Romney's 47%: Why Do Conservative States Take So Much From Federal Government?

Yesterday, a video of Mitt Romney from back in the Spring speaking to supporters made the news in which he declared that a good number of Obama's supporters would never vote for him anyway and that he was going after the 5-6% of independents that would decide this election. Then, he said that the 47% of those who would vote for Obama no matter what, were largely made up of those who depended upon the Federal government. Here is one summary of Romney's words:

Mr. Romney describes how his campaign would not try to appeal to “47 percent of the people” who will vote for Mr. Obama “no matter what.” They are, he says, “dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them.”

He says those people “pay no income tax,” and “so our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” Mr. Romney adds: “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Now, this raises an interesting point. I agree with Romney in the sense that we have far too many people in America who are dependent upon government and who pay no taxes. We are better off as a nation when everyone contributes to the greater good and we would be much better off if we had 70-80% of people with good jobs making good money and creating wealth and paying taxes off of that wealth. That is the ideal and generational poverty and dependence is a scourge upon our society, not just because there are others footing the bill, but because we have generations of people who know nothing but government dependence. That is a scandal in America and it should be addressed.

But, along with those issues that stems from personal dependence come the issues of state welfare. Some of the states with the lowest state tax structure are also the states that take the most money from the Federal Government on a per capita basis. Take my state of Alabama for example. Alabama is a very conservative state with some of the lowest state taxes in America. Yet, Alabama takes $1.66 from the Federal Government for every $1.00 it sends to Washington. Alabama, a very conservative state that is proud of its low taxes, is actually a welfare state in that it takes money from other states to be able to function. Alabama can only afford to have low state taxes because it takes money from other states to pay for its services. This is wrong, in my opinion.

But, it is not just Alabama that does this. As a matter of fact, the truth is that the majority of conservative (Red) states are welfare states living off of the surplus that the majority of liberal (Blue) states send in to the Federal Government. It appears that the more liberal states are not just paying their own way, but they are also footing the bill for the "Low taxes or no taxes" conservative states to be able to function. Check this out:

And this:

Now, I am very conservative politically, but I do not think that it is right for Alabama to have low state taxes and then take money from California and New York for its education, highways, and infrastructure. Alabama ought to pay its own way first and then send money on to the federal government for what we all deemed as the common good.  As a matter of fact, what would our government look like if all social services, education, roads, and infrastructure that did not serve a federal purpose was handled by the states?  What if there was no Federal money flowing into the states for anything other than what was needed for Federal purposes? Then, every state paid in 10 cents on the dollar for military defense and other projects that were Federal responsibilities and had interstate jurisdiction?  We would end up with a much smaller, more efficient Federal Government and the states would have to get their house in order, fix themselves both economically and socially, and get off of the government dole.

The other scandal is that in many of these "Red" Conservative states that are so dependent upon Federal tax money, you have the Church playing a prominent role. Unfortunately, the South, which is historically the Bible Belt, is also the area with some of the worst social indicators, which are a primary reason for much Federal spending when it comes to social programs. One of the best ways for the States to get their act together is for these states with a large preponderance of churches to actually clean themselves up of the negative social indicators like teen pregnancy, divorce, drug addiction, obesity, etc. and put themselves on a more solid social and cultural footing.

All of this makes me think that Conservatives are not really serious about fiscal responsibility in a way that works. It seems that what they really want is for THEM not to have to pay taxes and for someone else to provide for them so that they can live the life they've always wanted. They will forgo a responsible state tax structure as long as the Federal Government provides for them while at the same time working to diminish the Federal Government. If they would first start with their own house and start paying themselves for what the Feds (i.e., other states) provide them, then maybe they would have a leg to stand on. As it is, it just looks like selfishness.

Comments

[Mary]

It's really not as simple as comparing dollar to dollar. I found this comment from a blue state blog which explains it pretty well.

"I attended a Rep. Obey listening session and he was confronted by a man who wanted to know whether Wisconsin was receiving its ‘fair share’ of federal dollars for the taxes sent to Washington. Rep Obey replied that this was a bogus question because there are states with a large military presence and there are states with low populations that act as conduits between high population centers. He cited states along highway 80 as an example of areas that may recieve a lot of highway projects funded by the federal government.

Assumptions that states that receive more federal dollars are ‘welfare queens’ may not reflect the reality of what types of federal money they received. NASA, National Laboratories, military bases, military arms manufacturers, etc. may all have a significant impact on these numbers. And Alaska’s proximity to the polar regions (and Russia) almost guarantees a lot of federal dollars for military roles in that state."

[Steve Martin]

It's very hard to say 'no' when there are prizes to be had for filling out the paperwork.

The rules need to be changed to eliminate the opportunity to take what is not earned.

Thanks.

