One fact worth mentioning here is that, year after year, the deep blue states tend to be the largest net contributors to the federal government, while the deep red states tend to be large net recipients of federal spending. That's right - by and large, the blue states are the "makers," and the red states are the "takers."Maybe that's true and maybe it's not. The Federal government does so much that lumping all spending into one big pile and accusing a recipient of being a "taker" seems a wild oversimplification. In any case, forget that for a moment and let's just deal with what is.
So the red states are "takers." So what?
Budgets and spending have to deal with what is, not what should be or what would be in a perfectly just and fair world. If your neighbor earns twice what you do, but happens to be a worthless sloth, that doesn't absolve you of managing your finances. It's irrelevant.
If blue states are fiscally irresponsible, it's because blue policies aren't coping with reality. Neighboring states aren't forcing the blue states to spend more than they bring in. That's a choice the blue states make for themselves. If there's a correlation between political leanings and fiscal performance, it's a pretty good indication those policies are inferior.
|Just to be clear, not all sloths are worthless.|