4 ms·
>Federal policies already heavily favor funding Red, rural states over more urban states. It "sounds" true when you think about a person/household but when you
by creaghpatr 9y ago
>Federal policies already heavily favor funding Red, rural states over more urban states. It "sounds" true when you think about a person/household but when you factor in the other state services being funded (i.e. roads) it falls apart.
Much of that funding goes to subsidies (farming, energy, etc) for which the whole country enjoys the benefits, if not proportionally. A state like SC that has a disproportionate amount of military bases is going to receive far more per capita government funds, though the local SC taxpayers only get marginally more benefit than the rest of the country.
That's not to say you are wrong that rural states get better de facto tax treatment than urban-focused states but it's a bit more intertwined than it sounds.
- AFNobody 9y ago> local SC taxpayers only get marginally more benefit than the rest of the country. I wouldn't agree its marginally more benefit. Those bases being shut down would crush SC's economy within 50 miles of every base. Economically, they enjoy 100% of the benefit and pay less than 5% of the costs. The US is not, in any real sense, threatened militarily that I benefit from a large defense budget. Similar is true of food and energy subsidies. They have strategic value but they don't benefit me economically. There is a reason food and energy imports are still competitive despite the subsidies. The benefits of what you mention is it helps broaden the US's foreign policy options, not actual economic value to the average American.
- bas 9y agoAnd we haven't even discussed defense spending from an efficiency/ROI perspective.