There is no difference in States getting federal money and the poor, minority
woman with 7 kids who is routinely made the poster child for welfare reform.
They both live off of the system. It is time for states to have their own form
of "welfare reform" and stop living off the Federal Govt.
Could you imagine if Utah tried to do this? Imagine the state of our roads?
Environment? And would it be possible to get any lower in per pupil spending?I'm sure energy solutions, delta, and mining companies would be
happy. But the rest of us? Yikes
I am not ashamed to be a Conservative Republican who voted for Dan Liljenquist.
He is far better suited for who won that race. If you don't think so,
examine the winners voting record!!
"...States like Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alabama get back up to 70%
more than they pay in. States like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware get
back the lowest percentage, far less than they pay...".Another
piece in the DN referenced mississippi as the most religious state in
America.See...it pays to be religious.
What kind of nation is America? Is it a collection of independent, sovereign,
competing, fighting, squabbling states, each with a different idea of who and
what people are, or is America one nation indivisible with liberty for all. Of
which would you prefer to be a citizen? The world is a world of
giants who are competing for the wealth of the world without regard for the
welfare of lesser humans. For the most part we are only cattle for there
competition which sometimes only get in the way. Sometimes we are just cannon
fodder for their more violent competitions. The only possibility
of a friend in this, is our national government. And our friend will only be
effective as long as it is at least equal to the other giants. State and local governments have surrendered to the giants and have no
possibility of ever being a friend of the people. States are
working as soldiers for the giants in a war against our national government and
if they win they will also lose. The giants will rule.
The Economist magazine published a study recently in which they compared the
amount of federal taxes paid by each state and compared it to the amount of
federal benefits the states receives. With only a few exceptions, conservative
states get back more than they pay in, while liberal states pay more than they
get.States like Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alabama get back up
to 70% more than they pay in. States like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and
Delaware get back the lowest percentage, far less than they pay. So
by all means, let's pass a law stating that no state can get more in
federal benefits than they pay in federal taxes.
Taxes are taxes, whether or not they are charged at the federal level or state
level. If Utah can promise that they can start putting aside their rainy day
funds without breaking us with higher taxes, we need to look at it! And if they
can, why are our taxes so high now?
Thank you senator Dan for your eloquence in deriding the feds and pumping up the
locals. It is wonderful you have now gained 20 20 hindsight and figured that
those who serve as senators should live within a budget without the federal
handouts you seemedunable to function without.For decades populous
states such as California subsidized Hawaii and Utah and other states with their
hands out. Now Utah has developed more natural resources and is receiving
higher royalties you think it would be a good idea for states to become
independent fiscally.So Utah can set the standard and show other
states how to be fiscally independent, and by doing that we would ignore
California (throw them under the fiscal bus) and other states that have
subsidized Utah for years and ask them to follow our example? Divided States of
America!I hope those other states can follow our example and enjoy
the worst air in the country, they can get their classrooms fuller, pay their
teachers less, ignore in state opportunities for gorwth such as bulding
pipelines to bring resources to refineries, develop exisitng water sources for
I am not sure this is only a 40 year old problem... states have lived off of
federal help directly or indirectly for far longer than that. Even Hawaii,
before it was a state, lived indirectly off of federal funds.But
that said, I agree with most of what is said here. Politics at its most
effective level is local. It all roles back up hill. If cities and counties
don't need state subsidies, they save the state large sums of money. If
states don't need federal funds, that rolls back up hill as well. The
trickle down approach to funding is one of the least effective and
representative available. If people want to really create change,
then doing so locally is the best place to start.