[downshoredrift]

Mary, that is a very good point and that type of funding would fit in what is clearly a Federal mandate. But, apart from that, I know that there are many Red states that fund education programs, social programs, highway development, etc., with Federal dollars that they could forsake if they took care of themselves and their own needs. Obviously, we would have higher state taxes in this case, but I cannot figure out why according to the Constitution, we have Federal money going to education in the states, for example. Shouldnt states educate their own people according to their own standards? Shouldnt states repair their own roads and bridges? Shouldnt states care for the needs of their own people as they see fit? Now, the Federal government is tasked with the defense of the nation and a few other things and those things that are related to Federal responsibilities should be paid for by all of the states equally, but if one state benefits more than another according to Federal spending in regard to those responsibilities, then perhaps they should pay a bit more in to recognize that benefit. My point is simply that most conservatives are conservative in name only when it comes to our tax structure. If we are really conservative, we would get off of the Federal dole and stand on our own in many areas.

[Mary]

Here's an interesting link explaining why these kinds of memes don't really help liberals - liberals would not agree that the people who receive the most federal aid should give it up and start paying taxes somewhere - which kinda makes Romney's point - the people who receive federal aid even in red states are not going to vote for Republicans.

http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/Red_States_are_Welfare_States

[downshoredrift]

Mary, I understand where the money goes and how those constituencies still vote Democratic - often because they know that they will continue to receive help from the Federal Government even if their state does not come through for them. My point is that the state should be more responsible for the needs of its own citizens and that neighbors should take care of the common good in their city. Using education as an example in Alabama, we pay some of the lowest property taxes in America because the timber and agricultural lobby has effectively gotten property tax rates reduced. Education is funded by property taxes. So, wealthy people either put their kids in private schools or move to affluent bedroom communities and then fund their own school systems, leaving the masses behind under the claim that hey are not going to pay into a corrupt system. Yet, children do not even have text books to take home and study with in the poorer city schools. And, the wealthy dont care and say that they are not going to support higher taxes of any kind for schools or anything else. Meanwhile, we receive a larger share from the Federal Government (other states) and those well-off can take care of themselves. In many cases, the Conservative position just becomes a selfish position. Now, I am fundamentally conservative because I believe in the principles of self-reliance, small government, personal responsibility, and transcendent ethical positions. But, I also recognize that much that passes for Conservatism today is simply parasitic - for example, affluent bedroom communities that would not exist without the center city, but are filled with people who only condemn the city and its problems and move out to secure a better life for themselves. At the end of the day, we are all in this together and just because some have the means to be parasitic does not mean that their position is consistent or even moral. It surely isnt conservative. Yes, we are our brothers keeper and we should live and fight for the good of the city taking on its problems as our own, even if it inconveniences us. I also believe that this is a Kingdom value and as a Christian I think that we are to be a part of the solution instead of using our wealth and power to insulate ourselves from any problems.

Obviously, I am speaking in general terms here and not specifically to every person or family who has to move to a better school district so their children can get a decent education. Because the thrust of society has been in a selfish direction, I do not expect every individual to take on the system by themselves. But, I think that economics are important if the Church could begin to look at this position collectively, perhaps we could hammer out a position that was both conservative as well as redemptive for all. That takes prophetic imagination, though, and a rethinking of almost everything. I dont blame individuals for not doing that themselves, but what if we started doing it together? What if Christians in a community addressed the education system together instead of leaving every family to fend for themselves and make the best of things? That is just one example, but there are many others.

[Philip Hannam]

It's an interesting way to surface a set of issues. I'm not sure that the "states giving-getting" projected on top of presidential vote really gets at much. For instance we have long had a food policy that supports cheap industrialized production to give urban centers cheap food and surplus products to export to balance a severe trade deficit driven by the energy and consumption patterns of urban centers. So we have rural states with low incomes (hence low tax payments in the one progressive component of our tax system)pulling in heavy ag subsidies. But the targeted beneficiaries of the ag subsidies are not really the farmers (even they show up as a big imbalance).

I think both parties have settled on a pro-government or anti-government rhetoric which are equally disingenuous. What I would like is for them to actually articulate what they believe. The basic reason I don't think we get that--is because there is "nothing there."

And that's scary.

They both believe in big government--because to a large degree the global social reality demands it. We cannot have powerful, global systems (e.g. financial, technological, communication, commercial, transportation, manufacturing,etc.) without large, bureaucratic, regulatory, legal, enforcement structures.

I don't think either party articulates a vision for how a government ought to look and operate in this fast changing reality. I don't think either articulates how national governments ought look when much of human culture is functioning in a way that pays no attention to national boundaries. I don't think either envisions how a government can simultaneously have its tentacles in more things, address larger scale crises/problems, move faster, and be smaller/sustainable.

