AND WHY TO THE DEMOCRATS NOT CONTEST SO MANY RED STATES VIGOROUSLY
The truth about Kentucky, yet people still want to vote for Rand Paul, who, given druthers, would literally cut off the hand that feeds them:
For every dollar the state sends to Washington in taxes, [Kentucky's] delegation brings home at least $1.50. How will voters feel about a Senator who wants to turn off the money tap? 
-Time Magazine, via BlueGrass
-Time Magazine, via BlueGrass
Why do people not believe it when one observes the evidence that getting people to vote against their economic interest is the core of GOP politics? The rest is noise.
[Cue drama about how wrong that must be and vouchsafe that "Teapublicans are different!"]
the "formula" by which the Senate passes out the goodies, including all the Team Obama stimulus money that they willingly sent to places that didn't obviously need it, like Texas? That would be on the list of things for the Obama Administration to put a huge rhetorical pressure on in the new year, no? The GOP mandate - it's up for grabs, given how they just ran on platitudes.
And you don't see that covered on Chris Matthew's show, do you? (Picking on Chris, because of his jostling of Arianna that he is indeed getting the real story out.)Perhaps, in the new Congress, we should simply take the Teapublicans at their word (link)?
Seriously, the "formula" by which the Senate passes out the goodies, including all the Team Obama stimulus money that they willingly sent to places that didn't obviously need it, like Texas? That would be on the list of things for the Obama Administration to put a huge rhetorical pressure on in the new year, no? The GOP mandate - it's up for grabs, given how they just ran on platitudes. Why not make a point of their hypocrisy, even if their counter is going to be something about bickering and "the good of the country"?
THE TOP TEN - SMILING BACK AT TEAPUBLICANS
The top ten feeders at the federal trough in 2005 were: New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama , South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia. (Sarah Palin’s home state of Alaska ranks number one if measured in terms of federal spending per capita. Alabama Senator Shelby evidently gets goodies for his state, ranked 7, by indiscriminately holding up votes on administration appointments.) The top ten milk cows were: New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado.
Perhaps in determining how the federal government redistributes income across states one should view its role more expansively than is captured in the budget numbers. In the western states there are federal water projects that subsidize water for farmers, artificially low grazing fees for ranchers, and leases for hard rock mining and oil drilling on federal lands that have historically charged artificially low prices. Perhaps the biggest federal redistribution program of all is massive agricultural subsidies. The four congressional districts that receive the most in farm subsidies are all represented by “conservative” Republicans, located in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas. (Michele Bachmann’s family farm apparently received $250,000 in such farm payments between 1995 and 2006.)
The most commonly ignored area of geographical redistribution is the federal government’s permanent policy of “universal service” in postal delivery, phone service and other utilities (electricity; perhaps now broadband…). Universal service means subsidizing those who choose to live in remote places like Alaska, where the cost of supplying these services is much higher than in the coastal cities. Perhaps they should move…
If I were cynical, I might suspect that the reason that Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, and some Republicans are not enthusiastic about getting the most accurate numbers possible, from the census and otherwise, is that they don’t want people to know who is getting federal handouts and who is paying. But, more likely, the truth is that they don’t want to know themselves.
Perhaps in determining how the federal government redistributes income across states one should view its role more expansively than is captured in the budget numbers. In the western states there are federal water projects that subsidize water for farmers, artificially low grazing fees for ranchers, and leases for hard rock mining and oil drilling on federal lands that have historically charged artificially low prices. Perhaps the biggest federal redistribution program of all is massive agricultural subsidies. The four congressional districts that receive the most in farm subsidies are all represented by “conservative” Republicans, located in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas. (Michele Bachmann’s family farm apparently received $250,000 in such farm payments between 1995 and 2006.)
The most commonly ignored area of geographical redistribution is the federal government’s permanent policy of “universal service” in postal delivery, phone service and other utilities (electricity; perhaps now broadband…). Universal service means subsidizing those who choose to live in remote places like Alaska, where the cost of supplying these services is much higher than in the coastal cities. Perhaps they should move…
If I were cynical, I might suspect that the reason that Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, and some Republicans are not enthusiastic about getting the most accurate numbers possible, from the census and otherwise, is that they don’t want people to know who is getting federal handouts and who is paying. But, more likely, the truth is that they don’t want to know themselves.
