Friday, July 01, 2011

Voting Them Off The Island


Remember this map?

Well, everyone has an imaginary scenario, so here's mine.

The Obama Administration announces next week that since the GOP refuses to participate in good faith in the actual work of governing the United States, in order to avoid defaulting on our national debt and sending the world into a global financial meltdown, the Administration would accede to Republican demands that all deficit reduction be accomplished solely by making radical cuts to existing government programs with no increase in taxes.

However, in the spirit of the Time Honored Conservative Principle of Federalism, the President adds that the cuts would not be allocated programmatically, but geographically by state.

Using a CBO-updated version of the map originally provided by "The Fourth Branch" in 2010,

cuts will be allocated based on the status of each state's overall contribution to the federal budget.

Fourth Branch explains:

The red states in the map [above] are states which received more than $1.00 in federal money for every $1.00 in taxes paid by residents of that state. Blue states are states which received less than $1.00 in federal money for every $1.00 paid by residents of that state in taxes (information from a 2005 study by the Tax Foundation).
...

There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).

Under the Obama Administration's proposed "Rewarding Wealth Producers and Penalizing Moochers Patriotic American Values Re-alignment" Act, "wealth producing" states such as New York, California, Illinois who have traditionally received less than a dollar back for every dollar they pay in taxes would be exempt from any budgetary cuts, and would qualify for across-the-board tax cuts since wealth-producing states should always be accommodated and encouraged in every way possible, regardless of circumstances.

On the other hand, the "welfare mooching, deficit-teat-sucking" states such as Kansas, Arizona, Kentucky and Alaska who have for years gotten away with parasitically looting their wealth-producing neighbors by receiving more than a dollar back for every dollar they pay in taxes will now assume 100% of the responsibility for eliminating the federal budget deficit. Each of these welfare mooching, deficit-teat-sucking states will be given a block rescission amount representing the percentage of the federal deficit for which they will be now be help legally responsible.

(And to those from the welfare mooching, deficit-teat-sucking states may try to argue that this is somehow unfair, let me point out that everyone knows that adding even one thin dime to the tax burdens of the wealth-producing states would instantly and forever destroy them as job creation engines, so that must be off the table.)

Each welfare mooching, deficit-teat-sucking state will be given 30-days to develop a budget plan which will guarantee compliance: welfare mooching, deficit-teat-sucking states who fail to comply with this directive will be taken over by a federal budget receiver and the national guard who will make the necessary cuts unilaterally.

Acting together in this way, I am sure we can get through this current budget crisis and something something our great nation towards, oh, let's say a brighter future.

Thank you.

God bless you.

And God bless the United Freaks of America.







10 comments:

alise said...

In my imaginary world, Texas is really and truly a blue state, where the overall good is "deep in the heart of Texas" ...

Ok, back to the real world, where we have politicians like Joe "please forgive us, BP" Barton is running the show. Oh and lest we forget, Rick "Good Hair" Perry is planning a run for President. Good grief! As the late, great Molly Ivans once said, "If ignorance ever goes to $40 a barrel, I want drillin' rights on that man's head."

Remember folks, how well things worked out the last time we had a former Texas governor in the White House?

Jill said...

What a great idea! I think we should push it.

Mister Roboto said...

Each welfare mooching, deficit-teat-sucking state will be given 30-days to develop a budget plan which will guarantee compliance: welfare mooching, deficit-teat-sucking states who fail to comply with this directive will be taken over by a federal budget receiver and the national guard who will make the necessary cuts unilaterally.

Furthermore, each of these states will be forced to legalize gay marriage and will be from there on be known as "pink states".

Cirze said...

Fair is fair.

Wonder how quickly the "moocher-hating" Tea Partyers will get behind this sure-fire welfare reducing plan?

Love ya, baby!

Sam said...

I love the idea, but I think we need to ask ourselves: What Would Rove Do?

Why goof around with maps when we could just co-opt states rights rhetoric from conservatives?

As Jeffrey Toobin argued on the last New Yorker political scene podcast, Obama's position on not defending DOMA rests on a states rights argument. The race to the top initiative is another example. This is an opportunity to present our argument on fiscal issues in terms of debtor and creditor states; that this has put us on an unsustainable path to ruin; that responsible states, those that drive the engine to capitalism, must inevitably shrug off this burden so that we can continue to meet the challenges of being God's exceptional nation. You know, that sort of stuff.

If the message is "no cuts to funds paid to creditor states," then we are creating a Prisoner's Dilemma that all but forces state governments to defect from each other.

This would have nasty consequences down the road, but doesn't everything?

moorespeed said...

Those Red States would gladly acquiesce to this plan as long as they could:

1) Teach "The Bible" in school. Not the full bible mind you, but their own expurgated version that does away with all of that sissy/hippie peace and love crap.

2) Outlaw abortion. Really, they'd just go ahead and strip away the majority of women's rights. They'd still allow women to vote, of course; they're not barbarians. As long as the woman was married and voted exactly the way that her husband told her to, she'd be free to exercise her fundamental right to representation.

3) Re-institute slavery. Because the only way that this late-nineteenth century, semi-agrarian, Rockwellian, Andy and Opie whistling their way to the fishin hole', small town paradise-that-never-really-existed that they all seem in such a hurry to get back to actually works, is on the backs of forced, unpaid labor carried out by physically bondaged human beings.

Of course it's not all bad: The high-wheeled bicycle industry would get a much needed boost.

Caoimhin Laochdha said...

Two interesting points.

1: Two teat suckers, Hawaii and Vermont, would likely bristle at the thought of teaching Biblical Voodooism in the schools (with apologies to those practicing true voodoo as opposed to voodoo economics). Also these two states have no issue with same gender marriage equality since both Vermont and Hawaii are pioneer states on this topic.

2: And from the all politics is local department, not only are Vermont and Hawaii the two states that provided the highest percentage of Obama voters in 2008, they are also the two states that recently reelected the two most senior members of the Senate Appropriations committee (and one junior member of the Senate Budget Committee - Bernie Sanders). Politics is local indeed.
Sláinte
cl

Alexander D. Mitchell IV said...

Here's the huge flaw in this analysis and proposal, according to other analyses of this dataset I've seen:

The monies distributed TO states include monies taken in by CORPORATE taxes among the various states, but the supposition assumes monies only from personal income taxes.

Can you prove otherwise?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be simpler to say a dollar back for every dollar put in?

Anonymous said...

@ Alex,

All that means is Del. would be blue and NY would be bluer, the majority of major corp. are incorporated in those to states, that's where they send the check from.

Also, 60 yrs ago corporate taxes were 75% of the total, now2 it's just 25%

The Pale Scot