CDZ Blue Staters, Reclaim Your Sovereignty

[flacaltenn]

I just read an article which pretty much confirmed my suspicion about the new tax bill. It’s largely designed to punish “blue staters” and their voters. In the article, conservative economist Stephen Moore describes it as “death to Democrats”
Top Trump adviser says the GOP tax bill is 'death to Democrats'

Here’s the gist of what’s going on, again, straight from conservative Steven Moore:
“Blue staters tend to send liberal politicians to office, who then vote for bigger federal spending — even though a greater share of the money goes to the red states. Maybe somebody needs to write a book called: 'What's the Matter With Massachusetts.’”
This is of course a riff on the old ‘What's the Matter with Kansas?’ thing.

And it’s true. The conservative ‘Tax Foundation’ used to collect raw data on how much states were paying into the federal government, versus how much they were getting out. They probably stopped because it was embarrassing:
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.pdf

So here’s the deal as I see it. Blue staters, republicans think you’re chumps, and thus don’t respect you. They will use the big federal welfare programs to hold you over the barrel. But don’t you realize? Hardly any of those federal welfare programs really need to be federal. Repeal programs like medicare and obamacare, and replace them with your own programs. Just don’t forget to put in place legislative roadblocks to out-of-staters coming in and draining them.

Something I agree with liberals on is that government intervention in healthcare is necessary. Every modern nation on this planet uses some combination of regulations and subsidies to make sure their healthcare systems work for everyone. If American conservatives don’t see that, then fine, make it their own problem. Cut the taxing/spending at the federal level like they want, and use the funding windfall to help your own. Sometimes you just have to do for you and yours. Embracing modern federalism will help you do that without getting screwed by people that hate you.

There is no logical reason for Federal Tax policy to ENCOURAGE higher taxation at the State Level. That's what tax credits do -- encourage some action.. By doing so, it deflates reported wages in that state to the Federal govt.

And the canard of Red State thievery goes right into crapper once you account for "cost of living" differences in the various states. BECAUSE the Blue states have an ABNORMALLY high cost of living, the wages for the same job description glean more taxes from the Blue states. Their tax burden is not only determined SALT, but also determined by the relatively higher INFLATION factor of money in those states. Which is the correct way to do things. Because COST OF LIVING can vary as much as 3 to 1 between states. EVERYTHING including fuel, housing, services, insurance, baby sitting, hamburgers are more expensive.

Conversely Red Staters do just FINE at 70% income levels of the Blue states and at even lower percentages.
This COMPLETELY wipes out the myth of Red Leaching or Blue State Altruistic Donating. And the facts of the matter become -- Blue Staters contribute the same SHARE of their inflated incomes -- it's just higher numbers. And Red staters are largely not getting more benefits, they just pay less for them by virtue of the fact that they PAY LESS FOR EVERYTHING..

Serendipity way to fix widely varying cost of living inflation in the usual STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models..

Yeah, I’ve heard all kinds of spin on the maker/taker state issue. Here’s another little tidbit from the ‘Tax Foundation’:
“The top recipient of federal aid in FY 2014 was Mississippi, which relied on federal assistance for 40.9 percent of its revenue. Other states heavily reliant on federal assistance include Louisiana (40.1 percent), Tennessee (39.9 percent), Montana (39.1 percent), and Kentucky (38.5 percent).”

Seriously, 40%?? No state should be relying on fed.gov so much. These people appear to need a good lesson in modern federalism. Here’s a 2017 analysis on the federal spending issue:
2017’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States
It’s a very complex issue because there’s basically no longer any wall between federal spending and state spending, so they’ve become nearly hopelessly entangled. So now we as a nation are all at eachothers throats over paying the bills. Again, the founders had warned us against this:
The General Welfare Clause is not about writing checks

>>>”STUPID brain dead "one size fits all" Federal program models”

Yep, time to take a hatchet to those.

The % reliance on Federal $$ can be misleading. Again -- there's a world of diff between states, while the benefits laid out on the table are virtually the SAME for all. So if you look at what IS subsidized, sometimes you understand WHY the numbers are high. For instance, agriculture is one the HIGHEST subsidized federal programs. So states that depend heavily on it DO get more $$.. Or military bases or significant govt complexes.

