Home › Blogs › RisingTide's blog ›

Fiscal Conservatism is Incompatible with Red States

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/18/2009 - 11:22
in

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19566-2005Jan18.html

America will need to tighten her belt, and harsh and dramatic decisions will need to be made. Much of this will involve dramatic population adjustments -- for example, if we decided to only have a few interstate routes across the country, that would save a lot of money on maintenance.

But the point remains that Republicans, to be able to be fiscal conservatives again, constitutional conservatives again, need to find some way to compete in the states that will be net winners, and not net losers, from a more strictly constitutional republic.

Oh, and catch how much subsidies Alaska gets... they pay for most of their state using federal tax dollars.

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

Red State & Alaska

Submitted by BulldogsRule on Wed, 02/18/2009 - 18:59.

Agreed and yes Sarah Palin has licked at the Government water trowel for years yet denies it daily and bashes other states for doing so. When will people grow brains and realise her for the liar she has always been.

 

red states, blue states, taxes

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 02:04.

Your cited article is just a partisan screed against Bush, Cheney and Republicans in general.  As a self-proclaimed empiricist, you can do better than that.  Where are your detailed facts and figures?  Where are your verified unbiased statistics?  Don't tell me that you, the empiricst, uncritically accepted every word of this highly opinionated column!  The heresy!

But nevertheless I often see this claim brought up by liberals - that red states collect more in federal revenue than blue states.  At best it is portrayed as red-state hypocrisy, at worst it is a pernicious plot to use the machinations of government to steer largesse towards red states.  So, let's inject a few facts into the discussion.

First, red states tend to have more older people.  More older people means more government entitlement money geared towards older people, e.g., Social Security and Medicare.

Second, red states tend to have more military installations, whether they are missile silos in North Dakota or marine boot camps in Mississippi.  More military installations means more government military spending.

Third, and most importantly, politicians of all stripes have multiple jobs.  Of course they advocate for a particular philosophy, but they also serve as advocates for their constituents.  And if, under the status quo, a constituent is entitled to a certain amount of money, it is entirely understandable that the politician plays the role of advocate.  That's not hypocrisy, that's called doing his job.  And that doesn't stop Republicans for advocating for a change to the status quo, to see to it that less money makes the expensive round trip through Washington back to their own states.  By analogy, demanding your tax refund check is by no means an endorsement of the current tax system.

It also strikes me as very revealing that most liberals, when confronted with these statistics, do NOT advocate that perhaps more tax money should stay within the state from whence it originated.  Such a position would still be entirely consistent with general tenets of liberalism - indeed, if New Yorkers were able to keep more of their money, they could make New York an even better worker's paradise than if they have to subsidize those money-grubbing troglodyte South Carolinian red staters.  The revealing part is that it demonstrates clearly their lack of understanding of the law of unintended consequences.  It doesn't take a Ph.D. in logic to figure out that if you have a progressive tax system, and if you have a strong central government which redistributes wealth, then you are going to have wealth redistributed from rich states to poor states.  To the extent that urban areas tend to be both richer and bluer than rural ones, it is entirely predictable that under the current system blue states will end up subsidizing red states.  If this result is unappealing to you, then maybe you should re-examine your positions on the two underlying reasons behind it: the progressive income tax and the centralization of power.

No love for...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 09:03.

... Air Force installations in Mississippi? (Ie. Keesler AFB?) lol

I'm not accepting everything uncritically.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 10:59.

What I'm doing is talking demographics, and trying to make the case that the Republicans, with current demographics, are highly unlikely to be able to implement true Federalist policies (as the voters would run them out of town).

I don't bring up Democrats nor Progressives, because we're a generous sort, and I'm not going to argue the benefits or costs of paying through the nose to rural-poor states, as I'm no economist.

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing that red states have more older people. The top five states in older population are blue states (okay, four out of five if you want WV to be red). Maybe the seven out of the top sixteen are red states ('bama, ND, SD, Arkansas, Montana, WV and throw in one of the purple states).

I think that's more a matter of our definitions of red states and blue states, as we're both using the same numbers.

I pulled the pics, and I'm seeing more military bases on the seaboard (and colorado and utah). Quite frankly, the taxation patterns don't correlate well with military installations

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/bases.pdf

Maybe I'm missing something here, in terms of percapita expenditures, but there are a LOT of bases in ACELA land.

See, the thing is -- if it isn't a roundtrip, but coming from blue states to red states, then how do you reduce federal gov't without dramatically slashing services in your state? I suppose you raise taxes or cut services.

 

I honestly don't mind subsidizing red states, at least to a certain extent (I think our federal highway system needs some pruning, but I'm not for abolishing it!).  To the extent that liberalism is utilitarianism (which may not be much, granted), it does not make sense to keep money inside one's own state, but to spread it to where it can do the most good.

