Republicans On The Dole

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dgabriel, Jan 30, 2004.

  1. Each of the Democratic candidates vying to replace George W. Bush has a serious electability problem. The problem has nothing to do with their biographies or temperaments — and everything to do with a significant, but unnoticed, structural divide in American presidential politics.

    Each year, the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group, crunches numbers from the Census Bureau to produce an intriguing figure: how much each state receives in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.

    For example, according to the most recent data, for every dollar the average North Dakotan paid in federal taxes, he received $2.07 in federal benefits. But while someone in Fargo was doubling his money, his counterpart in neighboring Minnesota was being shortchanged. For every dollar Minnesotans sent to Washington, only 77 cents in federal spending flowed back to the state.

    Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50 states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax dollar they send to Washington. Thirty-three states are Takers; 16 are Givers. (One state, Indiana, has a perfect one-to-one ratio of taxes paid and spending received. As seat of the federal government, the District of Columbia has no choice but to be a Taker, and is therefore not comparable to the 50 states in this regard.)

    The Democrats' electability predicament comes into focus when you compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states — while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse. George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states.


    78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.

    76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.

    Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.

    Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12.

    Juxtaposing these maps provides a new perspective on the political landscape. (Interactive moment: Color in the blue and red states — then you'll get the full picture.) Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party — their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states — the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers — are left to carry the load.

    For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution — and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It's shrewd politics.

    And it puts the eventual Democratic presidential nominee in a bind, should he try to rally those who believe they aren't getting a fair shake from Washington. If the Democratic candidate won all 16 Giver states plus the District of Columbia in November, he'd collect only 254 electoral votes, short of the majority needed to capture the White House. The electoral votes of all the Taker states, by contrast, add up to 273 — two more than Mr. Bush won in 2000.

    Is there a way out for Democrats? Maybe not. With Republicans holding the purse strings, it's the Democrats who are being taken.

    Daniel H. Pink, the author of "Free Agent Nation," was the chief speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore from 1995 to 1997.
  2. kewl thread! i can only hope that those free-spending, freedom-loathing, racist, worthless, neosocialist republicans (earlier named by me as being the "hemorrhoid on the ass of humanity") are booted from our beautiful country...

    got a link for the story?

    also, anyone have a link for the map of red (fascist) vs. blue (capitalist) states?? there was one in newsweek back in 10/03 which referenced a webpage (based on the 2000 election)?

    may karl rove swing from a pole in the netherlands with the rest of them...
  3. Maverick74


    That article is completely bogus. Look, the democratic states are givers because lets face it, states like New York and California are never going to get enough federal dollars to compensate for the social problems they have. States like Montona and South Dakota appear to be taker states because more often then not, these states are very independent of the federal government and therefore any federal funding is going to make them appear to be a taker state.

    Also something that you buffoons fail to see is that balance of red and blue states change every election. Sure states like NY, CA, and TX may not, but for the most part they change. Didn't Reagan carry CA? See, thats my point. Hell Look at the red and blue states between Clinton and Dole. you would have thought the entire country was democrat. So this whole article doesn't hold water. Just because Bush got certain states in 2000 does not mean he will get those same states in 2004. And there are many states that Kerry could get, like Tennessee, that Gore failed to carry!!!!!!

    The bottom line is you can use data mining and come to any conclusion you want. That is why data mining is rather useless. Most traders would agree to this statement.

  4. LMAO :D
  5. You bias and lack of logic and analysis is shining again Mav. Woozy from chomping of Ann Coulter's muff again?

    The article spoke of the ratio of federal taxes paid/Federal spending received by states. How the dollars come in is a different question If you had half a brain you would have raised the question of what kind of Federal funding? Defense dollars spent on bases? DOE spending? Both of these have concentrated spending that doesn't accrue benefits per state capita like.... highway, educational, medicare, housing, landmanagement spending.

    Always true to your stripes, ......"social problems"

    Let me guess: White Male?

  6. What I like about you liberals is that you're such a rational, erudite bunch. Michael Moore, in that respect, is your natural mascot.
  7. Interesting example but, as usual, liberals are so intent on slandering Republicnas that they totally miss the point. The blue states are high income states. Since the top 5% in income pay 50% or better of federal taxes, it is inevitable that these states will end up negative. As for the so-called Takers, one needs to look at just how all those federal dollars are being spent. No doubt plenty are going to farm programs, which are a rip-off of urban areas, but I bet a lot more are being spent on defense. Not too many big bases in the blue states.

    It is misleading to paint the red state residents as parasites, with out a much more in depth analysis. My guess is most of the entitlement spending, such as welfare and social security, indeed does go to the blue states.

    I'd also wager that most of the red states would be very happy to forego any government benefits if they could be excused from paying federal taxes.