Two different “unions”

[all]

[quote=briansd1] And remember all those TSA agents we pay to sit around doing nothing because there are so few passengers at rural airports.[/quote]
It takes only one terrorist to take down an airplane.

[poorgradstudent]

Bottom line, a big part of why California has such “Budget Problems” is the Federal Government takes from California and gives to sparsely populated, historically Republican states like Mississippi, who then complain about the size of the Federal Government.

[jstoesz]

[quote=poorgradstudent]Bottom line, a big part of why California has such “Budget Problems” is the Federal Government takes from California and gives to sparsely populated, historically Republican states like Mississippi, who then complain about the size of the Federal Government.[/quote]

There’s a good argument for a limited federal government…

A lot of people feel this problem is the fallout of the 17th amendment. Senators were no longer beholden to state financial constraints.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=AN]
The same reason why CA is going to have a high speed train?[/quote]

For every $1 that Feds give to CA for HSR, we will have to spend something like $9 to build this white elephant. I would rather not have that type of generosity from the feds!

[jstoesz]

I agree with much of what Brian and Harvey/pri said. Although, I do think the wealth disparity of cities vs country has much to do with the problem (unlike pri), I agree that it is not everything. And Pri’s point is solid that not all federal outlays in states are due to welfare, such as army corps or engineering/defense work, although I have no idea what percent of federal spending that stuff is and how it fits into the whole picture.

Another thought I had which goes to what brian was talking about, is related to the cost associated with low population density. I would assume federal highway funding for a state like S. Dakota is quite high on a per capita basis compared to Rhode Island, but it is beneficial for the whole nation to have I-90 and I-94 running through its borders. Similarly, Farm subsidies are definitely a benefit to rural states, but those subsidies are also a benefit to everyone who buys their product by providing cheaper food (albeit to a lesser degree, and I am no friend of farm subsidies). Etc, etc. It is not immediately apparent what level of federal outlays benefit the nation as a whole, and what level are only useful to the states themselves.

My only point in all this is to show that the map doesn’t really tell you a whole lot. Or at least it is not as hypocritical after first blush.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ocrenter]I agree with brian, let the Tea Party get their wish. it is what is right and it is what is just.[/quote]

Ironically, that’s why I say we need to turn the democrats loose in California with a 2/3rds majority.

IOW, tune in next month to see the future written in Greek.

[Anonymous]

[quote=jstoesz]It is not immediately apparent what level of federal outlays benefit the nation as a whole, and what level are only useful to the states themselves.[/quote]

And that’s exactly why gross generalizations like “we need smaller federal government” are useless.

ALL of government is a redistribution of wealth, no matter what level (federal/state/local.)

The whole point of ANY government is synergy – the idea that everyone is better off when we do certain things collectively.

Simply calling for “leave it to the states” on every issue ignores the whole point of government. Maybe some things are better at the state level, maybe not, but each has to be addressed individually.

And, even within states, we have similar transfers of wealth. You live in Northern California, right? Did you know that us “southlanders” take all of your water?

[jstoesz]

Pri, I agree with you. It is all about striking the right balance. We may differ on the balance here and there…

Libertarians and socialists are both painfully naive. They believe their own Reductio ad absurda.

[Author]

Posts