Monday, January 24, 2005

Welfare States

I have commented on this issue before on other blogs. While many conservatives talk so staunchly against the "welfare state" many red states benefit so much from that same system and are in fact "welfare states." On average, for ever dollar that a blue state send to DC, it gets back $.87. For every dollar sends to DC the average red state gets back $1.19. So, even though we gun-hating, god-hating, anti-American bleeding heart liberals are the mokery of many right leaning Americans, there doesn't seem to be any problem in taking our money.

I am not horribly distraught by this whole situation. We are one country and that means that we are all in this together. If an area of the country that has been hit hard by economic shifts needs a little help to get new jobs, or if the family farmer has been hurt by dropping food prices, I have no problems with helping out. After all, we are only as strong as our weakest link. But I would love to stop hearing how liberals are trying to destroy America through a "welfare state" when welfare comes in so many sizes and shapes.

Red States Make a Mockery Of Self-Reliance (Link)

By Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, January 19, 2005; Page E01

In his inaugural address tomorrow, I'm guessing, George W. Bush will take a moment to reaffirm the "red state" values that returned him and the Republican congressional majority to power. You know, things like self-reliance, free markets, small government and fiscal rectitude.

Funny, that. I have in front of me the latest report from the Tax Foundation showing how much each state gets back in contracts, benefits and subsidies for every dollar of taxes paid. And it shows that, with a few exceptions, the anti-government red states are the net winners in the flow of funds while the pro-government blue states are almost all losers.

Among the biggest winners in 2003, for example, were New Mexico, at $1.99 for every tax dollar paid, followed closely by Alaska, Mississippi, North and South Dakota, Alabama and Montana -- the "red-ink states," as Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group calls them. The biggest loser was New Jersey, at 57 cents per dollar paid, followed by blue states Connecticut, New York, California, Massachusetts and Illinois.

(Happily for those of us in the Washington region, the dominating presence of the federal government makes us big winners.)

In other words, we now have a new red-state political majority comprising voters who, while professing distrust of government and disdain for the values of the blue-state minority, are only too happy to rely on Washington and blue-state wealth to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed.

This rank hypocrisy might be laughable but for the fact that the fleecing of the blue states has increased markedly over the past decade as Republicans tightened their hold on Washington. And the early signs are that it's about to get worse.

Is it mere coincidence, for instance, that after voting 91 percent for his opponent, the District suddenly finds itself stuck with a $12 million tab for inauguration security? Or that Dick Cheney is still pushing tax cuts and royalty breaks for red-state drillers and miners, even after energy prices for blue-state consumers have rocketed to record highs? Or that the tax plan being cooked up by the Treasury will eliminate the deduction for state and local taxes, which just happen to be highest in blue states? Or that the administration plans to slash funding for urban-oriented community block grants, then bury the program in the Commerce Department?

And how can we square the Republicans' urgent desire to "privatize" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with its continued support for Farmer Mac -- or, for that matter, the Rural Utilities Service, a New Deal agency that was supposed to bring electricity to family farms but now finances golf courses in North Texas?

Then again, you'd think those truly committed to free markets and smaller government would be raising hell over the big increase in farm subsidies over the past two years, even as farm incomes doubled.

How's that possible? You may remember that in the bad old days of Bill Clinton, Congress passed the "Freedom to Farm" Act, which was supposed to wean farmers from disaster aid and price supports by replacing those with a gradually diminishing annual subsidy, whether they planted a crop or not. But then the weather turned bad, world prices fell and the farm lobby was back on Capitol Hill with both hands out. When the legislative smoke had cleared, the "freedom" payments survived, only to be supplemented by another round of disaster relief and a brand-new price-support system.

Three years later, red-state farmers are now getting all the advantages of free markets with all the benefits of French-style subsidies. Yields are at record levels, driving prices low enough to trigger price-support payments while sending the price of farmland to new highs. Meanwhile, in blue-state supermarkets, food prices have risen faster than prices for nearly everything else.

George W. Bush says he wants to put aside this silly red-blue thing and be president of all the people. So far, however, his actions -- and those of his congressional allies -- suggest a different reality:

To the victor belong the spoils.