So I think to me the Conservative failure is that they front this small government, non-dependance, argument without even beginning to frame the questions in a relevant manner (let alone answer the questions)

[Mary]

We'd have to know what the actual numbers are to discuss where the money is going. In some Southern States you've got more farm subsidies that don't get distributed to states without the farms/agriculture. In a state like New Mexico which has probably a lower population which means lower tax bases but has a large population of Native Americans who receive lot's of federal help. Not all states are equal in the amounts of Federal help they're receiving. Should the entire nation help in farm subsidies in farm states or shoud those states be left alone. Not all the money that goes into a state goes to education and highways. And then we have to talk about the fact that there are state highways and federal highways - federal being the interstates transporting the goods the whole nation needs. States don't have control over the federal highway system but if they have more federal highways than more fed money is needed to support those roads.

Absolutely states should support their own education. And conservatives do make the argument that States should take care of their own people, but just look at the news out of Texas where they've decided to refuse government money so they can decide which health clinics(no abortion mills) to fund. The liberals scream about the poor being short changed when states start withdrawing from the federal dole. So it is happening in Red States that they are trying to refuse government money and thus be able to make decisions outside the feds.

[Mary]

Alan, you're concerned with education funding? Aren't there several big colleges in Alabama? So any student loan, pell grant, etc is going to be lumped in with federal money. Do you think everyone in the state should just give up all those dollars?

You're showing charts that give us very little or no information as to what the federal funding is going toward in those states and even if we could pull out one issue like education it's probably not the Welfare Queen scenario that the liberals who put the chart together want us to believe it is.

[downshoredrift]

Mary,

You make great points. Delineating between which Federal dollars are truly going to Federal projects and which ones go to State projects would be a good place to start. Of course, one must realize that there are Blue states that also have large populations as well as small populations. The fact that California, Delaware, and New Jersey are all sending in more money than they receive tells me that this is not simply about demographics. Delaware is a very small state, but it has Dover AFB and the federal dollars that goes with it. California is huge and is in its own fiscal debt crisis, yet it sends in more money to the Federal Government than it receives back - $5 sent in for every $4 dollars it receives. When California goes completely bankrupt and a Federal bailout is required, Conservatives in Alabama are going to scream to high heaven - all the while ignoring the fact that California has been footing their bill for a long time now. Yes, I get that this is a liberal talking point, but it is one with some merit, I think. The Liberal solution is not for states to stop receiving money - it is for everyone to pay in more because everyone benefits. My solution is to stop talking about fiscal conservatism when you are getting money from other states that you dont have to pay yourself unless you are willing to be more consistent.

I agree that there are different designations here and it would be helpful to lay those out. We might see a different picture if we did. But, the fact that much of this holds true for states large and small tells me that something else is going on besides just an oversight.

[downshoredrift]

Philip, as always, you make great points. We are an interdependent society that is very complex. Simplistic solutions to complex issues usually just skim the surface. But, Democracies can be manipulated with partial truths, so we continue to engage in them, even if they are problematic. I do believe in Conservative governing principles, but I think that all sides need to put their cards on the table about what type of society they expect and then figure out what it takes to fund that society and do so responsibly. Just shouting the mantra of Low taxes does not take into account the true situation, especially if you live in a state that receives tax money from California - a state that is going bankrupt as we speak. Now, California needs to solve their own problems, but what if they quit sending in their tax dollars to the Federal Government? It affects all of us, obviously.

[Mike Chitwood]

Unfortunately the data in this blog represents a portion of the overall pie of our countries economic woes. I too agree that depending on the government with no promise of getting off of federal assistance is wrong and it needs to stop at the individual and state level.

As for Republicans being "conservative," they have been conservative in their ideals concerning social issues. They have NOT been conservative in practicality as you alluded to the issues of teen pregnancy, divorce, etc. Also Republicans have NOT been conservative financially either in recent politics. President George W. Bush spent more than he saved or "conserved." So these things are important to think about as we vote.

Lastly, what I would like to see is on a macro level how the Republicans and Democrats have spent overall in all areas. Get a detailed budget breakdown and then see the holistic big picture. Unfortunately I will remain skeptical of reports such as this one because I said at the start, "it is only a portion of the overall pie of our countries economic woes."

[Mary]

The problem with your California example is that California (it's the same in New York) has a large segment of millionares compared to other states - ie Silcon Valley, Hollywood. So again it's not apples to oranges.

75% of federal taxes are paid for by 25% of the population. It's not about states giving to the federal government - individuals give to the federal government NOT states and those who pay the most taxes live disproportianately across the country just as some states have a higher percentage of those in the lower tax brackets paying zero in federal taxes. This isn't the CP where states get to decide how much money to put into the collective pot.

And you're making an argument that conservatives do not agree with ie that those who pay more in taxes should somehow receive more in federal benefits. We are all supposed to benefit equally from the federal roads, defense, etc. even though not everyone pays into the system.