This is interesting but I suspect it is severely skewed if you dig a bit deeper. The most obvious boner on this list is DC. DC voted for Clinton, Al Gore and Kerry. DC is the poster boy for democratic economic values and enjoys the high crime rates associated with liberal democratic values. Rural states receive a disproportionate amount of federal spending based on farm subsidies and the like. All this chart indicates is that in highly developed areas,you are going to have considerable higher taxes paid and that in these developed areas, you are likely to encounter the kind of moral devolution that could even support the likes of Kerry and what has become the party of sodomy and permissiveness

Posted by: sean oreilly | Nov 6, 2004 12:22:19 PM

I'm assuming that Sean OReilly is illustrating the caricature of Democratics put out by the GOP; no one could be stupid enough to actually believe that drivel.

Posted by: MD | Nov 6, 2004 12:57:45 PM

"DC is the poster boy for democratic economic values and enjoys the high crime rates associated with liberal democratic values."

And Sean O'Reilly is the poster boy for Republican racist values that says "Pander to those black people and they'll rape your wimmen and steal your stuff". Gotta lock em up and through away the key like we do down here in the south!

Posted by: mark stracke | Nov 6, 2004 3:35:06 PM

Sean, old bean, DC isn't a state, it's not even a real city... it's a suburb of the Federal Government... with inadequate representation and a token mayor who has less real power than any city manager anywhere else in the USA. It's as much a state as South Central LA or some dying oil-town in Texas.

Posted by: President Leechman | Nov 6, 2004 8:46:18 PM

Interesting. Backs up my theory as to the result of overrepresenting the underpopulated states in congress.

DC should definitely be thrown out of the sample. Of course the federal government spends money here...it owns the place and occupies the best real estate... DC is a protectorate, not a state.

Posted by: Stuart | Nov 8, 2004 10:48:45 AM

This is pretty damning, at first glance (and that's about what it's good for, a "USA Today" splash graph).

If you look carefully at county-by-county voting, though, you see a different picture emerge. See http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/11/where_did_their.html

Bedroom communuties, which are much more affluent and tend to pay much more in taxes than inner-city residents, largely fell for Bush, while inner cities fell almost completely for Kerry. Put in that light, what's really happening is that the people who pay the taxes tend to vote republican. It follows that their elected representatives in congress (where spending is divvied up) will likely be republicans. In a republican-dominated congress, guess whose spending bills are going to receive approval?

By the way, why didn't we hear any of this type of talk when dems controlled both branches of congress and the presidency?

Sour grapes..

mike

PS - note the lack of rhetoric about god, the bible, morals, etc - not all conservatives are religious.

Posted by: Mike | Nov 8, 2004 4:11:33 PM

So we're saying those who pay more should have more say? That doesn't sound like a democratic ideal to me. Are you sure you're not an evil Republican?

Posted by: randluke | Nov 8, 2004 6:42:59 PM

BS.

Posted by: Oleg | Nov 8, 2004 9:06:07 PM

Not arguing representation. Simple facts. Republicans (or those who vote so) actually outnumber democrats. In addition, they represent the affluent, tax paying segments of the populace. The fact that they seem to have grown tired of inner cities dictating to them how their money will be redistributed indicates that they are now taking politics seriously and have taken to voting regularly.

As previously mentioned, when the majority speaks, you can expect that same segment's representatives to take the lion's share of their tax dollars back.

Again, why didn't we hear any complaints about funding when dems controlled the streams and wasted it on social programs?

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 9, 2004 9:43:31 PM

Because back then, the states that were taking in more tax dollars they were contributing weren't running the show.

People in Blue State didn't mind subidizing the Red States way of life until the Red States started threatening our way of life.

Now however, I say, "If you want smaller government so much, fine. Let start with you. AG Subsidies can go, then coal, then oil, then gas."

Posted by: Marc Brazeau | Nov 10, 2004 1:42:06 AM

I'm all for it. Just be careful that farmers don't lower production quantities and limit the system's ability to tolerate basic foodstuff giveaway programs you guys are so fond of. Oh - and be prepared to pay *alot* more for your fuel costs - businesses will pass those costs on to you.