7 comments:

Smoke Eater said...

One thing I would say Dingo, is that the "welfare state" that we (wingnuts) are talking about is the one that exists when you have a large group of people who totally and completely depend on the government for survival (medicare, food-stamps, govt housing, ect...) I have NO PROBLEM helping those who need it, but I want to help them get back on their feet so they can stand on their own after the help, I DO NOT want to just create someone who feels that since I paid for a meal yesterday I am now obliged to do it again today, see?

Smoke Eater said...

"GIVE a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. TEACH a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

Dingo said...

I agree that any welfare to individuals should be coupled with programs to enable the recipients to re-enter the work force. I think that governments job in this arena is not only to set a minimum level of subsistence to people are not out on the street, but to educate or re-educate so they become tax-payers again, not tax-burdens. As you said, teach a man to fish... Well, you can teach him to fish, but if he is nowhere near water, that skill won't do him any good. And if he is near water, it might also be appropriate to not only teach him how to fish, but give him a pole so he can catch something.

As the article touches on, but really doesn't go into, not only individuals in this country are getting welfare. Entire industries are the recipient of huge quantities of subsidies. The cotton farmers get close to $3 billion a year in subsidies. I wouldn't mind so much if this were just small family farmers who struggle from year to year, but the majority of the money goes to big company farms. If you just give an individual hand outs, they will never fish. If you just give an industry handouts, it will never try to become competitive with the world market (no incentive). Without US tax dollars, the sugar producers would quickly go out of business because they are non-competitive with the rest of the world. Could they become competitive if we pulled subsidies? I have no idea, but you can't expect a mother of 4 to "sink or swim" and then turn around and give corporations handouts. It is just hypocritical in my eyes.

Smoke Eater said...

I agree with you here. The saying "teach a man to fish..." is not as far is it SHOULD go. You have to teacht him to fish, provide him the means to start fishing (providing for himself and family) and give a little help here and there during his 'first steps'. The same is true of the corporations getting all of the handouts. They need to become competitive so they don't need the handouts any more, or if they cannot be a competitor in the "market" maybe they should sink, so that a true competitor can emerge, right?

MaxedOutMama said...

Dingo,

That's a good point about the corporate handouts. They do make for an uncompetitive economy. It seems like ever since Iacoca, we keep doing more and more of that. It's not just the Republicans, either. I'm not going to pick on particular Senators, but think about things like that hedge fund Clinton bailed out, and covering the Mexican bonds, which really helped a lot of our big banks, more than anything else.

One thing I know - in the supposedly "red" South, programs to help the lower-income working people are very popular. In the more urban areas, programs that favor environmental interests that strongly disadvantage the rural population (energy, farming, lumber, etc) are very popular. There are a lot of odd subsidies that cut both ways, and an awful lot of political pork sneaks into the various farm bills and conservation programs too. I bet it would take 3 years of the GAO's time just to COUNT all the "welfare" programs of different kinds.

There is a vast all-encompassing hypocrisy in the way we speak about our national life, and I think it poisons the dialogue. We can sit and watch the deficit tick up, but do we even know where all the money goes? Not by a long shot.

Dingo said...

To Smokey -

"They need to become competitive so they don't need the handouts any more, or if they cannot be a competitor in the "market" maybe they should sink, so that a true competitor can emerge, right?"

yes, I think that our industries need to be competitive and viable on their own. I think that industry can get hooked on hand outs just like individuals can. I believe that there are times that the government should step in a prop up an industry while it adjusts to changing market conditions, but that is only a temporary thing. Just like with individual welfare, it is a temporary thing, but we need to provide the tools so people CAN get off of welfare.

To MOM,
yes, both sides of the isle are equally guilty of pork barrel spending. I make no distinctions between the parties. The only difference I see when it comes to welfare is the Dems favor individuals and Repubs favor Business... either way, it is welfare.

SC&A said...

Excellent post and comments.

I would point out an interesting notion, as quoted by Tim Russert.

Apparently, the (10)lowest income states, give the most per capita, in charity. The (10)highest income states, give the least amount of charity, per capita.

Says a lot, about a lot of things.