Thursday, January 10, 2013

Blue States Are "Makers" And Red States Are "Takers"

There's a Bloomberg article out there today that correlates state fiscal performance with their political leanings. According to the article, in general, blue states are poorly run and have poor credit ratings. The comments dive into the standard talking point arguments, with the progressive side being the following:
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.


W.C. Varones said...

Blue states are takers in a worse way:

New York / New Jersey / Connecticut are bankster looters who profit from connections to the regime.

Maryland / Delaware / Virginia are predatory bureaucrats and lobbyists, the present-day inhabitants of the Capitol of Panem.

Blue states are "makers" (i.e. net tax contributors) because they are filthy rich from corrupt crony capitalism.

K T Cat said...

WC, something that I just thought - isn't this what the progressives have fought for? The ability and moral acceptance of voting yourself money? If blue states were superior, wouldn't it be right and proper for them to support the "less fortunate"?

Anonymous said...

Reminded me of this article on red states, blue states and the seven deadly sins.

K T Cat said...

Man, that makes me just hate red states. Those people sicken me. I wish they'd just secede and get it over with. Then we'd have paradise.


Foxfier said...

Generally, they manage this by the really simple tactic of counting money as made in the state where the company is headquartered. Not where the money is MADE, but where they send the check from.

Likewise, a state is dinged for spending they didn't ask for and don't want-- like federal parks, Indian reservations-- and also dinged for things that benefit everyone else, like the federal highway system.

K T Cat said...

So what you're saying is that more corporate headquarters are found in red states? Shocking.

Foxfier said...

Think you mean "blue."

New York is working very hard to fix that....

I bet that the tax refunds that in-the-ground oil gets (since you're taxed on your proven reserves, then can write them off if you didn't pull them out... sometimes I really hate our system...) is counted at the site of the oil, while the money from selling shipped oil is counted at the headquarters.

If the data is around, count military pay as going to legal home of record to lower that, too.