While we're at it, let's go whole hog and eliminate entitlements, as well, thereby eliminating dems' ability to buy votes.

Now, we're getting somewhere!

By the way, it's not "red states" threatening your way of life. Look at the county-by county totals. The "red counties" are the affluent people who surround the cities. They are the ones who voted republican. Conservatives aren't far away, even in places like NYC.

You guys put yourselves in this position - 40 years of overspending on failed social programs, conbined with the shrill attacks ever since Reagan took office have sickened alot of people. The past 2 years, with the likes of Michael Moore and the Hollywood crowd leading the spin brigade haven't done you any favors. Don't you guys get that the average man doesn't care who a spoiled zillionaire actor thinks should be president or where they think we should or should not spend money? Your party is the party of out-of-touch snobs and elitists at one end and society's laggards and ne'er-do-wells at the other. Many people are repelled by your constituency.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 10, 2004 9:32:36 AM

"..Don't you guys get that the average man doesn't care who a spoiled zillionaire actor thinks should be president..."

Are you talking about Arnold and Ron Silver's endorsements and public campaigning for Bush?

Why are Republican conservatives so quick to jump on Democrat hollywood support but not their own Repubs.?

Call a spade a spade you know, or else you're just a hypocrit.

Posted by: Allan | Nov 10, 2004 1:37:35 PM

"Blue staters" earn on average approximately 27% more per person. Working persons in those blue states tend to be union members who vote Democratic. Thay is why we pay more, so that some white 300-lb welfare queen from Georgia can scream at us because Rush told her so.

Those bedroom communbities you speak about? Are you talking about Buchs County, PA? Stafford County, Virginia? Wicomico County, MD? They are hardly suburbs and hardly bedroom communities. And trust me, they won't for years to come.

Here in VA, the suburbs are in Hampton, Alexandria, Arlington, and Falls Chuurch. All went for Kerry. I see nothing about your so-called bedroom community myth.

Posted by: Paul | Nov 10, 2004 1:50:45 PM

Can somebody explain to me how the "morally impure" New England states have the lowest divorce rates in the country? And why is it that Texas, Louisiana, and Florida have some of the highest?

Posted by: Paul | Nov 10, 2004 1:52:58 PM

"conbined with the shrill attacks ever since Reagan took office"

As opposed to the non-shrill attacks that you guys threw at Clinton during his presidency? Face it, you guys broke the mold when it came to full-on scandal mongering and hysterical attacks.

Posted by: James | Nov 10, 2004 1:52:59 PM

Wow. I'm in a blue state that's not getting its money back, either. Guess we need some new members of Congress...the current ones are just not bringin' home the bacon!

Posted by: LP | Nov 10, 2004 2:10:06 PM

So, first:

"Are you talking about Arnold and Ron Silver's endorsements and public campaigning for Bush?"

Feh. For every celeb who declares as a republican, 20 scream they'll leave the country if Bush gets elected. You guys attract the out-of-touch, idealistic flakes like a magnet dropped in a bucket of metal shavings.

And then:

"Here in VA, the suburbs are in Hampton, Alexandria, Arlington, and Falls Chuurch. All went for Kerry. I see nothing about your so-called bedroom community myth."

And what about Prince William, Loudoun, etc? You guys have a good many conservatives in or near DC, considering how many of you are on the government dole (I mean er.. payroll). Take a look around Philly, NYC, Atlanta, LA, Minneapolis, Chicago, etc - bedroom communities voted Bush.

and then..

"As opposed to the non-shrill attacks that you guys threw at Clinton during his presidency?"

At least they attacked the man; not the electorate, as you guys seem to want to do. There are many ways to deal with a loss. The most idiotic is to blame the people who didn't vote for your guy. Sadly, rather than look at your arrogance, elitism and the generally nasty tone of your campaign, you guys have decided to attack the electorate.

mike

Posted by: mike | Nov 10, 2004 2:45:00 PM

I rather liked Thomas Frank's take on all this in his recent book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?", which shows how blue-collar Americans have been led to vote red against their economic interests by being encouraged to ignore fiscal policy while getting worked up over moral issues.

For instance, they're super angry, Frank writes, at millionaire movie stars who flaunt a lifestyle (which some of them nevertheless find delicious to watch on TV). With GOP help the red staters have punished those celebs by ... cutting their income taxes!

