Red States Can't Live Without "Liberal Elites", Blue States

On Red And Blue States
The color of money; "amateur political geography", and other considerations

Once upon a time it was the red and the blue. Then the blue and the gray. And then, "Better dead than red!" And now we're back to red and blue.

Politics is largely a smear of shades of gray, though we like to pretend it's black and white. Blue collars turn to the white in hopes of scrabbling up the pyramid, but the white collars care only for the green. "Chickenhawks" in the executive add a splash of yellow to your Cheerios.

And so on.

• • •​

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer takes a brief glimpse at the red and blue states. Seattle author Eric Scigliano offers some advice: "Follow the money".

And even though Homeland Security is "just a small slice" of federal expenditures, the larger outlook apparently looks the same. According to an annual report by the National Tax Foundation, a flat-tax advocacy group, among the fifty states:

The top nine recipients of subsidies, as a ratio of money in to money out, are New Mexico, Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Alabama, North Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Alaska. New Mexico saw a ratio of $1.99/1.00 in 2003.

Two of the top fourteen net losers were "traditional red Western states that are starting to turn purple": Colorado and Nevada. The other twelve are blue states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Wisconsin, and New Jersey. The big loser, New Jersey, saw a ratio of $0.57/1.00 for the same period.

Only five blue states were net-recipients of federal subsidies. Only two red states were net-payers.​

William Ahern, the NTF report's author, points out that if voters really cared about themselves, they'd join his organization. He doesn't find this likely, though. Republicans will follow Bush wherever he leads them, while Democrats, Ahern asserts, will "obey their instincts" and stand off against the president.

Altogether, the situation is that the blue states paid $966b to the federal treasury and got $830b in return. The red states paid $697b and saw a $909b return. As the author Scigliano observes, "Welfare queens, indeed."

• • •​

I found the phrase "as the two parties have switched identities" rather interesting. If only that were the case.

Certain points are shifting: the Bush administration hopes to steal Social Security from the Democrats, the Bush administration is leading the GOP on a spending spree such as Reagan would have scornfully blamed on "tax-and-spend liberals". But to consider Michael Moore's 2001 lament, "Where has the Democratic party gone?" If the parties were truly switching places, the GOP's "wide tent" would include "the little guy". It doesn't. "The little guy" is only necessary to feed the conservative economic pyramid scheme.

The Democrats, of course, are the guilty party here. Republicans are still Republicans, only moreso these days. Democrats have become Lite Republicans, scrabbling about to keep up with voters' demands. In making it about market share and not the interests of the people, the Democrats certainly became more like the Republicans, but a GOP spending spree on military and law-enforcement desires does not represent a Republican shift to be more like Democrats.

Curious, indeed.

• • •​

So much for "liberal elitism". Apparently, it bankrolls the wide tent of conservatives.

Perhaps the red states should consider an attitude adjustment. As the adage says, don't bite the hand that feeds you.
______________________

Notes:

Scigliano, Eric. "Red and blue and the color of money". SeattlePI.com. February 13, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211080_sciglianomoney.html ​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Profiting off the blue states

Government For Profit?
And why not? It's already for sale.

It's a curious end-around tax increases, but angry Democrats see it as all being the same thing. According to Seattle City Light, Bush's move would cost up to $1.5 billion a year in energy rate increases. The Bonneville Power Administration "expect up to 20 percent yearly increases" in their wholesale electric rates.

Democrats are not the only opposition Bush faces. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) has pledged to use any possible procedural means to block this proposal. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has publicly refused to support the administration on the issue.

Nor is this the first time an executive has sought to raise rates on federal energy markets. Nor is this the first time Congress has disagreed. In fact, Congress has never agreed.

Apparently the Bush administration, facing the tough choices demanded by tax cuts, is simply flipping through myriad ideas previously rejected by Congress. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) noted that Congress has previously prohibited any government spending to even study the idea of charging market rates for BPA power.

Sen. Smith told the Associated Press: "BPA's customers are still recovering from the West Coast energy crisis and a sluggish economy. They've already been hit with rate hikes and can't afford any more."

Why would they do that? BPA is in a blue state. Milking an extra $1.5b a year out of a blue state? Fine by Bush.

• • •​

See? It's thematic. Once again, the government looks to the blue states to pay up.
______________________

Notes:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "Enron-like madness". SeattlePI.com. February 13, 2005. See http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/211707_bpaed.html ​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The US isn't breaking up, so I don't know what this has to do with anything. Most areas get federal money in one form or another... Bush wants to cut the farm subsidies... which favors 'red' states... so I'd chill

or you can freak if you like too...