Interestingly, I DOUBT that that analysis takes into account the CORPORATE subsidies that funnel to businesses WITHIN those states. If they DID -- you'd get radically different results.

The other confounding factor is DIVERSITY and DEPTH of that particular state's infrastructure and economy.. States with "simple needs" like Montana are LIKELY to find that MOST of the expensive "housekeeping" is covered by Fed $$ -- whereas in New York -- the COMPLEX and DEEP infrastructure overwhelms the Fed support.

STILL -- just the massive diff in the relative cost of living and wages MORE than explains that fractional disparity between most "maker and taker" states. In FACT -- when controlled for that diff -- we'd likely find that NO ONE gets a return of over or even NEAR a factor of 1.0.. SOMEDAY -- when I have the time -- I'm gonna do that analysis. Unless someone beats me to it..

you'll get your answer within 18 months the tax reform bill will equalize out most economic differentials. The reopening of prisons to lower the cost of detainer will also have major impact on the crime rate cost differential.

Well we certainly know -- that a major effect will be to REDUCE the Blue State SALT subsidies which were NEVER COUNTED in the "maker/taker" silly ass Red State/Blue State meme. Had THOSE been added in -- there would also have been MUCH LESS of a disparity in (Fed Bennies In) / (Fed Tax $$ Out)..

Yet another reason why that simple ass mathematical contortion was never accurate.. Just mean and partisan.

 

[Cassandro]

>>>”You are either in favor of federalized health care or you are not: Which is it?”

I’m not in favor of it as it’s currently being authorized under the General Welfare Clause (you can read the link concerning that in post5 as to why that clause can be considered an unconstitutional authorization). In post 5 I also stated:
“What I think should be done is that a constitutional amendment should be passed which guarantees federal funding backing to all Americans who literally can’t afford healthcare. This could be funded with a national sales tax.”

So you are currently opposed to federal funding for health care unless/until a Constitutional Amendment is passed? (YES or NO)

 

[MPS777]

>>>”You are either in favor of federalized health care or you are not: Which is it?”

I’m not in favor of it as it’s currently being authorized under the General Welfare Clause (you can read the link concerning that in post5 as to why that clause can be considered an unconstitutional authorization). In post 5 I also stated:
“What I think should be done is that a constitutional amendment should be passed which guarantees federal funding backing to all Americans who literally can’t afford healthcare. This could be funded with a national sales tax.”

So you are currently opposed to federal funding for health care unless/until a Constitutional Amendment is passed? (YES or NO)

Yes; I think the federal government uses a too broad interpretation of the General Welfare Clause to derive its authority to appropriate funds for healthcare. If the US congress can interpret the General Welfare Clause as justification to spend treasury funds on anything, then there’s basically no longer any wall between State spending responsibility and federal spending responsibility. That’s how we end up with States that rely on federal assistance for 40 percent of its revenue. Go too much further, and states are essentially no more than vassals at a certain point. All the power becomes concentrated in Washington DC.

That’s why the founders listed the explicit spending authorizations after the first paragraph of Article 1 Section 8. It limits the federal government to only being able to spend on very specific issues. And yes, I support adding the authority (via constitutional amendment) for congress to appropriate funds in the specific circumstance where there are US citizens who literally have no way to pay for healthcare. This is often the point where I (as a centrist) run afoul with conservative-federalists. They would say that appropriating funds to be only available to the impoverished is no longer general welfare, but specific welfare. My philosophical stance is that having a basic healthcare safety net in place promotes the General Welfare because anyone MAY need it given unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances.

I see healthcare as similar to the due-process right. For people who can’t afford a lawyer, one has the right to legal representation at the public expense. Maybe these two federal spending authorizations could be combined in the same amendment. It could also form a constitutional foundation for federal disaster relief.

To resolve the conflicting general/specific welfare controversy, I could propose a constitutional amendment such as:
“Whereas circumstances beyond one’s control can bring physical and economic ruin to any citizen of the United States, the knowledge that financial support can be available in such circumstances is beneficial to the General Welfare of the United States. Such circumstances must be specifically defined in the text of this Constitution.”
I don’t know, that’s just something I’ve come up with off the top of my head. It would have to be vetted by constitutional scholars and lawyers of course.