Every time I listen to another right winger raging about unfair taxes my fingers curl as if they're wrapped around a neck. Right wingers love to call liberal democrats whiners. So be it, but consider. The red, republican, Bush voting states are subsidized by those horrible, tax loving, liberals who make, on average, six thousand more dollars a year per capita household income than do red state voters.
While it has never been a secret that red states get handouts from blue states, red state senators and representatives aren't going to make blue state's contributions part of their stump speeches on their re-election campaigns. Don't look for "We report, you decide," Fox News to bring it up either. Ted Kennedy, the poster boy of right wing hatred, has never met an education budget he wouldn't vote for. Red states hate property taxes too, even though such taxes historically provide the funding for their schools. Conservative ideology has dramatic tax-cutting going hand in hand with increased government services. Conservatives call this fiscal responsibility. Red states can afford to cut their property taxes because the difference is made up by whining liberals like Ted Kennedy.
Red states should be very thankful that bleeding heart liberals make most of the money and don't mind sharing it with the poor red states. Isn't it interesting, that the poorer the state, the more right wing it is? Take Louisiana. In 1990, David Duke, the ex Grand Dragon of the KKK ran for a seat in the U.S. Senate and received a majority of the white votes. In 1991 he tried for Governor - same story. Some liberals, who are painfully aware of the lack of gratitude felt by people in states like Louisiana, would be happy if their elected representatives could lower their income tax burdens. Some ask, why should we subsidize these red-necks while they beat us over the head every time we send them another handout?
If not for the electoral college national candidates wouldn't bother to campaign anywhere but on the coasts. That's where the liberals are, and that's where the money is. Red, welfare states, whose populations hate handouts, should wake up and understand their farm subsidies are paid for by handouts from the blue states. The owners of small, family farms should be willing and anxious to surrender their property to the bank. After all, they don't like taxes, and those crop subsidies they line up for are nothing less than the very same welfare handouts they profess to hate. Those red states with demographically older populations accept handouts for their Social Security and Medicare expenses. But alas, voting records, since Roosevelt's New Deal, show liberals voting consistently for these things. It seems liberals like to see the elderly provided for. They consider government the mechanism by which farmers, fallen on hard times, can keep their farms. Liberals like education. They recognize the future belongs to the nations that have the best educational facilities, teachers and curriculums.
The Foundation for State by State Tax Burden Allocation says that in Oklahoma, roughly 1.5 million people paid $6.6 billion on $54 billion of adjusted gross income. In Connecticut, which has the same number of representatives, 1.66 million tax-payers paid $19.1 billion on $107 billion of adjusted gross income. Oklahoma ended up getting a return of $.48 on every dollar. Connecticut lost $.45 on every dollar. The red, client welfare states, supported by those despised liberals, should immediately return the handouts they receive every year. They could practice fiscal conservatism for real! They could be financially and socially responsible! They could have values while the hard working liberals of Connecticut would get to keep their money! I hope no one holds their breath waiting for that to happen.