It's interesting that the PE-U's haven't attempted to get ahead of this issue by putting forward some proposals that address potential solutions - even if these were inviable. They're just hunkering down and playing the same old game, making threats and telling the public that we'll be living in Thunderdome if they don't get their way.

I think that the democratic liability of allowing Public Unions is becoming evident to people. They compel the public to finance the political activity of a privileged class, which is the permanent government. Inevitably you get the sort of policy capture that we're experiencing.

In the end, it's moot. There is not enough money. You can't get enough money. The people do not have it. The state cannot take it.

Federal receivership should result in a loss of representation. We don't let minors and incompetents vote. Those who pay the bills make the rules.

Maybe China could buy the entire state for a trillion dollars.

California has some hard choices. I'm not laughing, New York isn't that far behind.

Rarely mentioned is that California routinely, and has for decades, sends far more the the federal government than we receive back in federal outlays. Running about $50 billion a year

We subsidize rural states, as do other high-income states as NY, Illinois, and Michgigan. A state like Kentucky receives back $4000 per capita net from the federal government.

Oddly enough, we could balance the federal budget by requiring each state get back equal what they send--and that would be a huge boon for California.

Check out Tax Foundation stats. It is rural states that cause the federal deficit.

Let me get this straight: the solution to California's fiscal problems is to default on its debts (causing huge hits to the investors large and small who purchased our bonds) and let the federal government take over? Sounds like a winning combination to me.

Check out Tax Foundation stats.

I did.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1397.html

It is rural states that cause the federal deficit.

Way to intentionally misread the statistics there, BOTU.

It is true that rural states usually receive more Federal dollars than they pay in taxes, and urban coastal states usually get less. But the federal deficit is mostly caused by military spending and entitlements. Nothing else is really consequential.

Unfortunately, statistics can be rigged to show anything you want. For example, tax dollars in the form of Federal and Military salaries are going to go to two types of states, those that have large federal bureaucracies, because they have lots of Federal lands, military facilities and National parks, and those states who have lots of military bases and no state income tax because when people enter the military from a state that has income tax and move to one who doesn't, those with half a brain (most of them) immediately change their residency. In a lot of states that are primarily rural, a little spending when calculated per capita, goes a long way to raising their average. So if these types of federal outlays are included in the linked calculations, those are enough to make the whole calculation pretty meaningless. The states themselves, and the Federal government have self selected for these outcomes. In other words, it is not a result of good lobbying efforts or congressional earmark spending, nor is it inherently static.

In other words, it is not a result of good lobbying efforts or congressional earmark spending

I'd say the massive subsidies given the corn states are entirely a product of good lobbying efforts, wouldn't you?

"I'd say the massive subsidies given the corn states are entirely a product of good lobbying efforts, wouldn't you?"

Yes, but three points, the subsidies are not going to the "states" per se. They are going to massive multi national agra businesses such as ADM, who just happen to grow the corn in those states where corn will grow best. Second, as other posters have pointed out these are a drop in the bucket compared to defense and other outlays. Third, this is a lefty subsidy, kind of like the collection plate for the "Church of Global Warming" so it must be ok No?

"We subsidize rural states, as do other high-income states as NY, Illinois, and Michgigan. "

True. I say end farming subsidies and let people pay the true cost of food. That'll even up the outlay pretty quick, and show the coasts what that money has been doing for them.

Yes, if you review that Tax Foundations stats, you find that larger states pay surpluses to DC, and smaller states (in terms of population) are lard-buckets, subsidized.

The most mollycoddled, knock-kneed, enfeebled, subsidized and protected people on earth are rural Americans. The travel on subsidized highways, use subbed electricity, subbed water systems, subbed postal services, subbed telephone service, subbed airports and railstops.
Without federal subsidies, rural America would blow away, as it should, in a free market.

Farmers in Montana get more from the federal government than they do from farming.

Military spending? Well, let's see--a military system controlled, designed and funded by Congress with borrowed money for the last 60 years. Hmmm. Oh, I am sure that is not 90 percent lard, aren't you? Not porkulus. No, no way.

The Red State Socialist Empire: The real cause of the US federal deficit.

Better yet, Butt-Head, how about each state keep all its money, rather than sending it to Washington, which really only would need a bit for national defense, the courts, and a handful of other things, if the system worked the way it was supposed to. With each state keeping most or nearly all of the money it would otherwise send to Dee Cee to be redistributed, we would actaully have state sovereignty again, rather than state dependence on the real BOTUs in Dee Cee.

Farmers in Montana get more from the federal government than they do from farming

Wouldn't surprise me if this were true. Our farming subsidy program helps to make us fat, and undercuts third world farming, causing (what else?) starvation of third-worlders. It is a travesty.

