred to the Blue States.

Here is an older article from the tax foundation website about it.

Why do some States Feast of Federal Spending

Keep in mind that the Federal government is the only administrator of interstate commerce. Like we haven't had that term shoved down our throats for hundreds of years. As the one in control it only increases their power to control the trickle down revenue expenditure and keep the Red States begging while transferringso much of our tax revenue to the Blue and pro Federalist States.

If you look at actual welfare spending by case load or per capita the numbers tell a slightly different story than the liberal federalist would like.

Welfare caseloads per capita

Top five states per capita - DC, Guam, Rhode Island, Tenn. and Kalifornia. Hmmmmm things are not what they seem.

Total case load becomes - California, New York, Texas, Penn. Michigan - In that order

As I said an entirely different picture is it not?

So whenever someone tells you Red States receive more money from the Federal government than Blue States remind them that it is the Federal government that decides how much those Red States get to keep in the first place and since they take more from the Red States they have to give more back.

Believe me if/when we Red States have to go our own way, we won't need Federal Money to pay for ourselves.

Red States are the true producers and only sustainable States in the Union.

Keep Prepping Everyone!!!!




62 comments:

  1. Your per capita arguement doesn't make too much sense. When did Tennessee become a blue state? Even Al Gore couldn't win Tennesses. The only other large state noted is California, and it only recently went solidly blue. There was this guy Reagan (who Jerry Brown bookends) that was governor. As for DC, it is sandwiched between mostly red Virginia and very blue, but small, Maryland. Are Guam and Rhode Island really what is hurting us?

    I noted earlier that the red states tend to get a disproportionate share of federal money back because of poor southern states. Most of those southern states are not economic jugernauts. Even my own state of North Carolina owes a fair amount of its success to cheap air condition (possibly soon to change), and the flight to cheaper laber. The cheap labor extends far beyond the union vs. non-union and included less expensive white collar workers as well. Most of the red state economic jugernauts owe at least part of that status to some sort of commodity selling, oil, minerals, farming, etc. These are actitivities performed by a small number of people within the much larger community and can hide the deeper economic realities.

    What exactly is it that we bring to the rest of the world, outside of aircraft carriers, that they can't get somewhere else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GOP math 2+2 equals my
      ideology/religion...get real ya mook... MATH DON'T LIE...NUFF SAID...

      Delete
    2. California only went recently blue. You are either delusional or drinking too much

      Delete
  2. Russ - I am not sure what you are not getting nor why you want to muddy the waters by inferring I ever meant to say Tenn. Was a blue state. I was imply pointing out that from a welfare standpoint the Red states are not the major takers of federal money as some liberals try and claim. I mentioned the first five but the list is radically different than the Libs try and claim.

    To your second paragraph what I tried to point out is that even the so called lesser agricultural states get most of the federal money for simple infrastructure NOT welfare. What commodities they do sell often due to how the inter-state taxes from sales are levied get attributed to other states which are more often than not blue. It isn't that even the poor states are taking money they don't have it boils down to them not being assigned the full amount they contribute in production.

    We still produce more food overall than any country in the world and could be ahead i other areas especially if the West wasn't so totally closed due to massive amounts of Federal land.

    Your cheap labor point is another form of production value actually going to blue areas. The labor is completed in one state but the profit is claimed in another.

    The Blue State tax base is built mostly off middleman profits not actual production.

    Kalifornia is an anomaly because it has such a high agricultural production AND end sales export taxes. Florida is as well. Yet California spends more on welfare than anyone else they just are allowed to keep more money to pay for it so the Fed doesn't just return it.

    As for Virginia it is doubtful it is a red state anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem is that there really aren't red and blue states. The states have red areas and blue areas. New York is as blue as they come, but the huge area of Upstate New York has tended to vote Republican. Granted that is the area that helped start the idea of Rockefellar Republicans, but they were a lot more to the right than the people on the other side of the isle.

      You also have states like North Carolina that still tend to vote for Democrats in State offices, but Republicans for National offices. That has changed somewhat recently, but the big swing is as much because the Republicans got their turn at Gerrymandering the state this time.

      Delete
    2. Yes like I pointed out it really isn't a red state blue state problem is it an urban v. rural issue but those states that are more rural need to get the ball rolling.

      MY main issue with this post was to disprove this theory that the Red states take more than the blue. When looked at as a whole it simply just isn't true.

      Dealing with die hard Dems that are not up to date is another issue.

