You know, I don’t believe that “conservatives”, “liberals”, “Democrats”, “Republicans” etc as a group are any less forthright/intelligent/honest/moral/etc than their opposing group. I have on occasion pointed out, in response to claims of that sort, that the behavior in question manifests equally on the other side. This is Otherization at its ugliest and exactly the kind of politics that the majority of voters reoudiated en masse, with a convincing mandate, two weeks ago in electing president Obama.
And yet it continues – with assertions that voters for Obama are dumb and shiftless. When called on it, the defense it nothing more than “they do it too.. they did it worse!” which is the kind of reasoning that gets my six year old daughter sent to her room.
Not to say, however, that some of the facts marshaled for use in Otherization are false. In fact it is very true that cities are where you find more entrenched poverty than rural areas (but poverty exists in rural areas too). It is very true that some Obama voters may have voted for him for the wrong reasons (likewise with some of those who voted against Obama more than they voted for McCain). And it is very true that under the Bush years, a far-left fringe evolved in mindless opposition to the President of the United States which was unseemly, immature, and thoroughly typical of modern politics (just as it did during the Clinton era). These are not “points” to score on one side or another, but rather indicators of things that need to be addressed in a serious matter via reform or policy.
case in point – according to 2004 tax data, Red states (voted for Bush in 2000) took a disproportionate share of federal money than did Blue states (voted for Gore in 2000), with the Blue states actually paying out more than they received to support the Red States:
 States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
(Red states in bold)
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
(Blue states in bold)
So – what conclusions shall we draw from this data?
{ 30 comments }
I conclude that when you are presented with a fact that doesn’t fit your view of the world, instead of addressing the fact, you change the subject.
This is a misleading meme that lefties have been bouncing around for years.Â
Red states have on average fewer Republicans than blue states (because blue states are more populous) and higher income voters are more likely to vote Republican. So while red states receive more aid, it is the blue voters who are receiving that aid and red voters who are paying for it.
Here’s a simplified example how the income tax works out:
Red state – 10 people making 40K.
Blue state – 8 people making 30K, 2 people making 100K.
The Blue state has more income and pays more taxes, but is blue because most of the people are poorer — as they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
So you can see the “red state blue state” meme really makes little sense as an argument, but these are the sort of tortured rationalizations one has to make if one wants to feel better about what amounts to armed robbery of one’s political opposition.
Dave, I agree, its a useless meme as far as political scoring. But the data isnt wrong. Its not just a "meme" when it comes to policy but is in fact something that is perfectly rational, reasonable, obvious, and utterly irrelkevant to the character of conservatives/republicans/etc.
However, your attempt at explaining it away is also wrong. You are equating "red voters = Republicans = rich", and also assuming that federal spending is "aid", and further making an impossible assertion about teh selectivity of that spending.
My aim here is not to engage in sniping but highight how certain things appear, and are misused for political gain. I think the "red state welfare" data is sound, but not the political inferences that a blue partisan might draw from it.
I didn’t say it was wrong, I said it was misleading. The meme is implying Republicans receive more aid than they pay, which is egregiously untrue.
As I said, mine is a simpified model, but it’s not wrong. Voters do trend Republican as their incomes rise, and obviously you are more likely to receive aid at lower incomes.
Your core point is taken, but I’d like to snipe at the data nonetheless.
Individuals pay taxes, not states. Within each state, high-income people tend to be more Republican than lower-income people, and higher income people pay an overwhelming majority of the taxes while lower-income people receive much of the benefits of government programs.
How does this data score things like national defense and veterans benefits? Do they allocate the federal benefit according to population and wealth (to represent the benefits of being defended), or do they allocate the benefits according to where soldiers and defense contractors live? If the latter, that skews the numbers because military bases are disproportionately in red states, and red state residents (especially Utah and the South)Â are disproportionately likely to volunteer for military service.
How does this data score Social Security and Medicare? If someone lives his working life (paying into the SS/M system) in New York, then retires to Florida or Arizona (receiving his benefits there), does that get scored as New Yorkers getting screwed and Floridians or Arizonans being on the mooch?
Statistics is a tool that can be massaged in such a way as to reveal whatever one wants.
I would have to see the calculations, but I am inclined to agree with Dave and the others that state this is misleading.
Simple analogy, statistic – more white houses are destroyed by hurricanes than any other color. Statistic – most car accidents happen within 5 miles of home.
Painting your house green won’t make a difference any more than driving 10 miles from home.
The point being, you must know and understand what the statistic, based on the assumptions of the model, really means. The error so often made is – does correlation prove causation?
How much of this federal spending is military and defense contractor spending and how much of it is entitlements and discretionary?
A quibble: poverty tends to be even deeper in rural areas than urban areas. They’re not only poor, but they’re a heck of a lot more isolated. If cities have more it’s a function of population density and nothing else; city-poor actually do better because they have more services available than country poor.
