Bush's Joke Is On The Heartland

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

'And it turns out that states that voted against Bush are mainly subsidizers, those that voted for him are mainly subsidizees.'

Bush's Joke Is On The Heartland

Published Thursday, April 12, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News

BY PAUL KRUGMAN

LAST YEAR'S election revealed a nation sharply divided by geography. The ``heartland'' -- the largely rural interior -- went solidly for George W. Bush; big metropolitan areas went against him. The Electoral College gives states with small populations disproportionate weight, so Bush now resides in the White House even though Al Gore got more votes.

But what were those heartland citizens thinking when they cast their votes? Were they voting for the right to bear arms and the defense of traditional values, in full awareness that they would pay a heavy price in dollars and cents? Or were they misled by their politicians, who didn't tell them that when Bush promised to cut taxes and reduce spending, he meant tax cuts for the urban elite and reduced spending on farmers? For among the most striking features of the budget Bush unveiled this week is the way it punishes the very people whose votes (as opposed to whose campaign contributions) put him in power.

Actually, this was inevitable -- because the heartland is a major beneficiary of ``big government.'' The Statistical Abstract of the United States reports the difference between the amount the federal government spends in each state and the amount of taxes it collects in that state. ``Put another way,'' says the Statistical Abstract, ``each state indirectly subsidizes or is being subsidized by the other states.'' And it turns out that states that voted against Bush are mainly subsidizers, those that voted for him are mainly subsidizees.

For example, Montana is Bush country -- and a big net recipient of federal money: $2,400 per resident in 1998. New Jersey made net payments of $2,000. The main reason for the difference is that Montana is much poorer. This means that federal income tax payments per Montana resident are only about a third what they are in New Jersey.

The heartland will suffer from the spending cuts needed to make a huge tax cut fit into the budget, even with the administration's highly creative accounting. On Monday, Bush proposed a cut of more than 7 percent in the budget of the Agriculture Department -- more than 10 percent in constant dollars. And that's only for next year. His plans call for zero real growth in per-capita spending for a decade, which inevitably means that each year will see severe further cuts in many programs. The heartland, which is heavily subsidized by the rest of the nation, will necessarily be a major net loser.

So did heartland voters understand this? Or were they misled by politicians who put party loyalty above the interests of their constituents?

The most conspicuous case of misleading salesmanship involves the estate tax. Farm groups and heartland politicians like Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, have campaigned for repeal, justifying their position with tales of family farms broken up by the need to pay tax bills. But the story of the family farm sold to pay the estate tax turns out to be a rural legend -- nobody has been able to find an actual example. And Iowa pays 40 percent less estate tax per capita than New Jersey.

So go figure. Bush is determined to push through a tax cut whose prime beneficiaries are highly paid executives and heirs to estates bigger than $5 million. Such people are a small minority everywhere, but they are thickest on the ground in places like the New York metropolitan area, and rare indeed in the parts of the country that put Bush in power. Meanwhile the farm states will suffer disproportionately from spending cuts.

At Washington's Gridiron dinner, Bush joked that ``you can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you have to concentrate on.'' Or maybe it wasn't a joke; maybe he was thinking about rural America.

Paul Krugman is a New York Times columnist.



-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), April 14, 2001

Answers

Yep, I've lived in a lot of different areas in this country, and the biggest slouches I've ever seen sucking off the government trough are the gun-toting rural redneck conservatives. Unemployment is high in rural areas because there aren't many jobs, and that's why those lazy fucks like to live out there. They wouldn't last a week in the city so they live out in Bumfuck and get plenty o' hep from da gubmint. They're too stupid to realize Dumbya was gonna give them the shaft, all they care about is their stupid guns. Too lazy and irresponsible to get them registered, so they figured Dumbya would be the best way to avoid that. I predict the electoral college system is going to be repealed before the next election. There is no way the voters in the most productive urban areas are going to stand by and let another mistake like Dumbya get elected again, simply because the votes of the lazy ignorant rural leeches are given more weight in the electoral system.

-- conservatives are worthless shits (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), April 14, 2001.

LOL!!!!!!!!

-- dum dum (at@dnc.idiot), April 14, 2001.

Hey there is nothing scarier than a stupid conservative repug with a gun that voted Bush. (well, maybe a naked one...)

-- Tony Baloney (Stupid fucking@repugs.com), April 16, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