Love and peace, Karmashock.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A good example of why I'm not a Democrat OR a Republican.

As for the energy hike, it's a good thing I'm getting solar power soon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

Let's just say that without equalization payments the Red States would be like...Argentina some very rich most relatively poor.

 

Wonderful article.

Deceptive accounts such as this are Exhibit #A in showing why the left is and will continue to lose power. So Blue States support Red States eh?

This from a paper in Seattle too. Where Boeing (#2 in defense contracts in 2004) is. Boeing Corporate is in IL--another Blue State.

#1 Defense contractor is Lockheed. Maryland. Blue State.

#3--Raytheon. Massachusetts. Bluest of the blue

Little Connecticut is #4 or #5. Blue state.

Of the top 10 Defense contractors in 2004, only three are located in Red States (TX, FL, KY).

But defense isn't where the big money is spent. Social programs are. Nearly everyone involved in that spending is a member of an extreme left wing, Democratic party supporting union.

Every IRS office in the nation is filled with NTEU members. Public housing (HUD) has Kerry supporters administrating the program and Kerry supporters receiving the subsidies. Every Social Security Office, every EPA, OSHA, EOEC and Gawd knows what other Federal Offices in the nation is run by unions which support Blue State candidates.

Welfare in America is run by liberals. And you don't find many conservative voters on it.

Education is in a class by itself. With the exception of 3 or 4 small colleges, higher education is left wing. Same with K-12 education. Same with the unions which maintain K-12 classrooms, colleges and universities . Federal funding for education funds liberals (some conservatives too, must a decided minority).

Yes, huge amounts of money go to Red States. But those who vote Blue state get a more than, as Bill Clinton would say, "their fair share."

Lots more.

Red State voters would be more than happy to have most of these people pack their bags and move to Blue states.

And to take the Welfare leeches, the HUD housing leeches, the drunks , drug addicts and other derelicts George Soros hired last year to get out the vote for Kerry with them.

The left will start to win elections again when it cuts out BS such as found in this Seattle paper.

I hope it never does.

 

Solar power? :bugeye:

 

What an interesting observation, Karmashock. Perhaps I could compel you to explain the relevance?

Or are you just introducing an irrelevant factor for the hell of it?

 

Of the top 10 Defense contractors in 2004, only three are located in Red States (TX, FL, KY).

Regardless the only way the industry is funded is by the US tax payer, and taxpayers of other nations. It shown that Blue State taxpayers even with military expenditures are losing out big time. The biggest subsidies like agricultural almost all go to the Red States, and when the median GDP per capita of the Blue states is approaching $35,000 and in the Red States a mere $28,000 there is a disparity of wealth and education generally speaking Blue staters are more educated, have a greater propensity to have college education, and contribute much more to the American economy then millions of Wal-Mart employees.

Welfare in America is run by liberals. And you don't find many conservative voters on it.

During the Great Depression who went to California? Red States without that “welfare” cheque is not much of an economy to say the least. Many conservative voters don’t realize that social welfare programs are actually a conservative machination (shocking as it may be). Welfare is a conservative idea.

With the exception of 3 or 4 small colleges, higher education is left wing.

Education usually does that.

Yes, huge amounts of money go to Red States. But those who vote Blue state get a more than, as Bill Clinton would say, "their fair share."

No they don’t their economies are losing billions in capital that could be better spent at home improving education for their citizens, their healthcare, etc. Instead its going to ungrateful idiots on the plains who can barely read.

Red State voters would be more than happy to have most of these people pack their bags and move to Blue states.

Historically its visa versa, Red Staters are usually itching to leave their hickish state for greener pastures. Lets face it, capitalism exists much more in the Blue then Red states, you want to make big bucks go to the blue states, or stfu.

And to take the Welfare leeches, the HUD housing leeches, the drunks , drug addicts and other derelicts George Soros hired last year to get out the vote for Kerry with them.

Sounds like the confederacy, and they lost too.

The left will start to win elections again when it cuts out BS such as found in this Seattle paper.

Oh the left will come back with a vengeance wait and see; this is only a temporary shift in US policies. American’s will realized how much the GOP has fucked them over.

 

The relevance of my point is self evident... but here you go anyway.

Why would either group need to live without the other when they simply won't?