Also, on the "Obama followers are stupid" stuff, like I said, I know it’s cheap. I admit it up front. I’m still resentful about the last 8 years. Childish of me, I know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
$1.63 trillion entitlements (52.6%)
$705 billion defense (including war appropriations and veterans benefits)Â (22.7%)
$505 billion nondefense discretionary spending (16.3%)
$260 billion interest on the debt (8.4%)
Also I would point out, to the actual discussion: one thing you find a lot of in "red states" is military bases. I think it was initially because the Federal government could get land cheap and easy in big rural areas, and nowadays it stays that way mostly due to inertia. So a lot of that Federal spending in red areas is military spending. That’s also part of why they’re so red, as military people are routinely quite conservative in their voting patterns; one of the reasons the left failed the last few years at making out members of the military as pitiful victims of the Bush administration was because well over 70% of those on active duty voted for Bush in 2004. The meme of them being either pitiful victims or mindless killbots just never worked out I’m afraid.
Beyond what Dean said about military bases, let’s not forget that the Dakotas have very few people and <I>lots of federally-funded Interstate highway</i>.
… lies, damn lies, and statistics….
nuff said.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hottest 60s sitcom babe?
I think you all may be missing the central point, this data is not being presented as a notch on the other side of what Kevin was saying, but rather as a rebuttal of his reasoning. Â In other words, exactly what R.E. Lee said, texas sharpshooter fallacy: correlation does not imply causation.
I think this entire line of reasoning is misleading. Federal money spent in a state doesn’t necessarily benefit only those in that state.
Some federal money spent in ND & SD supports the farming economy. Some funds spent in MS and AL support fishing and shipping. How much of Alaska’s funds cover costs of production and shipping resources (oil, crab legs) for the lower 48?
West Virginia, of course, has had Senator Byrd bringing in the money. But the roots of my family tree are in soil that is heavily Democrat and pro-Union. The governor’s a Democrat, the US Senators are Democrats, and 2 of the 3 Representatives are Democrats. Calling WV a "red state" is an oversimplification.
Ultimately, while California only got 81 cents back for every dollar of federal taxes paid, they received $242 billion in 2005. That’s more than any other state, and around $100 billion more than NY or TX. North Dakota, near the top of the lists provided, got $6.6 billion while DC got almost $38 billion in 2005.
(According to taxfoundation.org)
Looking at this, it suggests to me that people aren’t really voting their near-term financial interests.
zach,
maybe they get the point – certainly Eric said so, and I take him at his word. Still, the data represents enough of a threat that they are compelled to attempt to dismiss it rather than address it. Thats natural; I’d expect lefties to do teh same for some data that implied something equally wrong about blue states or whatever.
FWIW my theory on why red state welfare exists is simple – it’s because even bloated government still works to mitigate the excesses of pure capitalism (which is good for economic growth, but concentrates that growth among the economic elites). Liberal policies like welfare, social services, etc free up human capital and human energy away from subsistence and towards productivity – for example, the isngle mother can get subsidized health care so she can go out and work instead of staying at home (I’m not making a value judgement here – just pointing out the effects of policy). Yes, its often porly implemented and subject to waste, but its still money well spent.
Liberal social policies (not Liberalism, or the absence of Conservatism, mind you – I am talking about poicies of the sort that even Republican governors from Romney to Schwarzenegger heartily endorse) work in that they raise the tide for everyone. In their absence, ie without govt acting on behalf of its citizens, its much harder to stay where you are, let alone advance.
The only government that does active harm to the economic status of its citizens is corrupt government. For all its ills, the American system, from federal level to states, is pretty transparent overall and prvides internal self-crrective mechanisms (not least of which being democracy itself). Our worst (like Louisiana or Jersey) isnt even a tenth as bad as other nations worldwide (look at India, for example).
Exploring other things that a data set might meant other than what it superficially appears to mean *is* addressing it, not dismissing it.
Maybe I didn’t get your point. If your point was that pulling up data out of context that superficially appears to say something bad about the other side (that Obama’s supporters are ignorant, or that Republican states are hypocritical) isn’t constructive, then I got it. If it was something else, please explain.
So Aziz, the wealthier blue states pay a disproportionatly higher tax share than the freeloading red states.
What would you have the government do to even out this blue state – red state "subsidization"? Get rid of the "progressive" income tax and implement a flat tax?
Deal!Â
Thanks for clearing that up. I get it now. When Democrats hold power in areas for generations on end, and that area takes a financial dump, it’s not the fault of Democrats.
Bush holds power for 8 years and the current dump in the economy is his fault.
So, when Republicans hold power, they’re at fault. When Democrats hold power "correlation does not imply causation."
Wonderful.
After (and before, BTW) Â reading the comments, I truly do not understand what the statistics mean. Â The only real conclusion is that the data is meaningless.States don’t pay taxes, but they do get Federal assistance. States don’t collect taxes from Federal facilities, and it isn’t apparent whether money for Federal facilities is part of the data.