However, a lot of Republicans seem to dislike the idea of seeing their money wasted on the urban poor. And seem to think that they're getting a bad return on investment for their federal tax money. And that's really far from the truth. Anyone would be jealous of a 2 to 1 return on investment (now, on how well it's spent, that's a different story, but you aren't going to seriously tell me that 50% gets lost on graft and overhead?)

Tax foundation seems relatively neutral (aka they're quoting barone on the front page, bitching about the stimulus package) http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

OPM

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:11.

I don't bring up Democrats nor Progressives, because we're a generous sort,

With other peoples money maybe, but every study I've seen places actual contribution to charity, in dollars and hours, places Republicans higher in giving then Democrats.

An interesting exercise would be to show exactly where money is going.  Break it down by department, and then by state.  You'ld have to have an interactive 3D map, to be able to show all the variables.  Like how much of what taxes are collected, vs what money goes back to a state, and for what purposes.

I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with money being used to help the poor to become more productive members of society.  Whether they are urban or rural doesn't matter to me.  What is done to help them does.  And I would rather our state be self-sufficient in that regard, so that the money we collect for the poor is spent on the poor here in our own state.  If California and San Francisco want to make lives easier for their homeless people, let them use their own money, and do it in the way that makes sense for them.  But don't ask me to support their measures.

If their measures work, then our state ought to be looking at modifiying our approach, but nobody should dictate what we should do.

can you drop me some of those studies?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:46.

just curious, honestly. (and I've seen the numbers that purport to say that Jews give a ton more than Christians. *snickers* I figure everyone is biased in this stuff)

Yeah, that would be totally awesome. Can you write an e-mail to the Tax Foundation about that, since that seems to be their main ball of twine?

Where do you live, again? (i'm forgetful, sorry!) PA is relatively self sufficient, and most of our state is Appalachia.

I am totally down with different approaches in different states, so long as we have some ability to make sure that nobody is getting hurt because some idiot governor's approach to poverty is "it doesn't exist in our state". Eh, I worry about people, sometimes too much.

Minnesota did a lot to help welfare and social work reform, way back in the day.

Charitable Giving

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:34.

Well, here's the best link I could find on short notice...

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

His initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people — $2,210 versus $642. And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities.

He writes that religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change.

There's more statistics at this link. http://www.arthurbrooks.net/whoreallycares/excerpt.html

Some interesting statistics on charity, without demographics.

http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/index.cfm

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

And this isn't meant to be an indictment of any particular person.  I'm sure there are plenty of rich people on both sides that don't give much or anything, as well as middle class who give a lot (% wise.)  I mean, I think it's rich that I gave more to charities in the last 8 years then then Joe Biden did.  But, I don't claim that makes me a better person, or him worse.  I'm just more charitable.

Notice my name Keith_Indy, while I'm independent in my thinking, it refers to where I live, Indianapolis.  Actually, where I used to live, as we've moved to Greenfield, Indiana.  But, I've been known by that for years now on forums I frequent, and I'd hate to confuse people.

Went to Susquehanna University, so I know PA well enough.

The right to life is a civil right.  So, some measure of protection is warranted by the Federal government. 

I just don't believe in giving handouts to people, without giving them responsibility for getting themselves out of the situation they're in.  They first have to want to change in order for change to take effect.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't help better educate them, train them for work, or provide temporary food/housing/child care/medical care.  But it should always be with the understanding that it's temporary.  If people are incompetent to take care of themselves, declare them so, and put them in an institution that will take care of them.

Harsh maybe, but we've got to have priorities and use our resources with great care.

tough love

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:43.

Harsh maybe, but we've got to have priorities and use our resources with great care.

In the long run, there is nothing harsh about tough love.  It is the truly compassionate thing to do.  That is the conservative contribution to the welfare debate.

liberalism, utilitarianism

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:13.

I don't bring up Democrats nor Progressives, because we're a generous sort,

Fact: Religious conservatives are more generous givers to charity than secular liberals.  As others have mentioned, liberals are simply more generous when it comes to other people's money, not their own.

and I'm not going to argue the benefits or costs of paying through the nose to rural-poor states, as I'm no economist.

And yet you advocate for it anyway.  Why?  Is that the empirical way?

See, the thing is -- if it isn't a roundtrip, but coming from blue states to red states, then how do you reduce federal gov't without dramatically slashing services in your state? I suppose you raise taxes or cut services.

From the red state perspective, yes.  And from the blue state perspective, you get to keep more money within your state to create a better socialist paradise there.  From your point of view, where is the downside?

