In 1906, satirist Ambrose Bierce defined a hypocrite as “One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he despises.” Amen, Brother Bierce. As a resident of Massachusetts I have a terse message to tax rebels, anti-government wing-nuts, and health reform opponents: “If you hate government programs so much, get rid of them because we in the Bay State are tired of supporting you freeloaders.”
The hue and cry about government programs is loudest and shrillest in those states that benefit the most from taxes. As a Massachusetts resident I get just 82 cents back in federal programs and benefits for every buck I pay. If I lived in Sarah Palin’s la-la land of Alaska I’d get $1.84. Enough with the sanctimonious put-downs of “tax-and-spend liberals;” if you want to see a real bunch of piggies eating at the public trough check out conservative states—the ones led by demagogues who say they don’t want federal bailout money or a national health care plan. When South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford isn’t too busy jetting off to be with his Argentine mistress he pockets surplus federal monies for his state by a ratio of $1.35 for each buck paid in. You’ll also be happy to know that Senator Jeff Sessions manages to take time out from his busy schedule of bashing Supreme Court nominees to rake in $1.65 for the profligate sons and daughters of Alabama.
If we divide the nation into receiver and giver states—depending upon whether they take in more than they pay out in per capita federal taxes—the hypocrisy of anti-government jeremiads becomes strikingly obvious. Of the twenty-two states that went for McCain/Palin, twenty-one of them are receiver states, including seven of the top ten. Only Texans (94¢) have any legitimate complaint about federal largess. In fact, just seventeen states support the wayward habits of the other thirty-three. New York (78¢) and Connecticut (69 cents) pick up a lot of the tab, and New Jersey has the distinction of getting the least bang for their tax buck (61¢).
The United States is a lot like professional sports in that the revenues of the rich—mostly liberal—states support the very people who complain the most about federal programs and taxes. The tax rebels that ought to make hypocrites quake are fed-up liberals. California (78¢) is mired in crisis and Michigan (92¢) is a basket case. What if those two states said they were through subsidizing Mississippi ($2.02) and Louisiana ($1.78)? Conservatives love to evoke Darwinian survival of the fittest (politely packaged as “self-reliance”) when it suits them, so maybe liberals ought to tell Oklahomans ($1.36), North Dakotans ($1.68), and Kentuckians ($1.51) to suck it up and take care of themselves. And can’t Wal-Mart underwrite Arkansas so that it doesn’t dun Massachusetts tax-payers for $1.41?
Sure, there are some “liberal” receiver states as well, but only New Mexico, Virginia, Hawaii, Maine, and Maryland are more than a dime over a 1:1 payout. I’m sure that each of those states would be happy to take bailout money left on the plate by Arizonans, Missourians, and West Virginians. So let’s do it. Let’s tell anti-government states we’re closing their military bases, transfering defense contracts, phasing out government jobs, pulling the plug on highway construction, and are done foisting uppn them welfare, Social Security, Medicare, FDIC, housing subsidies, and other “wasteful” programs they don't want. They can keep their tax money. The liberal states will absorb all of those unwanted federal job burdens, retain their tax-and-spend policies, and even implement federal health care if they want it.
Presumably everyone would be happy. Right? It's time to dump conservative hypocrites off the backs of Massachusetts tax payers.
The hue and cry about government programs is loudest and shrillest in those states that benefit the most from taxes. As a Massachusetts resident I get just 82 cents back in federal programs and benefits for every buck I pay. If I lived in Sarah Palin’s la-la land of Alaska I’d get $1.84. Enough with the sanctimonious put-downs of “tax-and-spend liberals;” if you want to see a real bunch of piggies eating at the public trough check out conservative states—the ones led by demagogues who say they don’t want federal bailout money or a national health care plan. When South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford isn’t too busy jetting off to be with his Argentine mistress he pockets surplus federal monies for his state by a ratio of $1.35 for each buck paid in. You’ll also be happy to know that Senator Jeff Sessions manages to take time out from his busy schedule of bashing Supreme Court nominees to rake in $1.65 for the profligate sons and daughters of Alabama.
If we divide the nation into receiver and giver states—depending upon whether they take in more than they pay out in per capita federal taxes—the hypocrisy of anti-government jeremiads becomes strikingly obvious. Of the twenty-two states that went for McCain/Palin, twenty-one of them are receiver states, including seven of the top ten. Only Texans (94¢) have any legitimate complaint about federal largess. In fact, just seventeen states support the wayward habits of the other thirty-three. New York (78¢) and Connecticut (69 cents) pick up a lot of the tab, and New Jersey has the distinction of getting the least bang for their tax buck (61¢).
The United States is a lot like professional sports in that the revenues of the rich—mostly liberal—states support the very people who complain the most about federal programs and taxes. The tax rebels that ought to make hypocrites quake are fed-up liberals. California (78¢) is mired in crisis and Michigan (92¢) is a basket case. What if those two states said they were through subsidizing Mississippi ($2.02) and Louisiana ($1.78)? Conservatives love to evoke Darwinian survival of the fittest (politely packaged as “self-reliance”) when it suits them, so maybe liberals ought to tell Oklahomans ($1.36), North Dakotans ($1.68), and Kentuckians ($1.51) to suck it up and take care of themselves. And can’t Wal-Mart underwrite Arkansas so that it doesn’t dun Massachusetts tax-payers for $1.41?
Sure, there are some “liberal” receiver states as well, but only New Mexico, Virginia, Hawaii, Maine, and Maryland are more than a dime over a 1:1 payout. I’m sure that each of those states would be happy to take bailout money left on the plate by Arizonans, Missourians, and West Virginians. So let’s do it. Let’s tell anti-government states we’re closing their military bases, transfering defense contracts, phasing out government jobs, pulling the plug on highway construction, and are done foisting uppn them welfare, Social Security, Medicare, FDIC, housing subsidies, and other “wasteful” programs they don't want. They can keep their tax money. The liberal states will absorb all of those unwanted federal job burdens, retain their tax-and-spend policies, and even implement federal health care if they want it.
Presumably everyone would be happy. Right? It's time to dump conservative hypocrites off the backs of Massachusetts tax payers.
Want to know your state’s tax benefits? Click here.
Posts
1 comment:
well said...and I love seeing Freddy the FreeLoader!
Post a Comment