Matt Yglesias reports:
Sebastian Mallaby observes of conservative/libertarian splits that "It’s not just the values of the South that pose a problem. It is the region’s appetite for government." In particular, "The most solidly red states in the nation tend also to be the most reliant on federal handouts — farm subsidies, water projects and sundry other earmarks. It’s hard to be the party of small government when you represent the communities that benefit most from big government."
In contrast, the Blue States are the chief region for restrictions on property development. It’s a lot easier to build a housing tract or a golf course in the inland Republican areas than in the coastal Democratic areas.
By the way, a big reason that tax dollars flow from blue to red states on average is that red states are where the military bases are, simply because red states have only about 1/4 the population density (not even counting Alaska).
The South does, in general, have lower state government spending, though. The Blue State residents have higher average incomes (and home values), which causes lots of government spending formulas to automatically penalize them.
The deduction for state income taxes encourages wealthy states to raise their state income taxes in order to keep more of their tax money “at home.”
I think California and New York only get about 60 cents in government funding for every dollar they pay in federal taxes.
Yeah, but they just keep voting for more federal spending, via their reps. And *any* government spending is going to penalize them, based just on the higher incomes/higher cost of living.
What an odd way to look at things. States don’t receive farm subsidies, nor do states pay federal taxes. At least, last I checked.
More generally, I’m not sure how much there is to this. The statistics include retirement programs, so the proportion of elderly in a state (think AZ and FL) can drive this a bit. They also, as Steve points out, include military spending. And they include national infrastructure spending in places like Montana, which is still technically a “red” state while trending blue, and which is owned, as I understand it, entirely by the federal government and Ted Turner. Other than that, you’re left with the disgraceful farm subsidies and the happenstance of determined poverty in Appalachia and the south, a problem which has long been the target of federal attention.
Southern states tend to be disproportionate
recipients of federal defense spending as well.
Steve — what share of the blue states greater restrictions on property development is strictly a function of population density?
best-tutor.com
http://www.best-tutor.com
good site
tutor
tutor
Comments on this entry are closed.