To the extent that liberalism is utilitarianism (which may not be much, granted), it does not make sense to keep money inside one's own state, but to spread it to where it can do the most good.

And here is where the utilitarian argument falls flat:  It is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to determine in an objective manner where money can do the most good via central planning.  This is not a science experiment here, with variables that can be precisely controlled, objective definitions, and clear unambiguous standards.  These are human beings we are talking about, each with biases, foibles, judgments, and different standards of what is the "best" way to live one's life.  The Founding Fathers realized this when the Constitution was constructed in the first place, taking great care to ensure that power stayed divided among the states, where those states' citizens can implement their own preferences of what constitutes "best", rather than centralized in a national government where "best" means everybody must obey the same standard whether they agree with it or not.

You seem like a mathematically-oriented guy so let me try this analogy.  In mathematics, to solve a problem, one must first prove that a solution even exists, and then one must prove that the derived solution is unique.  The lesson that I would hope we all would learn from the horrors of central planning of the 20th century is that when it comes to nationwide social problems, most of the time, a single solution does not even exist.

However, a lot of Republicans seem to dislike the idea of seeing their money wasted on the urban poor.

This is BS liberal stereotyping of conservatives.  And here I thought you were trying to engage in honest dialogue.

With slight modification, his

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:39.

With slight modification, his view is correct.

Republicans do dislike seeing their money wasted on programs that don't actually help the urban poor.

It's a matter of perspective. 

We see programs that aren't helping people lift themselves out of being poor, and see it as a waste of money.  So, in this view, it's not the amount of money being spent, it's how many people are becoming more self-sufficient.

They see programs that are spending money to help the poor, regardless of the outcome, as being noble.  And in that view, the more money spent, the better.

That is a very gross simplification of my perspective.

half-a-point

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:50.

Not really - we don't want to see money wasted generally, and the fact that it may be wasted on the urban poor is irrelevant.  Note that he didn't say anything about money wasted on agriculture subsidies or 'clean energy' boondoggles.  In my experience when liberals say "conservatives don't want money wasted on the urban poor", it is code for "conservatives don't like poor people".  But I'm pretty cynical about all this.

ayup. you keep on being cynical.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:55.

cause half the time it's true! (maybe more). and if what I said was code, it was code for "conservatives don't like poor colored folk" ;-) Obviously that's an exaggeration. However, whenever I get to rebut idiotic assertations like Carter's CRA caused this worldwide depression, I get a little more likely to be cynical myself.

You didn't get me started on agricultural subsidies and corn ethanol! Oh, boy, I think everyone who's a fiscal conservative wants to kill that! Then go after Big Sugar!

What's your beef on 'clean energy'? the only bitchin' I've heard from my lefty sources is about 'clean coal' -- which they claim doesn't even exist as blueprints yet, just a dream in some coal miner's eye.

can I be on your side now? ;-)

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:51.

seriously you're making good points.

What of the person who really can't be helped out of poverty? Is it then still a waste of gov't money to help them, from the Republican perspective?

I don't see spending money to help the poor as being noble (at least not any more noble from the gov't than from private indiv.), I see it as being practical. fewer riots on the streets, less social unrest, less crime. And there's always room for talking about how much money to spend, and where (for example: the dollar spent on BootHill Jane is probably less likely to prevent a riot than Urban Billy's dollar. Ick! practicality is an ugly bitch! I feel awful for even thinking something like that! But it bears some consideration, nonetheless)

Who can't be lifted out of being poor?

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:08.

What of the person who really can't be helped out of poverty? Is it then still a waste of gov't money to help them, from the Republican perspective?

I touched on it, if the person is incompetent, declare them so, and put them in a facility that will make them competent, or provide for their needs.

I believe that every person, with some exceptions, has the same potential.  They may lack ability, they may lack drive, or they may lack knowledge.  Help them with those, and they have a decent shot at making something positive out of themselves.

It's only a waste to support them in making the same bad decisions/activities that led to them being poor in the first place.  Subsidising their continued failure isn't on my list of things to do to help them.

And as I said, I was only grossly characterizing my own perspective of how others look at this debate.  If someone makes a characterization about a group of people, it should be corrected to the best of everyones ability.

However, I tend like to talk specifically when talking with individuals.  I think more progress is made when peoples individual perspectives are brought into the open.

And if you are a free thinker, who's willing to concede that there isn't a perfect solution, and that compromise on many issues is going to be needed to actually make things better, then we're already on the same "side."  I can compromise on lots of things, as long as it fits in to my guiding principles.  That's something I don't think anyone should compromise on (as long as one of their first principles are to do no harm to others that aren't harming you.)  I'm a live-n-let live conservative/classic liberal/libertarian/republican/lutheran/buddhist free thinking kinda guy.

god, that really does make me want to go and do more research

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:47.

in the field.

seems like the real breakdown is between "connected individuals" and "unconnected" -- using religious convictions as a correlative proxy that may be easier to measure.

