Daily Beast: Paul Begala: It's Time to Defund Kentucky.

[Destino]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

[zoony]

Not sure why so many people want to desperately pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system.

Oh come on, you know it's not fair. Also, it's not fair to bring up military spending. Those are the rules Destino, learn them please.

Can we get back to talking about those welfare bums please?

[Destino]

I say all citizens in blue states should have their Bush tax cuts taken away.

I fail to see your point here. The people in those blue states voted for that *and* such a move would make the relationship Begala is talking about even more evident.

I will say this though to be fair, the data he seems to be operating on is old. Looks like 2005 numbers and the economy then would look nothing like today in terms of dollars from the fed being spent.

[Hunter44]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

I already posted it but here it is again. http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

2005 is the earliest chart I could find.

[Larry]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

Well, here's a list done in 07, using 05 data.

[mardi gras skin]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/fed-tax-sentspent-by-state/

I've seen these maps showing the differences in what states pay into the government and how much they get from the government but what federal expenses are included? For instance, the Social Security headquarters is here in Baltimore and this pumps a bagillion dollars into the local economy. Is that factored into the tax dollars received by Maryland?

Also, there are a dizzying number companies with headquarters in the state because of our proximity to DC. Of course, Maryland reaps a windfall. How is that factored into the equation?

[JMS]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/bushstates300.jpg

states which recieve the most federal dollars 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)

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)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

[Hunter44]

It just says "federal spending per dollar of federal taxes." Curious as to why Alaska gets $1.84 per dollar sent to DC yet it's citizens receive a check every year from oil.

EDIT: JMS is using a little older data.

[TimmySmith]

I've seen these maps showing the differences in what states pay into the government and how much they get from the government but what federal expenses are included? For instance, the Social Security headquarters is here in Baltimore and this pumps a bagillion dollars into the local economy. Is that factored into the tax dollars received by Maryland?

Also, there are a dizzying number companies with headquarters in the state because of our proximity to DC. Of course, Maryland reaps a windfall. How is that factored into the equation?

I am sure this factors into it, plus Maryland is a Blue State, so therefore according to Begala, it should get more.

[SnyderShrugged]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

It's only invalid as far as saying that those hypocritical views are held by all who support smaller federal spending and influence. No one has said that the hypocracy doesnt exist, but to try and twist it into abandoning attempts to rein in the spending because of it, then its inaccurate and silly.

The true question to ask, and one that we simply dont know yet, is are those that support smaller government willing to apply that principle to what may benefit themselves. i'd say the answer to that depends on what beliefs you hold. The typical neo-con or so-con might likely reject those cuts, but your typical paleo or libertarian conservative likely would accept the cuts.

[Destino]

It's only invalid as far as saying that those hypocritical views are held by all who support smaller federal spending and influence. No one has said that the hypocracy doesnt exist, but to try and twist it into abandoning attempts to rein in the spending because of it, then its inaccurate and silly.

The true question to ask, and one that we simply dont know yet, is are those that support smaller government willing to apply that principle to what may benefit themselves. i'd say the answer to that depends on what beliefs you hold. The typical neo-con or so-con might likely reject those cuts, but your typical paleo or libertarian conservative likely would accept the cuts.

The problem is that when you argue for spending cuts as the reps or head of a welfare queen you have no credibility. It's no different than a fat man selling a diet book. Sure a diet is a good idea for most Americans but why should we be sold on HIS particular diet? It's easy to say we should spend less, here watch:

Hey America, we should spend less.

But the posters on this site would readily identify me as a democrat and associate that with massive spending. I have a credibility problem on this particular issue (and all issues, because really who the **** am I to even be having this conversation lol). The same problem exists with a red state welfare queen demanding that EVERYONE ELSE accept spending cuts.

With all due respect, you first. If it works sell it to everyone else.

[SnyderShrugged]

The problem is that when you argue for spending cuts as the reps or head of a welfare queen you have no credibility. It's no different than a fat man selling a diet book. Sure a diet is a good idea for most Americans but why should we be sold on HIS particular diet? It's easy to say we should spend less, here watch:

Hey America, we should spend less.

But the posters on this site would readily identify me as a democrat and associate that with massive spending. I have a credibility problem on this particular issue (and all issues, because really who the **** am I to even be having this conversation lol). The same problem exists with a red state welfare queen demanding that EVERYONE ELSE accept spending cuts.

With all due respect, you first. If it works sell it to everyone else.

Again, Rand Paul was called out by Bagala. Where is he not walking the walk?

[JMS]

It just says "federal spending per dollar of federal taxes." Curious as to why Alaska gets $1.84 per dollar sent to DC yet it's citizens receive a check every year from oil.

EDIT: JMS is using a little older data.

Yes my data was from 2005....

It's because the political system for despensing federal funds to the states is disconnected from state spending. Alaska benifited from Ted Stevens the longest serving republican senator in history. He was in the senate from 1968, until 2009 and served in leadership positions as the minority whip, majority whip, and President pro tempore of the United States Senate for nearly 4 decades.... The man was famous for bringing hom the bacon, including the funding for the bridge to nowhere which Palin helped to terminate, while keeping the federal funding for Governor directed projects.

[Bliz]

Again, Rand Paul was called out by Bagala. Where is he not walking the walk?

The people of KY were called out by Begala. All he says about Rand Paul is that he ran on a "crusade against federal spending" and won. The people of KY should walk the walk, if they hate federal spending so much (is his point). Not that they ARE hypocrites for electing him, but that if they meant it when they elected Rand Paul, they should, looking forward, back it up.