Sandi, you speak in jest, but my point is that the disparity is a natural one, and not something that needs to be "evened out". In fact, i don NOT see it as a transfer of wealth from blue to red. I see it as blue states enjoying prosperity and red states lagging behind, but destine to catch up in time as they "blue-ify" thanks to inevitable demographics trends.Eric, I meant toe xclude you from my comment about others dismissing it, Â but worded it badly. I think you and I are on the same page. My broader point about misleading data, howeverm also applies not just to this data set about red state welfare but also to the data Kevin and CC and others are pointing to in other threads.
Kevin, we are over here. You seem to be waaaaay over there arguing with someone else. How about coming over here and joining us in this debate?Â
Aziz,
As you created this thread to respond to two of my own threads (Dean simply repeated one of mine), I think I’m the one that knows where the debate is really at.
I started it after all.
In this thread, "blue-ify" apparently means "stop voting for a Republican president". But, as an example, West Virginia voted for Carter over Reagan, Dukakis over Bush, Clinton over Bush, and Clinton over Dole. As I noted earlier (hung up in moderation), their congressional delegation has 4 Democrats and 1 Republican. To suggest they need to "blue-ify" to continue on the process to prosperity misses the reality of their politics, their economy, and the "source" fo their federal pork.
Also, overall amount of federal dollars received does not tell you that an economy is lagging. Yes, 12% of North Dakotan’s are living below poverty level, but so are 13% of Californians, 11% of the folks in Illinois and 14% of the folks in New York.
My only quibble is with the term "welfare". This implies money transferred without anything in return. Things like military bases and interstate highways are not welfare. For the money spent, the entire nation benefits. In other words, we get such things such as the Fort Knox military reservation in Kentucky, the air-route traffic control center in Atlanta, the Mayport Florida Naval base, and Interstate 80 through Nebraska.
Derek, blueify doesnt just mean voting for a Democrat instead of a Republican (though Obama did flip 9 Bush states to his column this past election, so that definition does have some relevance). It also means to get increasingly Democratic at hte state level, which has happenned across the board. In fact I’ll do a post on this shortly – theres only a small belt through appalchia and the south where counties voted more strongly Republican than before. Everywhere else, the country has indeed blued. How counties go are leading indicators for teh Presidential vote, as well – and it seems likely to me that Georgia will flip in 2012 and Texas in 2016, if trends continue.
greenwell, military and highway spending is not concentrated in red states to the exclusion of blue, so that stuff averages out – and anyway all those things you mention do have a local impact so its not like they are in a vacuum. A base or a ATC is a federal economic subsidy to a region. And after all, where does the money to build that base or highway or ATC come from? the collective federal coffer towards which everyone pays in.
but I actually agree with you – whereas 99% of the people looking at the data are doing so from a perspective of a zero sum game. I argue that its not really welfare, its actually a rising tide. Seee my comments above in response to zach.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your definition of "blue-ification." But I think it’s wrong to assert that states who blue-ify become more prosperous.
The poverty rate in California is 13% and it’s 11% in North Dakota. North Dakota may have received more than 100% of the federal tax dollars its citizens paid out, but that certainly can’t be because per capita poverty is so much worse than it is in California.
I don’t think that states (and cities) are prosperous because they turned blue. I think they turned blue because, at one time, they were prosperous and drew a lot of people in. And I think turning blue tends to be a one-way flip.
"...military and highway spending is not concentrated in red states to the exclusion of blue, so that stuff averages out..."
I did not claim that military and highway spending was concentrated in red states. My claim was that this sort of spending cannot be classified as "welfare" in the traditional sense of the word regardless of whether it is spent in a rural (red) or urban (blue) areas. I used those as examples only.
Let me clarify. To use one example, interstate 80, which east to west passes through 11 states – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and California. Now, of those 11 states, the three least populous also happen to have the longest stretches of highway – Nebraska – 455mi., Nevada 410mi, and Wyoming 401mi. That’s 1266 miles total for those three states which calculates to nearly half (43%) of the entire 2900 mile route. The thing is, if you want interstate 80 to go from coast to coast, you have no choice but to route it through some very sparsely populated states – areas which also happen to be red states. This is going to skew that total statistic, don’t you think?
If you want a more meaningful statistic, then break out all of the spending that truly is "welfare" and lets see what the comparison by state is then.
I was preparing another comment building on what greenwell wrote that would take the 10 states identified here, note the paid-return ratio, identify how much they actually received, how much was spent on welfare, and the percent of total federal funding spent on welfare.
In the process, I came across an article from 2002 on the Ohio State University web site, which noted the following.
"In a curious paradox of the Electoral College, Bush won most of the states that benefit from federal spending, while Gore won most of the states that bankroll the federal government. Perhaps more interesting, the states in which Al Gore did worse than Bill Clinton did in 1996 are the states that increased their net take from the federal government in the two years leading up to the 2000 election. These curious empirical patterns hold under several different perspectives on the data, and they raise an interesting puzzle about Electoral College votes and federal spending."
So, getting more federal money apparently makes people vote Republican. Thus, the answer to retaking the White House may be for Congressional Republicans to spend MORE money in states like California to improve the paid/return ratio. Apparently people vote Republican when they think things are getting better.
Comments on this entry are closed.