Joe Miller (R -Alaska) and Red State Welfare

[Mz Pip]

I'm kind of liking this guy, in a kind of "be careful what you wish for" Alaska conservatives kind of way. Conservatives always seem to yammer on about taxes and the Federal government. Yet a large percentage of those Red States get far more back in Federal dollars than they contribute in Federal taxes. They hate the government but don't seem to mind taking more than their fair share of tax dollars while trashing the Blue States who give more than they take at the same time. I've always wanted someone to call them on this rather glaring hypocricy. Red State Welfare.

I wonder if the conservatives of Alaska really get what this guy is talking about? Seriously. Alaska gets about $1.80 back in money from the Feds then they contribute in tax dollars. Do they really want to do this???? Do they really really really want the amount of money given to AK be cut nearly in half (or more?).

Interesting article about what Joe would like to see happen. The comments are particularly interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/25/AR2010082504137.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

The one fly in this ointment is that Miller could get elected and AK would still get its $1.80 per $1 given.

It might be a good time for the Democrats of AK to itemize out what the Feds provide for their citizens and ask how they plan to manage without these dollars that Joe Miller seems so convinced that they could do without.

[KingFlorez]

1. This is where Dems can hit Miller

Anyone in Alaska who wants to get elected to the House and Senate needs to be a big porker, the rural areas depend on it especially.

[jonathan_seer]

2. I think it's closer to $3 for every $1 isn't it

$1.80 in any case sounds way too low. I could be wrong though.

[Mz Pip]

3. The stats I've seen

are from a few years ago, so it very well could be more.

Considering the mess CA is in with its budget, we could use that extra money that we send to AK (and to all those other Red States.)

[ProgressiveEconomist]

5. IIRC, didn't Rachel Maddow say it was $5.67 last night

or the night before? Too bad there's no longer a definitive reference for such information. There was, until a decade ago.

From the 70s until his retirement in Y2K, the late NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan saw to it that careful research on inter-state fiscal redistribution was funded and reported out each year (see http://fiscreport.org/pdf/complete_99.pdf for the last such report, covering 1983-1999).

IMO, this research is critical for the future of fully-informed federal tax and spending policy. There's at least one proposal out to revive Moynihan's annual report on "The Fisc", at a cost of only $300k a year for the first two years, and $175k a year thereafter (see http://fiscreport.org/pdf/fiscprospectus.pdf ). IMO, that would be money well spent for the Obama administration or some respectable foundation.

[seattleblue]

4. A faulty economic argument.

You do know of course that most of Alaska is owned by the federal government. That is why federal tax money goes to Alaska and other western states. It is for maintenance of federal lands and assets in the state. That is the case with most of the western States. The people or state government are not getting the money.