Hypocrisy? Conservative Anti-government Folks are Also at the Public Trough

treynolds21: "I’m not real big on the simplicity of breaking down complex issues into camps ("democrats” & “republicans")."

I would have thought that since that is the whole point of his article, that I might at least allude to it. I did not mention it until the last sentence.

Near the beginning of his article: "Is there any evidence of more “liberal” Obama-voting in states which actually pay more in taxes than they get back, or which have lower rates of dependency?"

Whether his or my view is "more narrow" I'll leave as a matter of opinion.

He writes:

"This likely tells us about the astounding power of the religious right and of the economic illiteracy of much of the population."

Of course! That's the problem! We're all religious right-wing illiterates! If only we knew as much as the Enlightened Ones (like himself), we'd have the blinders torn from our eyes and sweep the socialists into power with an overwhelming majority.

I'm definitely conservative when it domes to fiscal issues, so I guess that would make me "anti-government," right. This kind of infalmmatory rhetoric is what would lead one to call abortion-rights folks as "pro-death."

Conservatives I'm acquainted with are people who feel that their life doesn't have to be ruled by total submission and whim to the federal government, which seems to perturb some to no end these days, and would rather see the federal role limited and be guided more at the state level. It's not even like we could say that today's American government represents dual-federalism as the almighty fed chews up more and more turf, and patronizes with it's we-know-better-than-you attitude.

I live in Louisiana, a poor state that votes Republican in national elections but sops up a lot of Federal largesse. It is not a majority of Louisiana national legislators who vote for the programs that outlay those monies.

This was probably not true in the past when populist Democrats from the state did vote for the Great Society.

I do believe the people in Louisiana who are in a permanent state of relying on Federal assistance have been done a disservice. They will remain multi-generational wards of state. They are not poor compared to world standards but they live mean lives in squalor. They have been deprived of the will to improve. They are is stasis, and some politicians rely on that for re-election.

I tend to be libertarian and I do take widower's benefits from Social Security. I have had no choice in contributing to Social Security and neither did my wife. I would be a fool not to take advantage of the program, and that too is just what many politicians count on.

When the government gives out "free" money, most of us will take it.

"... but who turn out to live on social security and depend on Medicare, ..."

What sortof underhanded slam is that? We live on Social Security and depend on Medicare because that's what the government has forced us to do. Did we have any choice in "contributing" to social security?

And since the majority of retirees are not extremely wealthy, do we have any choice but Medicare?

As a Professor Emeritus, I would expect the writer to have a little more connection with the people he castigates.

I reject the assertion that they "sometimes don’t even know they are public programs!" At least, I would put extra emphasis on that "sometimes". And even if it were true, it hardly compares with the typical liberal voter who doesn't know who his Congressional representatives are (or how many there are).

"Democratic voting states showing less dependency on various federal sources: MA, NV, NJ, CT, NH, MN, IL, CA, CO and WA."

That's really amusing:

http://www.topix.com/state/ma/2009/07/mass-to-get-29-million-in-federal-...

"Massachusetts will receive nearly $29 million in federal stimulus money to allow 13 law enforcement agencies to pay the salaries of 131 police officers."

$29,000,000 / 131 = $221,374

http://www.mma.org/public-works-energy-a-utilities/3928-state-water-fund...

"the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $133 million in clean water funds and $52.2 million in drinking water funds for Massachusetts."

His own alma mater, the University of Washington, recently launched a company, EnerG2 (now separate from the University) that landed a $21 million federal grant to build a facility on Oregon.

I certainly believe that's a good thing. Oregon needs all the help it can get. But to characterize the states on his list as less dependent on Federal largesse is to conveniently overlook the facts.

I suggest the Professor is out of touch with reality.

"Now is there evidence of states with higher shares of the populace depending on unearned income and transfer payements voting more Republican?"

Absolutely - because we believe - based on daily evidence - that the Democrats are working mightily to make sure that all are equally poor, and that all are equally distanced from medical care.

Is Social Security a hand-out? I've spent 20 years chucking cash into it, for what will be an extremely paltry return when I retire, if any return at all.