I know I give more away to charities than you do. So don't give me any bullcrap about it being liberals versus conservatives, because that isn't the case. (and speaking of stereotypes!)

I rather like having my packages show up to my door. They mostly come from Kentucky, where the storage depo is. Am I really going to whine on the money spent on I-79, when it gets me my packages on time and unbroken?

I can argue for some expenditures that directly benefit me, although they actually involve sending money to red states. There are larger economic benefits to things like rural electrification and broadband internet.

I'm not expecting good things to come out of red states in the nearterm future. When the economy goes bad, Bad Things Happen. And those will be concentrated down South, for both economic and cultural reasons. [I'm expecting different Bad Things up in the Mormon Belt].

You know I'm not a huge fan of the whole central planning idea! please! I believe that by having Democrats and Republicans debate things like this, we'll get better stuff out of our government, by taking the best of everyone. [be interested to think of single payer health care, in a more localized perspective]

Apologies, if you thought that was stereotyping. After that chimpanzee cartoon, some of us are having flashbacks to Willie Horton. Why aren't we spending more money on rehabilitation of drug criminals? 6 to 1 return on investment! It boggles the mind...

Interesting theory

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:56.

vis-a-vis connectivity. 

You should read Thomas Barrnett with regards to how the troubled states are mostly the places where the government has isolated the citizens from the rest of the world.  Some of that is probably true for our own poverty/crime problems as well.

One of the biggest reasons I'm going back to church is to be more connected with the community.

And hey, I'm all for broadband internet for rural communities, I'm stuck using satellite where we live.  I just see there being bigger priorities right now.  If they started with just schools, libraries, and public hospitals, I'd probably be more agreeable to Federal funding.

central planning

Submitted by chemjeff on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:05.

You know I'm not a huge fan of the whole central planning idea! please! I believe that by having Democrats and Republicans debate things like this, we'll get better stuff out of our government, by taking the best of everyone. [be interested to think of single payer health care, in a more localized perspective]

Hmm, so which should I believe, you or my lying eyes?  I understand that you aren't in favor of old-style socialism.  Kudos to you.  But when you say things like "I believe that by having Democrats and Republicans debate things like this, we'll get better stuff out of our government, by taking the best of everyone", your implication is that for whatever problem we discuss, government will impose some solution, even if it is a compromise solution.  My argument to you is that this is still a form of central planning.  Not as overtly noxious as Soviet communism, but central planning nonetheless.  And whatever compromise solution is imposed, it will have all the same demerits as if it had been imposed by a Soviet Politburo:

  • It will inhibit the ability of individuals and groups to experiment with solutions for with their own particular solutions that may be better suited to their particular situations.
  • There will inevitably be unintended consequences that, since it is a national solution, will be more severe in terms of number of people affected, than if a plan had been enacted at a more local level.
  • No matter how broadly bipartisan any plan is, there will still be some who don't agree.

So I urge you to broaden your view of "central planning".

 

as if hedge funds haven't been colluding to send

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:09.

our entire economy to it's grave...

Viva Free Market!

We have severly regulated markets.

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:15.

We do not have "free markets."  We have severly regulated markets.  Some of that regulation is needed, some of it is a drag on productivity, while other parts are no longer needed.  And some of it is just to benefit some political favorite of whoever enacted it.

what are derivatives then?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:45.

and can you name me some regulations on them? some transparency?

Free market economies

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 16:39.

One part of the stock market with less rules, does not make the whole of our economy a "free market" economy.

The strictest definition of "free market" is" A free market is a market that is free of government intervention and regulation, besides the minimal function of maintaining the legal system and protecting property rights[1], and is also free of private force and fraud."

Does that describe where we are today?

For instance, all that corporate welfare people keep complaining about, that's government intervention.  And then there are all these bailouts and talk of nationalization.  The free market answer is to let them fail.  Let them (corporations) live or die according to their own choices.  If the remains have value, they will be snatched up by those with capital and turned profitable.

We certainly have a freer system then many other places, but it's not technically a free market.

We place #6 in overall economic freedom, but economic freedom is not the same as the free market.

Best Government

Submitted by Keith_Indy on Fri, 02/20/2009 - 13:13.

We ought to get "better stuff" out of government.

How you define that is the crux of many differences. 

Best to me, is providing the most effective of some limited services, at the least cost to everyone, with the maximum amount of positive effect possible.

And I don't expect that it is even possible to simply wipe away all the bad stuff government is doing, and replace it in toto, with a small, limited, and efficient government.