[SnyderShrugged]

The people of KY were called out by Begala. All he says about Rand Paul is that he ran on a "crusade against federal spending" and won. The people of KY should walk the walk, if they hate federal spending so much (is his point). Not that they ARE hypocrites for electing him, but that if they meant it when they elected Rand Paul, they should, looking forward, back it up.

so why not give them a chance to "back it up" before chiding them as hypocrites?

[Hunter44]

You really think that the people of Kentucky will give up their $1.51 in federal money for every $1.00 they send to DC? lol We shall see....I say Rand should start there, but he won't....

[Destino]

Again, Rand Paul was called out by Bagala. Where is he not walking the walk?

He talks a good game and I have no doubt he'd vote in line with his words. Would like to see the super small government state before it's forced on the rest of the country though,

[TimmySmith]

The people of KY were called out by Begala. All he says about Rand Paul is that he ran on a "crusade against federal spending" and won. The people of KY should walk the walk, if they hate federal spending so much (is his point). Not that they ARE hypocrites for electing him, but that if they meant it when they elected Rand Paul, they should, looking forward, back it up.

I agree. They can fire back up all those coal mines that government has shut down, then they won't need assistance.

[Chachie]

so why not give them a chance to "back it up" before chiding them as hypocrites?

The only way to do that would be to cut their funding. Rand Paul won't do that.

1. Because he'd be burned at the stake by his constituents. Hence the thread.

2. Because he (like any politician- repub or dem) pockets too much of it. I think we can all agree on this one.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's only invalid as far as saying that those hypocritical views are held by all who support smaller federal spending and influence. No one has said that the hypocracy doesnt exist, but to try and twist it into abandoning attempts to rein in the spending because of it, then its inaccurate and silly.

Fine, then only let the non-hypocrites vote for the candidates, until you do that then it IS valid.

[Destino]

I agree. They can fire back up all those coal mines that government has shut down, then they won't need assistance.

What a ridiculous post. First of all define "all those coal mines" tell us how many being that you're pretending it would make up the difference in tax money. Then when you've actually looked into the issue tell us WHY the government stepped in to shut down a mine? I'll help you: the owner couldn't pass basic safety inspections.

Yes let's stop safety inspections! Great argument.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Again, Rand Paul was called out by Bagala. Where is he not walking the walk?

No he wasn't and I've said it before in this thread....it is not Rand Paul being called out here it is the people who voted for him, and the proof is in the very first paragraph of the piece.

The great Mark Shields has said that most Americans are theoretical conservatives but operational liberals. I think Shields is right. In fact, we ought to make it a law of political analysis: According to Shields’ Law, the same people who vote for politicians who pledge to slash government spending are appalled when the politicians they elect actually slash government spending.

[Burgold]

I agree. I think that Rand Paul is proving to be a man whose words and bills have some semblance of consistency. However, while Paul may genuinely believe in an austere, trimmed, and tiny gov't that funds minimally... will the people he represents like it in reality? Kentucky and many Red states have for years if not decades preached small gov't and cut the pork, but the reality of it is that they enjoy ham far more often then just Easter Sunday. They dine on the other white meat on almost a daily basis. They've been talking out of both sides of their mouth for a long, long time.

Cut the pork! Pass me another ham sandwich, dear!

[TimmySmith]

Yes let's stop safety inspections! Great argument.

What on earth are you talking about?

[Destino]

What on earth are you talking about?

You argued that mines were being shut down and that this contributed to the imbalance between tax dollars paid out versus federal money received. So I looked up info on Kentucky mines being closed:

PINEVILLE, Ky. (WATE) - A Bell County coal mine is shut down after a recent visit by federal inspectors.

During a regular inspection by the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration on December 7, Left Fork Mining Co. Inc.'s Straight Creek No. 1 Mine was issued three 104(d)(2) orders.

The orders were for an inadequate pre-shift examination of the mechanized mining unit, an inadequate on-shift examination of the conveyer belt and accumulation of combustible materials.

http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=13921928

The federal government, in an action that it says is the first of its kind, filed a lawsuit Wednesday to close a Kentucky coal mine until its owner can make it safe for workers.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration, filing in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, seeks a preliminary injunction against the Freedom Energy Mining Co. mine No. 1 in Pike County. The mine is owned by Massey Energy Co.

"Freedom Energy has demonstrated time and again that is cannot be trusted to follow basic safety rules when an MSHA inspector is not at the mine," Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, said in a statement. "If the court does not step in, somebody may be seriously injured or die."

Massey Energy also owns a coal mine in West Virginia where 29 miners died in an explosion April 5, the industry's worst disaster in 40 years. The mine had a spotty safety record before the explosion, with three deaths reported in the past 12 years.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/government-moves-to-shut-down-kentucky-coal-mine/

Federal regulators performing a blitz of safety inspections on unsafe mines last month temporarily closed down six operations in Kentucky over safety violations, the Mine Safety and Health Administration announced this afternoon.

The nationwide blitz, inspired by the deadly blast in Montcoal, W.Va., earlier in the month, resulted in 1,339 safety citations and 109 withdrawal orders, MSHA said.

Joseph Main, head of MSHA, said that, in light of the Montcoal disaster, it was “appalling that these operations continued to flout fundamental safety and health standards.”

http://washingtonindependent.com/84206/white-house-shut-down-six-kentucky-coal-mines-last-month

I see a lot of mines failing safety inspections. So what were YOU talking about?