I'm sure the DoA building could be put to better use, such as a prison for corrupt federal officials, just down the street from the Capitol.

Yes, but three points, the subsidies are not going to the "states" per se. They are going to massive multi national agra businesses such as ADM, who just happen to grow the corn in those states where corn will grow best. Second, as other posters have pointed out these are a drop in the bucket compared to defense and other outlays. Third, this is a lefty subsidy, kind of like the collection plate for the "Church of Global Warming" so it must be ok No??

1. They're brought home to their states by their congresscritters who have disproportionate influence in our federal government for a variety of reasons.

2. I think it was me that pointed that out.

3. You're wrong - this isn't feed the world stuff; these subsidies really got going as a result of Nixon admin efforts address domestic unrest over food prices. And why do you think I'd support left feed-the-world nonsense anyway?

I say end farming subsidies and let people pay the true cost of food. That'll even up the outlay pretty quick, and show the coasts what that money has been doing for them.

Good idea. But you do know what is the state produces the largest amount of food in terms of $$, right? It's a coastal state.

That's as may be, Christopher, but the bulk of the grains and meats come from the middle states. The ones that BOTU is always bitching about.

Of course without those subsidies and leases, beef would double in price, and he'd bitch that Big Meat is gouging the public.

I'd love to see corn subsidies go away, and get corn out of my gas tank and out of my soft drinks.

The most mollycoddled, knock-kneed, enfeebled, subsidized and protected people on earth are rural Americans. The travel on subsidized highways, use subbed electricity, subbed water systems, subbed postal services, subbed telephone service, subbed airports and railstops. Without federal subsidies, rural America would blow away....

And urban Americans would be paying $20 per carrot at the grocery store. And wearing gas masks because there would be no ethanol to reduce the emissions from their cars.

Those subsidized roads through rural America enable a vast logistics system that keeps cities supplied with low-priced food, gasoline, and manufactured goods.

But you do know what is the state produces the largest amount of food in terms of $$, right? It's a coastal state.

And guess where the Central Valley gets its water. I'll give you a hint. Its a mostly urbanized area (which is starting to bitch about losing so much water in order that someone else can grow crops in a desert).

Conan-

You ever hear of toll roads? If farmers want to bring their crops to market, they can build toll roads.

Folks, can we just totally ignore Asshole? There's no point in engaging him. He's a broken record who hates the flyover states and wants the U.S. to be totally undefended. He's made himself clear on that. And at this point he very clearly has nothing further to say.

Check out Tax Foundation stats. It is rural states that cause the federal deficit.

Posted by: BOTU at January 18, 2011 9:02 AM

Yeah, no problem. You want to get say, southern/eastern (rural) Oregon off the Fed dole? The Stop preventing them from selling their natural resources aka timber. Release federal land into state hands (or sell it to citizens directly). Nope, gotta save the forests (even the rotting stuff that ought to be cleaned up to prevent fires) and don't forget the spotted owls!

Oh wait, they did stop the "federal timber payments" in many counties. And now they're bankrupt or close to it.

Look at how much land the fed government owns or administers for states in the west/mountain west states.

Cousin Dave, you're probably right. It just chaps my hide as I've watched those areas have a huge housing boom that had no real economy backing it up locally other than retirement/white-urban flight dollars.

Fed gov. land map:

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343

You ever hear of toll roads? If farmers want to bring their crops to market, they can build toll roads.

So, farmers would pay tolls to bring their crops to market?

Nah. They'll just keep the food out there in the sticks and make the hungry city dwellers come to them ... over those toll roads you proposed.

Which well mean, as I pointed out earlier, city dwellers would end up paying $20 per carrot. That's some mighty fine economics work there, Lou.

Look at how much land the fed government owns or administers for states in the west/mountain west states.

Sio, check the link.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343

Okay, so you know that map. You must have posted it while I was typing.

The problem with people like BOTU is that they are marginal thinkers. Incapable of seeing anything past zeroth-order effects of their proposals, they are unable to accept that their plots will fail horribly.

Another side-effect of MTD (marginal thinking disorder) is the inability to see ones own mental limits. BOTU thinks he's smart because he knows how to throw buzzwords around. However, he has no ability to reason anything beyond his own biases.

So in his mind, all you do is cut the subsidies to the farmers and the government isn't broke anymore.

Yes, the subsidies distort the market, but the money is going to come from somewhere, subsidy or not. Or the products will go away.

BOTU can't see beyond his disdain for flyover country. Because he isn't capable of the deeper levels of deductive and inductive reasoning require to do so.

Really Chris? I think it says 100K not 10K!!! Here's the link... Cheers!