Furthermore, you overestimate the power of your group... every blue state has a significant republican footprint... just as the red states have a signicant democrat footprint.

The dems would be greatly weakened by losing the reps and vis versa. Saying otherwise is just kidding yourself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We had an election in November. Perhaps you missed it?

Much campaign rhetoric was devoted to divisive and inaccurate complaining about "liberal elites" and their "contempt" for "middle America".

The politics of that are their own story. "Middle America" endorses bigotry, contempt for humanity, and dishonesty. Liberals are considered "elitist" for disagreeing that bigotry, contemptuous violence, and dishonesty are positive attributes for a free and noble nation.

However, what we see here is that the "red states" that complain about the blue states need the blue states. It isn't about breaking up the country; if you'd read the article, you would have caught that paragraph.

It's about hypocrisy and biting the hand that feeds you. Liberal elitism? Blue states? We're bankrolling the bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity so revered by voting majorities in the "red states".

Actually, you're just trying to invent an issue. It's more to the point to note that the voting majority in this country is factually confused at best, or downright dishonest at worst.

Seriously, are there any Bush voters who will openly admit that they endorse bigotry, dishonesty, and contempt for humanity as "American values"?

They ought to stand up and be proud.

 

Karma...yup

Democrats hold power for three main reasons:

1.They run the "permanent government"--the legions of federal unionized employees. They used to brag about that to Reaganites. "You are here for a while, " they would said, "we are here forever."

Very quietly, Bush is contracting them right out of their government union into the real world.

2.They run nearly all education from pre-school to post grad degrees. And they run it as a patronage system.

3.The media cooperates with the above to keep the system running.

The media is shattering before our eyes. Bush is making inroads into lessening the power of government union. They are safe in education. For now.

The screams we hear are because the old trade routes are being constricted. Used to be once in, liberals went from college to the media or government (those with no talent went to PBS or NPR). Then the merry-go-round would begin. From government to media to education--round and round.

The final resting place for those who played the game well was a slot at the Kennedy School of Government.

There is no way for Democrats to paper this over, to put a new label on themselves and hope the public buys it. Unless the party reforms, it will be in the minority for decades.

 

Muhlenberg

Contempt and poisoning the well get you nothing. Sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors get you nothing.

You try the detailed breakdown for what reason? Do you think you can change the final outcome?

 

It is quite clear to anyone with good verbal comprehension, that the conservatives currently use more purposefully ambiguous language than has ever been seen before. This is precisely to avoid having to admit they are "dishonest". If they present language which means one thing to the average person, but should actually be interpreted differently, can they be called liars? No.
Quite clever. And deceitful.
Look at Rice's response when pressed on her description of the situation in Iraq before the war. She says, "I didn't mean that", although the common understanding of the language she used implied many unsupportable claims to the american people.

Although I think we know who the biggest liars are, the conservative republicans say that the liberals are the "dishonest" ones. My feeling is that the descriptive terms, "bigotry" and "contempt for humanity", which the conservatives obviously demonstrate, are the most damning ones, because the dishonesty is so hard to prove. (Thanks to the ubiquitous use of phrases which have many meanings, or none at all if you listen to rumsfeld, he is the worst of the worst.)
Also, we will have to get much better at detecting these slippery statements no matter who they come from. This will require advances in education which the conservatives so desperately are trying to keep from happening. The crippling of public education should do the trick.

 

Another vapid comment. No content. Right out of Saul Alinsky. Make it personal

Well I can do that too tiassa.

Write your own material. George Orwell:

"1.Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."

click here for Orwell's other rules

Might as well reply to my computer than someone who uses "Sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors" to make a point.

 

Well, Muhlenberg, you could try offering something other than argumentative fallacies and irrelevance. Oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot, you don't have anything else to offer.

 

Blue states might be the financial centers but red states are the food centers. I know that money is a good thing but it is not too palatable. Plus we red states get more money back because we are much more efficient with what we have. Blue states have all the massive taxing and spending on liberal programs so of course they would get less back.

 

You're not even trying, Brutus, are you?

 

Nearly everything I eat comes right outta California. I say good riddance to the Reds.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- N

 

We are the United States of America. Not the United Red States, or United Blue States. Opposition is a good thing. It makes both sides stronger. We have our differences but we have more in common. Just look at other countries that kill each other over thier differences. We fight for what we want using the democratic process. It isn't perfect. It requires a lot of give and take, but in the end it beats any and all alternatives.