posted 12-16- 11:15 PM               

Dec. 15, 2000 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Billions of tax dollars flowed from Northeastern and Great Lakes states to the South and West last year, according to an annual Harvard University study of federal spending released Friday.

Generally, Southern states received billions more dollars from the federal government than they paid in taxes. States in the Northeast and around the Great Lakes, along with Nevada and California, were the biggest losers.

posted 12-17- 01:07 AM               

For instance, Texas gets 60% more non-defense discretionary spending than New Jersey. North Carolina gets 30% more non-defense federal spending per capita than New Jersey. Meanwhile, North Carolina pays $2100 per person less in federal taxes, Texas pays $1200 less.

posted 12-17- 01:30 PM               

If you are so against the redistribution of wealth why are you in favor of targeted tax cuts? Why not a flat tax?

If you are against some states paying and others receiving, why not just keep the money in the states in the first place and take the Federal Government out of the equation entirely?

As far as per capita taxes, look at per capita income. Thanks to the graduated tax policy of Democrats, people who earn more pay disproportionately more. Per capita incomes in the more industrialized northern states are higher. The end result is that they pay proportionately more taxes. Are you suggesting that we eliminate the graduated tax rates to equalize per capita taxes?

Your answers to these questions should prove interesting. Are you really for equalizing or are you just on another Bush witchhunt?

posted 12-17- 02:02 PM               

I found the statistics interesting. They expose the common Republican double-standard. They say one thing for votes, and do another thing at home. If they are against federal money, stop accepting so much of it.

posted 12-17- 02:21 PM               

And even if your left over discretionary spending was exactly the same per capita, the disproportionate tax rates on higher incomes would still have some states paying more than others.

And let's ask your question a little differently, if the Gore states are so in favor of sending money to Washington why don't they send more?

posted 12-18- 12:37 AM               

Being an ex-Californian myself, I still get a kick out of non-Californians shaking in their boots at the mere mention of an earthquake. All the while people are dying by the hundreds on icy roads in half the country. Throw in a few tornadoes, some spring floods and the hurricanes you mentioned and California looks blessed by mother nature.

P.S. You couldn't pay me enough to move back.

posted 12-18- 07:31 PM            

Tornadoes on the other hand scare the hell out of me. Been through 5 of em as a kid back east (IL and NC). 4 in three years in Illinois on the shores of Michigan resulted in one totalled car (tree from 4 blocks away hit it), 2 new roofs and assorted furniture. Really ruins your day.

Of course... if you look at Texas, North Carolina, Florida, Lousiana, Georgia, South Carolina, etc... how many natural disaster that caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages have occured over the last 8 years? Quite a few huh? I'll bet a big chunk of the spending is in FEMA relief funds. I bet if you went back and looked at Cali in 89 you'd find a big chunk of change came our way for the same reasons.

BTW - if you're ever in an earthquake big enough to move parked cars across the street don't try the standing in the doorway routine - all you'll get for your trouble is building on top of you. Get as far away from every building as you can... a park is an excellent place if the trees aren't too big. Also, try not to be jogging when the quake hits... you tend to get some pretty nasty scrapes when you flop over like a drunken idiot...it is really quite hard to run when the ground isn't where you thought it would be.