Givers and Takers

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

*****   The New York Times
January 30, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Givers and Takers
By DANIEL H. PINK
WASHINGTON

. . . Each year, the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group,
crunches numbers from the Census Bureau to produce an intriguing
figure: how much each state receives in federal spending for every
dollar it pays in federal taxes.

For example, according to the most recent data, for every dollar the
average North Dakotan paid in federal taxes, he received $2.07 in
federal benefits. But while someone in Fargo was doubling his money,
his counterpart in neighboring Minnesota was being shortchanged. For
every dollar Minnesotans sent to Washington, only 77 cents in federal
spending flowed back to the state.

Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50
states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back
less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to
federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax
dollar they send to Washington. Thirty-three states are Takers; 16
are Givers. (One state, Indiana, has a perfect one-to-one ratio of
taxes paid and spending received. As seat of the federal government,
the District of Columbia has no choice but to be a Taker, and is
therefore not comparable to the 50 states in this regard.)

. . . You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election,
Republicans, the party of low taxes and limited government, would
have carried the Giver states - while Democrats, the party of wild
spending and wooly bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker
states. But it was the reverse. George W. Bush was the candidate of
the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states.

Consider:

78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.

76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.

Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.

Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12.

Juxtaposing these maps provides a new perspective on the political
landscape. . . . Republicans seem to have become the new welfare
party - their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who
vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But
Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red
states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country's
fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the biggest
recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the
coastal blue states - the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless
moochers - are left to carry the load.

For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a
boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers,
yet reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution
- and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It's shrewd
politics. . . .

Daniel H. Pink, the author of "Free Agent Nation," was the chief
speechwriter for Vice President Al Gore from 1995 to 1997.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30PINK.html>   *****
--
Yoshie

* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>