      Delete
    3. Except that you are wrong, "red states" do take from the blue, although see comment below.

      Delete
    4. Red states do take from the blue states, but its not completely black and white, although its still darker. Your point about the middleman is creative, but don't think that's the issue here.

      Our tax code and welfare spending is based on income, since states like Mississippi and alabama have a lower gdp per capita and we have a progressive income tax which democrats keep trying to tout and make it too high, this it the truth.

      Even though its the truth (see below), the democrats are silly to use it because they keep voting to send money to washington.

      While you are wrong, think of it as a mixed blessing, Hollywood liberals for instance, when democrats start taxing them at a high rate, and see where there money is going and complain, its not republicans to blame.

      Delete
    5. You don't think? Sorry Kris it is right there in my links and easy to see from export amounts published by each rural state opposed to actual productive output. Your arguing for a shell game snow job.

      Are you seriously attempting to imply that say New York produces more raw resources than say Nebraska?

      Delete
    6. New York produces vastly more amounts of wealth. You have a premise looking for supporting facts. But your facts are merely conjecture.

      Do you have any idea how expensive Medical (Medicare) is. Do you have any idea of the proportion of working Americans vs those on SS disabilty

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-19/blame-fdr-and-lbj-for-moocher-paradox-in-red-states.html

      Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The economic strength you cite sounds alot like Reb talk before the civil war.

      Delete
    7. Again New York produces income NOT wealth. You are making the same mistake other's make. New York does have some agricultural production, no one is denying that but the vast amount of their income comes from middle man "production" not raw resources.

      Delete
    8. Agricultural production is not what I would regard as a wealth producing industry.

      Agricultural jobs are such crap that we import people to finish up and pick the stuff.

      Places like silicon valley, Boston's biomedical, Houstons medical and other very blue areas are incubators for high paying, high quality jobs.

      Working picking and fucking with vegetables sucks. I know I've worked as an agricultural worker as a kid and those jobs suck.

      Delete
    9. That was very enlightening Tree. Thank you. While I won't disagree that at present an office job for the few managers and engineers in silicon valley or MIT that pay well are more pleasant than a job as a migrant farm worker's position, I would question your base assumption that agriculture isn't a wealth producing endeavor.

      If it wasn't for constant subsidizing of the agricultural industry you might well find out just how expensive a tomato really could be.

      If true austerity hits you might also be wishing to trade your cell phone for a cucumber as well.

      Any area can have innovation but if that is all you have you are still dependent on resources and the production of other areas more so than they are of yours and THAT is the real issue of wealth here.

      Delete
  3. The root cause is the 17th amendment. Also I suspect a fair amount of red states income is defense procurement welfare. As defense manufacturing becomes a ever larger portion of total manufacturing due to the death of non-defense manufacturers the effect is becoming more and more pronounced.

    Best,
    Dan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dan - Yes. Think about it, which I know you have. At this point with 30+ well controlled Republican State houses the Senate would be a majority Republican easily. Also if we had 1 representative for every 300K people as well.

      The point I am really trying to make is that these economic arguments are far from being as cut and dry as those who argue against secession make them out to be.

      We must always keep in mind that no matter how much money the Fed send any state at this point it is mostly funny money and debt anyway. Something of nothing is really still nothing.

      Delete
  4. I think the stats are right, Red states do get back more than Blue states do. However, when it's presented by the left an incorrect inference is usually included, and important fact is omitted. First, it's presented as aid or welfare, but there is a big difference between than and other federal spending. Second, the bulk of this spending is likely due to military spending, and highway infrastructure. Not my original argument, but one I read and adopted recently, makes sense.

    Most of the military comes from red states as well, and it's been noted that with more service members from those states where bases are from, the disconnect between Red/Blue states has become even wider.

    As for highways, I guess if the Blue states want to pay for their food to be airlifted to them, they can do that, but it's cheaper to help pay for the highways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The stats are right, but its not just because of spending allocations on the military, and when military cuts come, sometimes unneeded bases are still funded.

      Delete
  5. The author missed the mark here, and did so badly, blue state DO subsidize red states, nevermind if its defense spending or road spending, or rural agricultural subsidies. The fact the author cannot admit to it, means that the author has a problem of denial.

    Case in point, the conservative tax foundation which advocates lower spending and taxes and a flatter tax
    as well as things like colorado's tabor also agreed with it, also military spending is based on politicians favors. Even certain conservatives have called for end to rural subsidies.

