4 ms·

the split between, on one side, California and New York—two states, deeply in debt, whose wealthy are beneficiaries of the global economy—and, on the other, the

the split between, on one side, California and New York—two states, deeply in debt, whose wealthy are beneficiaries of the global economy—and, on the other, the solvent states of the American interior that will be asked to bail them out. I am in awe of the ignorance on display here. This sort of analysis ignores the fact that NY/CA pay much more than they get back to the federal government while the "solvent" states of the American interior get much more than they pay from the federal government. It is easy to be solvent when you're living off of welfare. And it is easy to go into debt during a global economic crisis when you're committed to paying large sums of money to support others your economically unproductive brethren. See http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_... for more information.

hga 16y ago
Let's assume I accept your premise. What does that say the state governments of NY and California should do? If the Federal government is subjecting them to an unfair transfer payment burden to the interior states, well, that's just a "cost of doing business in the US". There are, after all, precious few people out there who pay their taxes with a song in their heart and a spring in their step. I.e. on an imaginary balance sheet for the states' budgets, it's a single line item in the liability section. Given that, it's still the responsibility of the state governments to manage their finances. For better or worse, these states have to live within their means. Putative exploitation by the rest of the country does not absolve them of that responsibility.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  What does that say the state governments of NY and California should do? Practically speaking, they should do what they're doing now: work to get their budgets in order. What do you think the alternative is? But it would be more equitable for states like NY and CA to break into several smaller states. After all, the reason underpopulated and economically underperforming states in the middle of the US get so much cash from the federal government is that they get extra representation in the Senate. Breaking CA and NY into a bunch of small states each with its own pair of Senators would allow them to establish a much more equitable distribution of federal resources, which would in turn dramatically improve their long term budgets. Putative exploitation by the rest of the country does not absolve them of that responsibility. Given that I supplied data, there is nothing putative about it. What exactly do you think that NY/CA will do instead of "live within their means"? Do you think they'll just start printing money? Launch a war of aggression against NJ or OR to seize assets? What?

hga 16y ago

Let's assume I accept your premise. What does that say the state governments of NY and California should do? If the Federal government is subjecting them to an unfair transfer payment burden to the interior states, well, that's just a "cost of doing business in the US". There are, after all, precious few people out there who pay their taxes with a song in their heart and a spring in their step. I.e. on an imaginary balance sheet for the states' budgets, it's a single line item in the liability section. Given that, it's still the responsibility of the state governments to manage their finances. For better or worse, these states have to live within their means. Putative exploitation by the rest of the country does not absolve them of that responsibility.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
What does that say the state governments of NY and California should do? Practically speaking, they should do what they're doing now: work to get their budgets in order. What do you think the alternative is? But it would be more equitable for states like NY and CA to break into several smaller states. After all, the reason underpopulated and economically underperforming states in the middle of the US get so much cash from the federal government is that they get extra representation in the Senate. Breaking CA and NY into a bunch of small states each with its own pair of Senators would allow them to establish a much more equitable distribution of federal resources, which would in turn dramatically improve their long term budgets. Putative exploitation by the rest of the country does not absolve them of that responsibility. Given that I supplied data, there is nothing putative about it. What exactly do you think that NY/CA will do instead of "live within their means"? Do you think they'll just start printing money? Launch a war of aggression against NJ or OR to seize assets? What?