Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
This is not true. I made the point that the people in the Red States are more skeptical of large governments. They have stronger instincts against the growth of government. That was the original point. SHP said this is not true because they take in more federal dollars than they give out. Ty agreed with that, and added the fact that they have increased government spending shows that this is not true.
I know that it is hypocritical for some politicians from the small states to say they are for big government and then bring the pork home. But this is not Ty's point. His point went beyond that. He said that because of these votes it shows that the people in the small states are not really inclined towards smaller government.
Again, I made statement that was obvious, Ty disputed it, and now you are trying to pretend that he did not because you realize that such a disputation would be absurd.
|
Your point, such as it is, only makes sense as a platitude, ignoring subtleties like the differences between local, state and federal governments. Many small states have smaller local and state governments, we agree. Like Burger, I think this is largely a matter of choice, but like Panda, I think there are also governmental functions that inhere in running a state with urban areas the size of LA, San Diego and San Jose, as opposed to a state with urban areas the size of Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and Mitchell (home of the Corn Palace).
Be that as it may, these states have a complicated relationship with the federal government, and have long depended on federal largesse, often as subsidies from larger states, in a way that larger states do not. The very creation of these states was tied up with federal defense spending (to subdue the Indians) and railroad land grants, and the federal government still owns much more of Western states like South Dakota and Utah than most other states. Today the Bureau of Reclamation is more significant, but the song remains the same. As Burger noted, the fact that even the puniest state gets as many senators as the (415) area code helps these states get more than their share.
The groovy trick mastered by Republicans from these states is to rhapsodize about small government while tirelessly working to divert federal money to their states. Without Democrats around as a check, Republicans are spending more and more money, and yet they see not need to raise taxes to pay for it. This was the essence of the Reagan economic miracle, and it works nicely until a responsible adult like George H.W. Bush points out that it's time to pay the piper. Now, the Democrats are in a minority, and there are no responsible Republicans anywhere near the reins of power. Some people have suggested that this is because the power in the GOP has shifted to the sorts of states you're talking about -- the South and the West -- and away from the Northeast, whose Rockefeller Republicans were more concerned with balancing the budget. This makes sense to me.