    Where liberals miss the mark is that THEY VOTED FOR IT, THEY VOTED TO HAVE WEALTHEIR RESIDENTS IN NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA SEND MONEY TO WASHINGTON SO THEY SHOULD NOT COMPLAIN!

    So, liberals are silly and dumbfounded to use the argument since they vote for progressive taxes, in fact the reason blue states subsidize red states is not mainly because of politicians and spending, its because of the "progessive income tax".

    Also, keep in mind that not all red states and on welfare, texas for instance gets back a bit less than what they send to washington, while liberal vermont gets more, and georgia and florida tend to even out.

    I may sound harsh but its the truth, and perhaps maybe that's the problem, for instance in Alaska joe miller wanted less reliance on the government in the long run and more control of oil and federal lands, so is he a liberal for admitting that his state is getting more aid to washington than in sends, no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your completely wrong. The lion's share of productive input into the national GDP comes from the Red states and is creatively redistributed to Blue states. From agriculture to mining and oil production. Thereby requiring the Red States to tow the Federal line or not get the money they need to operate.

      You cannot see the forest because of the trees.

      Delete
    2. See how simple the obvious answer is?

      Delete
  6. Ok I must say you are not completely wrong. The highest paid individuals do come from Blue states but you are mistaking income for production. Real wealth is production not service/middle man income. This is exactly my point from the entire post. The Blue States gain their income almost solely off of Red State production.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The comments that are attempting to refute the author's argument are insisting that an ecological fallacy is a valid argument. They are asserting that all parts of a whole have equal qualities or characteristics (see the Tax Foundation analysis, that commits this fallacy). But no one has been able to refute the author's noting of revenue generated from natural resources. Tax Foundation excludes $10+ billion/yr of Non-tax revenue that is put in the US Treasury and redistributed among the States to build road, schools and put money in conservation funds. Just take a look at Office of Natural Resource Revenues, with non-tax revenues derived from mineral resources on federal public lands. Most of the states with top quintile in revenues are so-called Red-leaning states. Furthermore, Tax Foundation uses a per capita calc that makes the false conclusion that all parts within a unit (State) "take" equal amounts of Fed Funds. This is easily proven false by looking at, for example, disbursement of Food Stamps. Los Angeles County has the highest concentration of food stamp distribution in Calfifornia...those who insist on using the State-level analysis (i.e. Tax Foundation) distribute that concentration across the population of the whole state, therefore committing the Ecological Fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon - You are spot on and exactly what I have been attempting to point out.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Haha so when black people receive money from the government its "welfare" that they dont deserve, but when racist white people receive money from the government its "trickle-down money" that they EARNED AND DESERVE just because they paid the same taxes everyone else did? Kill yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am surprised this post went as long as it did before some entitlement race hustler wannabe got to jump in and throw out the race card. As far as I can remember race wasn't even mentioned in this post.

      Of course the last sentence really sets the parameters in that not everyone pays the same taxes.

      Get a life.

      Delete
  10. If I have this right, this hick thinks if you can't eat it or drill it than it isn't real. Keep your veggie's, I'll use my intellect to produce value that will exceed your drum of oil by a multiple, not a percentage.

    In the meantime my blue states will have up to twice the per capita income as you red states, and we will continue to subsidze your failed economic policies.

    Why?

    Because we're really cool people. We believe in sharing our great fortune with our not so smart neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Income based on Red State production. Now what would the Blue states be selling once say S. Dakota Oil is no longer available? Blue states are simply the collection points NOT the producers.

      Delete
  11. To put a finer point on it, you can go ahead and bury yourself in a bunker with a gun, we don't mind, my kids already grow our veggies, we don't smoke, we have our own weapons manufacturers, we've already cut our oil use way down and look forward to the day soon when we are fully solar, biofuels, and wind with gas backups.

    Sure I pay about $500 a year more in electricity than you, but I make twice what you make so who cares? We've got great jobs being created in these industries too.

    But if you keep up with all this guns and hate talk, we are going to have to take your subsidy away, for real this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would those be the same weapons manufacturers who are now leaving?

      Solar? Really? I find the large subsidies for alternative energy as funny. Your entire way of life is based off cheap energy and growth at other's expense. But keep dreaming.

      Lastly remove the agricultural subsidies, which mostly go to inner city food programs they label as Ag. I would love to see you Blue state Liberals pay fair prices for your food.

