Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Jim: I don't have the time to research this right now, so this is going off gut instinct... what is the revenue of these states from either tax subsidies (i.e. farming in NE), or energy/mineral rights and perks (i.e. Alaska)
FYI, those numbers make RI look pretty 'good' by comparision!
|
You're right, we need to take into account federal subsidies by state. I couldn't find that per capita. However, I'd thiink that liberals woulod support the notion that rich folks in CT help out the less fortunate in other places. So if those subsidies are a large contributor to CT's problem (and that's a very big 'if'), does that not still suggest that liberal economic policies (liek wealth re-distribution) place an anfair burden on those that foot the bill?
But you really need to consider the debt compared to state taxes. CT, for example, is always listed in the top 3 states for total tax levels, and that's before the massive tax hikes that went into effect last year. How you can collect that much revenue, and still have the highest debt, is beyond me.
The politicians that run our state (and in CT, the VAST majority have been liberal Democrats) have been no less reckless with our money than a 30 year-old NBA superstar who is bankrupt despite making $15c million a year. They have been every bit as irresponsible as that. And they keep getting re-elected.
I have never, not once, heard a CT politician claim that our debt is caused by the feds taking so much money from CT and giving it to other states. What is irrefutable fact is that the single biggest line-item in our budget i sthe unfunded liabilities for retirement and healthcare benefits to the public unionized workers. That is the biggest money pit. And that makes total sense, if you are honest enough to admit that those folks receive fantastic, ridiculously expensive benefits.