erin8u4l: Whos Making Money

Viewers of Fox Business must think California is just the
biggest spendthrift of our 50
states. The way Stuart Varney tells it, those greedy Californians, by taking
"federal taxpayer money," are just robbing the rest of us -- particularly "the hicks who live in the Midwest" --
blind!

But in discussing California's would-be federal subsidies,
Varney isn't telling the whole story. In fact, he's got it
completely backward.

During the November 16 episode of
Varney & Co. on Fox Business,
Varney interviewed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Press Secretary Aaron McLear
about Schwarzenegger's current efforts to balance California's budget. He
asked McLear if he would take a pledge to "not take one more dime from federal
taxpayer money going to California." Then he continues: "You guys in
California, you've been making fun of...the hicks
who live in the Midwest...you've been making fun
of them. Now you want their money."

Incensed, McLear told Varney
that "[California
is] what is called a donor state. We get less on every dollar back from the
federal government than any other state. States like Mississippi and Alaska get more back from the federal
government for every dollar they spend."

McLear is right.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation:

States send federal taxes to Washington and receive federal spending in return. However, some states benefit more from federal taxing and spending policies than others. Some "beneficiary" states receive a positive return from Uncle Sam, making other states "donors" who pick up the tab. The most important factor determining whether a state is a net beneficiary is per capita income. States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax.

Where does CA fall on this scale? According to the Tax Foundation's latest data, from 2005, when states are listed in the order of federal tax dollars received per tax dollars paid, California ranks #43. In fact, the state got less than it sent Uncle Sam: for every dollar California sent the federal government, it received $.78.

Using the Tax Foundation data, Visual Economics produced a map of the U.S. to show how much federal tax money each state gets. It's clear that Varney is 100 percent wrong to suggest that Californians are somehow swindling money from Midwesterners--if anything, federal tax dollars are generally flowing the other direction.

So then why is Varney picking on California? As McLear points out, most states face a budget shortfall right now -- he tells Varney 40 states face a deficit, though a Bloomberg article in June said that number is now 46. Varney gives us a clue about his choice of target when he leads off the story:

But chances of pushing through, as a lame-duck governor, through -- in a state which has just voted solidly Democratic, it's very unlikely that he will get $6 billion cuts, now, isn't it? Let's be realistic, Aaron.

Hmm. Maybe this story has more to do with California's politics than alleged payouts. Or maybe it's just about the unions. After all, Varney has already wrongly blamed union pensions for California's budget crisis.

I knew you guys hated him, but not until I saw the results of this weekend’s Hot Air mega-poll did I realize how much. Out of 17 presidential candidates named, he finished … 15th, just eight votes ahead of Rick Santorum and 10 votes ahead of, er, Donald Trump. Palin won the poll with 1181 votes and Chris Christie came second with 745. Huckabee’s total take: 32. Dude?

The word on the primaries lately from everyone from Palin to Rove is that competition is wunderbar, that the more candidates we have battling for the nomination, the better served voters are by having more options, etc. Just wondering: Does that logic apply to Huck too? Think carefully before you answer, because if there’s anyone who’s poised to hurt Palin by peeling off social cons, blue-collar voters, and women (yes, really), it’s him.

“I just don’t understand how it is that a person can read these polls day after day and the narrative is constantly everybody but me,” he told POLITICO. “Whether I do it or not, the fact is that if one looks at the overall body of information that’s available, nobody would be in a better position to take it all the way to November.”…

“For me, later is better,” he said, suggesting that he’d ruled out making a decision in the first quarter of next year. Advisers differ on how late he could jump in, but Vander Plaats said he’d advise Huckabee to wait until extremely late — after the August Iowa GOP straw poll — to survey the lay of the land and make up his mind…

Yet he gets only a fraction of the attention Palin enjoys — something that plainly chafes him.

“She’s brought an enormous amount of energy to the party. As to why she seemingly draws ten times the attention, I don’t know,” he said, touting recent book signings of his that had drawn up to 1,400 people, with no note in the media.

“You’re never going to read that. I’m never going to be breaking news because I made a comment on Twitter and Facebook. Why is that? I don’t know,” he said.

It’s not a done deal that he’s running. He had to scrounge for funds to keep his campaign going two years ago and he just took out a huge mortgage to build his new home in Florida, so unless he’s got evangelical leaders ready to help him pass the collection plate around, money is a major issue. Even so, if Palin decides not to run and Mitt looks like a prohibitive frontrunner early, does anyone seriously think he won’t jump in? Social conservative votes will be there for the taking, and you know he’s just itching to vanquish that pointy-headed white-collar Romney who went to all the right schools ‘n stuff. If Palin does run then his decision is tougher, since the longer he waits, the more time she’ll have to solidify her support among the same constituencies he’s targeting. Of course, jumping in early might not help against her either. Huck acknowledged a few weeks ago that she could run away with the whole thing, and I’m guessing he wouldn’t be thrilled with an outcome whereby he and she enable a Romney victory by splitting base voters.

Here’s a fascinating possibility, though. What if Palin jumps out to a big early lead in the polls and Mitt is struggling to gain traction? In that case, establishment Republicans will quickly turn desperate looking for someone who can stop her in the primary and stand a chance of beating Obama in the general. I mentioned Mike Pence as a guy who might fit that bill in a post last week, but Pence is potentially a tough sell because his name recognition is low even among Republicans. Huckabee’s is much higher so he could bounce into contention right away even after a Thompson-esque late entry. Which raises the question: Would Beltway insiders grit their teeth and back Huck if it looked like he was the only candidate available who could beat Sarahcuda? Imagine the magic that a Rove/Huckabee partnership would make, my friends. Imagine it.

Just as I’m writing this, PPP is out with a new poll of the crucial swing state of Missouri. Huckabee 27, Palin 25, Gingrich 15, Romney 14. How can Huck say no? Exit question: Seriously, guys, 32 votes?

bench craft company scam

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Whos Making Money

No comments:

Post a Comment