      Delete
  12. Best for last.

    We take care of our weak, we take care of our sick and elderly, we try like hell to uplift the poor, and we still make more money than you. In my view you are law of the jungle who don't care about anything but you, and that will fail.

    Even the animals teach us that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep Detroit looks well taken care of. Camden almost as much. Gary..Uh HUH.

      Delete
  13. Red states, the big producers, right? You're number one product, POOR PEOPLE, leading the country for decades.

    How's those wacky religions you guys like so much square with that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As opposed to the Liberal/Feminist Global Warming Gia religion of the Multi-Cult sect?

      Delete
    2. Would you argue that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't produce anything because they weren't in china building the computers themselves.. If land and resources was America's bread and butter then the soviets would have beat us because they have more of both. We don't live in a world where the carpenters that build an apartment building are wealthier than the person that designed it or the person who turns them into condos and sells them. The very wealthy educated blue cities don't need to plow a field or bow down to those that do. Tomatoes taste better from Mexico anyway.

      Delete
    3. The problem with liberals is they still think its important to include red states in the national debate. Let the south secede. Close the military bases that the blue states pay for quit paying there medical bills and lets see if the south will become rich off of selling $65 dollar cucumbers. China makes all our stuff now see if you can compete with their prices..

      Delete
    4. Producing a new product or a new service can make you money and wealth but taken as a whole these things you mention are not what sustains a Nation.

      As is typical of those who will fail to see the facts no matter how they are presented you will never understand that.

      The Blue states are merely the collection points not the producers of the wealth that sustains the US. Whether it is agriculture, oil, coal whatever it is all mostly produced in Red states and sold from Blue enclaves. Removing the middle man is easy.

      Delete
    5. You aren't actually presenting a fact based idea in different ways. Apple is the most profitable company in the world. Unless you are hypothesizing a post apocalyptic world where we are all fighting for the chance to eat a southern grown watermelon then your theory is very flawed mostly because you are trying to simplify something very complicated. Also I'd bet 50$ your own personal finances are in the black. You probably owe more than you have but still think its the dumb liberals fault. Also how come when republicans talk about cutting off social spending they only ever talk about the social spending that helps poor people and they excuse all the subsidies for oil companies and agriculture. Why are hand outs only bad when they go to the poor? Bottom line is YOU don't actually own any of the farms or the coal or the oil so YOU don't actually produce anything.

      Delete
    6. ***I meant in the red.... Your personal finances are in the red. Now go ahead and make stuff up about how successful you are..

      Delete
    7. Gee aren't you a real charmer?

      In the red huh? Let me explain something to you it is hard to be in the red when you have zero debt. None. My entire property, which amounts to just under 25 acres is completely paid off as are all my vehicles etc.

      Companies bringing in cash mean nothing without the resources to do it with. I know this is hard for you to live with but you will soon see it for yourself. All the fiat money in the world will not help you, or Apple or anyone any good when it is being devalued as fast as your spend crazy, Krugman-style accounting, Liberal friends can print it.

      You really need a lesson in supply and demand along with a long look at what real wealth is.

      Oh never mind your simply a product of Blue state public schools.

      Delete
  14. Agricultural and oil subsidies are another Liberal invention that keeps their own food and energy costs low enough that they feel they are actually making money. In truth Blue enclave wealth is heavily subsidized by the government and tax payers.

    If it wasn't for these subsides they like to complain about the Blue states would be paying full price for the loot they consume.

    ReplyDelete
  15. All this time I thought it was big oil lobbyist and republicans holding fast to their subsidies.. It must be those liberal representatives trying to trick us by proposing to cut those subsidies and then they Trick us even further by having republicans rally against removing the subsidies and tax breaks for the hugely profitable oil companies. As for agriculture you've got that one backwards. Capitalism would prevail and we wouldn't be held captive by your socialist takers ways. We would buy our veggies from Mexico. The subsidies for farmers is so they dont go out of business. That's a fact. Our farms couldn't compete with a global market and even though survival of the fittest tells us to let them fail it isn't In the best interest of this great "nation" we live in to get all our food from foreign countries. But since we our one country and not just a couple of states with a few redneck bloggers we split the difference for the better good of all of us. It's easy for you because you have already decided your conclusion to every problem before the problem is presented. I just hope that at the end of your lifetime when all the prepping was for not and our country is still moving forward you have the decency to admit you were wrong.. I won't hold my breath... And your shot at public school? Does that mean you went to private school? No wait you were home schooled... It all makes sense now..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You just took your own shot at public schools. Anyone stupid enough to say "we can buy our veggies from Mexico" has proven they have zero knowledge and even less intelligence. You think agriculture is vegetables? Or even a large enough share of it to warrant mentioning? Not only could the US not survive without subsidized agriculture the rest of the world couldn't either.

