How come the red welfare states get a choice about federal money?

[Generic Other]

They siphon off the taxes of wealthier states while their self-righteous governors pretend to refuse money from the federal government. Someone needs to call those governors on their bluffs.

They should be on a real austerity kick. If a governor cuts taxes repeatedly for state citizens, it should automatically mean an audit of a state's books. If the citizens are doing so well as to be ab le to afford to pay less than the rest of us, it should send a message to Washington DC that they need less money from the federal government; in other words, Mr/Ms. GOP Governor, don't come begging to the feds for handouts to make up the difference because that is nothing more than a cheap political ploy. All citizens of every state should be taxed fairly and know that federal dollars are spent equitably. States should receive a percentage of the federal pie equal to their state's contribution and population. Why force the rest of us to carry them while they bitch constantly about the load? It's getting old. Many blue states receive far less in benefits than they contribute because of self serving red state governors and their Rush-addled voters clamoring for more while whining about their own meager contributions.

For example, Alaskans and their moneygrubbing GOP lawmakers should not get a larger share in returns just because their governor resists taxing citizens in order to fund needed state programs, then expects the fed government and other states who do collect taxes from their citizens to pick up the slack. Same with South Carolina or Texas or any of those other obstructionist states. Since they choose to underpay, undertax, underfund, they should understand the rest of us believe they should receive less help not a larger percentage than wealthier states get on their tax investments. That aint capitalism Governor Palin. That's socialism and you should know it when you practice it.

Let's fairly distribute federal money so it accurately reflects the contributions of states. To the penny. As an experiment. I bet if a governor had to face federal cutbacks for refusing to ask citizens to pay for a state's needs while demanding federal government handouts, they would think twice about pulling stupid PR stunts like the GOP governors of red states are doing. You know they will have their hands out for twice as much fed money elsewhere to make up for their largely empty gestures.

Those states who scream the loudest about taxes, socialism and government handouts always seem to be the biggest beneficiaries. How do we stop their governors from getting up on their high horses about tax money being spent on social programs, infrastructure, and other critical state needs? I am sick of their finger pointing.

[dmosh42]

1. They already have huge amounts of Fed money from....

the military bases sprawled over the southern states. Anytime someone wants to save some defense money by cutting back bases, all these 'conservatives' come out bawling!

[Generic Other]

2. Another place where the money is not fairly allocated

Seems like it should be divided up between 50 states for our common defense. A bit more for border states who can see other countries out their front windows.


Tax other countries who need us to maintain bases in their regions.

[Igel]

3. Why "states"?

Why not counties?

After all, not only do state citizens pay federal taxes, but county citizens pay state taxes. I doubt that state-to-county payments are any more equitable, in terms of what counties pay in, than states are.

And if by counties, why not by school district? After all, school districts have their own tax levy, and probably very seldom cross county lines. (So each school district should be a proper subset of one and only one county.)

The lines that are drawn are random. Those that benefit from "socialist" programs benefit because of programs that, by and large, they'd have not chosen but which were chosen for them. That they don't take or want to take money for programs they haven't chosen isn't a surprise, then; that people are insulted that those states turn down money that would short-term fund new long-term programs isn't surprising. You want the program, you fund it.

The distribution that short-changes blue states is also in keeping with the blue states' self-avowed Democratic principles. Complaining that we're held to those principles strikes me as odd, and always has. It seems that people don't like that they're funding those that they politically disagree with; this is often the precise outlook of well-to-do conservatives who they pay taxes that help many poor people, with the difference that the well-to-do acknowledge it and there's no contradiction between their utterances and their principles.