Red States, Blue States, Poor States, Rich States…

http://bearmarketnews.wordpress.com/2010/08/22/red-states-blue-states-poor-states-rich-states/

Good Morning-
I suppose I'll be upsetting more than one of you with this.
Too bad, so sad.

As I wind my way through news stories and others, I am reminded that too many do not know the truths that lies beneath the color of states.
I am posting this to get these truths out.

Also, (and again) please have it known that the word "Republican" has been interchanged with the word "Conservative".
This is a misnomer, Folks...
To borrow a quote from Frederick Douglas, "I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels."

Can't believe what you are reading? Links are listed below for your verification purposes.

XOXO
Me

PS
Never judge an article by its title. (So, yes Tess, you must read the whole thing).

______________________________________

For decades, the Democrats have been viewed as the party of the poor, with the Republicans representing the rich. Recent presidential elections, however, have shown a reverse pattern, with Democrats performing well in the richer blue states in the northeast and coasts, and Republicans dominating in the poor red states in the middle of the country and the south.

Summary of results of the 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections.

It will come as a surprise to some, but not to others, that there is a fairly strong statistical relationship, but that the direction is the opposite from what you would think if you were listening to rhetoric from Republican conservatives:  








The red states (those that vote Republican) generally receive more subsidies from the federal government than they pay in taxes; in other words they are further to the right in a graph. 

It is the other way around with the blue states (those that vote Democratic).

• People in red states are less healthy than those in blue states.

• People in red states earn less than those in blue states.

• People in red states are less educated than those in blue states.

• More people in red states live in mobile homes than those in blue states.

• The red states have higher birth rates among teens than the blue states.

• More people are killed by guns in the red states than in the blue states.

• The red states have:
  
  • Higher rates of poverty, both generally and among the elderly,
  • Higher rates of crime, both general and violent,
  • Have higher rates of infant mortality,
    
    • and divorce,
  • And have fewer physicians per unit of population than do the blue states.

These statistics do not paint a pretty picture. And since the red states are commonly referred to as the conservative heartland, one would think that the people who live in these states would vote against conservative candidates merely on the basis of their own rational, self interests. But they don’t. (Please insert a 'duh' here).

There’s an obvious clash here, for the red states are the home of that group that calls itself “moral America.”

• How can a moral viewpoint countenance poverty, crime, and infant mortality?
• What kind of morality is it that doesn’t care for the welfare of people?
• Just what moral maxim guides the lives of these people?

Certainly not the Golden Rule, the Decalogue, or the Second Commandment of Christ.
From what I have been able to gather, moral America needs a new moral code. The one it has is, to use a word the members of this group dislike, relative.

When Red States get their social problems under control, and things such as teen pregnancy down to nationwide lows, then they can try and foist their solutions on the rest of the country.

But as things currently stand, on this issue (as well as others like divorce), the Red States have no ground to stand on. Those crazy New England liberals are running circles around them in this tangible measure of their residents’ “values”.

The top ten bottom feeders at the federal trough in 2005 were: New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia.  
(Sarah Palin’s home state of Alaska ranks number one if measured in terms of federal spending per capita.  Alabama Senator Shelby evidently gets goodies for his state, ranked 7, by indiscriminately holding up votes on administration appointments.) 

The top ten milk cows were: New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado.

Perhaps in determining how the federal government redistributes income across states one should view its role more expansively than is captured in the budget numbers.  In the western states there are federal water projects that subsidize water for farmers, artificially low grazing fees for ranchers, and leases for hard rock mining and oil drilling on federal lands that have historically charged artificially low prices.  

Perhaps the biggest federal redistribution program of all is massive agricultural subsidies.  The four congressional districts that receive the most in farm subsidies are all represented by “conservative” Republicans, located in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas. 
(Michele Bachmann’s family farm apparently received $250,000 in such farm payments between 1995 and 2006.)

The most commonly ignored area of geographical redistribution is the federal government’s permanent policy of “universal service” in postal delivery, phone service and other utilities (electricity; perhaps now broadband…).  Universal service means subsidizing those who choose to live in remote places like Alaska, where the cost of supplying these services is much higher than in the coastal cities.   Perhaps they should move…

If I were cynical, I might suspect that the reason that Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, and some Republicans are not enthusiastic about getting the most accurate numbers possible, from the census and otherwise, is that they don’t want people to know who is getting federal handouts and who is paying.
But, more likely, the truth is that they don’t want to know themselves.

In particular, in rich states voting patterns show little correlation with income. The poor of Connecticut, in other words, vote pretty similarly to the rich of Connecticut. This isn’t the case in poor states, where poor people are dramatically more likely than rich people to vote Democratic. The difference is that the rich people in the rich states are much more culturally liberal than the rich people in the poor states. The result is the famous “culture war” waged not between yuppies and the working class, but between the wealthy residents of wealthy states and the wealthy residents of poor states.

Much media confusion about American politics then stems from what’s essentially a coincidence—political journalists are heavily concentrated in places like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and California that exhibit the voting behaviors of rich states.
It is true in those places that voting behavior features little income polarization and that wealthy people are generally well-disposed toward the Democrats. Political commentary from David Brooks on the right to Tom Frank on the left is often dominated by the assumption that you can extrapolate from political patterns in places like Maryland out to the country as a whole.

It’s an understandable mistake, but also a serious one. And everyone interested in political activism owes it to themselves to understand the truth and everyone interested in the media owes it to the world to correct the record.

*** Sources:

Red States, Blue States and the Distribution of Federal Spending

Why the Wars can’t be Won

FDL Book Salon Welcomes Andrew Gelman: Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State

Teen pregnancy in the Red States

______________________________________

Inspired by a story By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, as posted on Heidi's site.

photo from Google search