      You need to just continue to live in your limited little Liberal enclave and leave the big problems to those of us who can understand how things fit together.

      Regardless of the outcome my sustainable small farming endeavors have already worked out to my advantage and will continue to do so. The only real useful quality self centered, small minded liberals such as yourself have is they like to keep sustainable agriculture projects going.

      I am going to have to chuckle about vegetables equaling US agriculture for a few days. Hell I need to go around and tell my neighbors (all farmers) that one.

      Delete
  16. Liberals keep bringing up the "Bill Gates" and "Steve Jobs" argument, while that is true that they make a ton of money and have contributed much to society, people like them are definitely not the majority. If you aren't a doctor, famous, or an engneer in a blue state you are struggling. Especially in California. In a blue state, if you are poor you are never going to move up. You can't start you're own business, and often times you can't even go to school because you don't have time because you're always working to make ends meet with a VERY high cost of living.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon - Very good points. Blue enclaves are really nothing more than wealth transfer points living off the rest of the country. DC is a prime example of this.

      Delete
    2. Please stay put! We are tired of liberals moving here. They attempt to change us into the blue states they left. No thank you!

      Delete
  17. Red states have more military bases. Probably a strong argument for why some states acquire more direct federal funds. They also
    disproportionately serve in the enlisted ranks.
    http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/E8F05D884C7E78E45A200DC953ED3854.gif

    ReplyDelete
  18. The funny part is that this author seems to believe that resource extraction is the only true form of wealth. Take away that silliness and his entire argument evaporates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Extraction and manufacturing are the only means of producing real wealth. Everything else is simply a middleman. Middlemen can get rich but they can only transfer wealth and only as long as the producers deal with them, which is the entire point here that Red states would do fine on their own.

      Delete
    2. You keep trusting in your fiat currency. I'll keep things with intrinsic value, thank you very much. Using your logic, the more money Obama prints, the richer we are!

      Delete
  19. Zoe, the funny part is paper pushers think they have real wealth. The Feds are printing trillions of dollars and the rest of the world is starting to abandon the US dollar as their reserve currency. When enough have done that, our paper money will be worthless. It will be like the Weimar Republic. You need to get out in the real world more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They never will. It's too stressful on their reality perception.

      Delete
  20. If you really want to blow them away, have them read this article that puts econometric data analysis into the analysis. The results aren't pretty to the liberal cause
    http://www.youargue.com/55ran13dc9

    ReplyDelete
  21. Wrong. But then again you most likely live in a red state, which have 6% fewer college graduates per capita (2010 census data.)
    What matters is the percentage of a state's population on Welfare & Food Stamps (SNAP). Red states by far have a larger percentage of their population on Welfare & Food Stamps. Blue states pay the taxes that support the Welfare & SNAP needs of the red states.
    http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1849761-welfare-us-just-facts.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No what matters is the amount of actual production a state puts out and Red states beat Blue hands down. Blue states are nothing more than middle men, clerks and tax collectors, who keep more than their share off the top.

      Delete
  22. Well, the article, perhaps well intentioned, is simply not true. But, it does serve as a nice example of how much of integrity one is willing to compromise (I equate integrity with being truthful and honest - in part) to promote ideology. Now, you (and anyone) is entitled to live their life that way but it's really not a life of courage - to sacrifice truth for ideological belief is unfortunate:
    A.) Via the non-partisan 'Tax foundation':
    http://taxfoundation.org/article/washington-post-red-states-make-mockery-self-reliance
    B.) http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
    C.) http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/1849761-welfare-us-just-facts.html
    D.) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html

    This is a settled economic issue and i'm not inclined to argue ideology or what someone should believe. That seems disrespectful - at best. But, please don't try and sell 'truthiness' as truth or sell lies to fit with your ideology, As I said, it's cowardly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only thing that has been settled economically is that the Blue States are the middle men tax collectors living off the production of the Red States.

      More than likely why the Blue states have such a coniption fit when the Red states begin talking about going their own way.

      Delete