Frank shows how these voters also overlook GOP tax cuts highly beneficial to CEOs of the red persuasion, and corporate America in general, which then turn around and screw increasingly disorganized labor, sewing the seeds for yet more cultural warfare. In short: It's a scam, and one big pug-ugly race to the bottom.

Indeed, "red" Kansas is fast turning into an economic basket case, save for a handful of uppity-scale suburbs. Which is why I expect my higher than average Wisconsin federal taxes to keep on going up. We pride ourselves on having good public services in this state, but you red staters are busy helping make impossible a way of life that you're busily importing from us.

Wisconsinites -- all of us, not just "inner city" residents -- work hard, and are reasonably prosperous, and have less unemployment than most of you. We also send more dollars out of our borders every year, getting less back from the feds than most southern states with their huge military constituencies and negatively taxed multicorps, and bailing out these places more and more. But when my redistributed taxes aren't sufficient to cover your costs, why, BushCo just runs up the national deficit another trillion and calls it a day.

Did you know, to take one teeny example, that Wisconsin residents have to subsidize the cost of milk production in places like Georgia and Texas? That's thanks to an arcane and originally well-intentioned federal law designed to get those states to begin developing their dairy industries, in an era when refrigerated continental shipments were costly at best. At the center of the federal target -- Eau Claire, Wisconsin -- the subsidy is zero. Generally, the farther a dairy operation is from Eau Claire, the higher the subsidy.

This law long ago fulfilled its mission, and Wisconsin is losing ground in the milk overproduction competition nationwide. But that's not cruel enough for the red state bosses who are oh-so against big government. Nope, the law goes right on, year after year, transferring a portion of Wisconsin family farming wealth to fat-cat factory farms in other regions. Result: Milk costs more to produce in America's Dairyland, just so other states can keep sucking at our teat when they should have been weaned years ago. Totally unfair, and totally inconsistent with alleged GOP economic policies. Unfortunately, WIsocnsin doesn't have the votes to stop these vampires who call themselves moral Americans. Raw power, not justice and equity, is now entrenched as the nation's public ideal. Got milk subsidy?

I say to red staters: If you like winning so badly, if you can't resist taking ideological tweaks at the nation's collective expense, then just keep it up. In not many more years you'll have drained dry the blue states, our grandkids will find it increasingly difficult to pay off the huge federal credit card debt that Bush is merrily swiping us into, and the nation will start getting tapped on the shoulder by wary foreign investors who hold trillions of dollars of US debt.

Then you will have killed the golden goose. True, you'll have won the Civil -- I mean cultural -- War, but in doing so you'll have thrown the USA back a century, right into the realm of Third World economies. Cannibals: In my view, that's who you are. If you don't believe it, read the nutrition label before your next gorging.

Posted by: Ron Legro | Nov 10, 2004 4:37:41 PM

WV is on the list because of a Democrat. Robert Byrd is the big draw of government dollars to WV. But as West Virginian's have shown, they can't be bought off by the Democrats, hence their voting for BUSH!

Posted by: patrick | Nov 10, 2004 4:53:04 PM

Mike:

"You guys put yourselves in this position - 40 years of overspending on failed social programs, conbined with the shrill attacks ever since Reagan took office have sickened alot of people."

The Republicans, in the last 40 years, have held the Presidency for 24 of those years, and Clinton managed to balance the budget so exactly who was overspending? As much as you would like to play the victim of the evil liberal cabal, try taking on a little responsibility. Or is that something you only pay lip service to when trying to impose your high moral standards on others? And which failed social program would you like to talk about? Republicans don't seem to even want to fund successful social programs like Head Start or Hope VI. Perhaps we might look at failed weapons programs, to turn your simple minded construction around. We could also look at Watergate and Iran-Contra if your selective memory allows you to do that.

Finally, exactly how much do you think you should pay in taxes? The Federal Government subsidizes all kinds of programs for the middle and upper class--mortgage interest deductions, highway construction, mineral rights on federal lands--so don't act so self righteous. There is a lot to be said for the government sponsoring a system by which some people can become incredibly wealthy and it is disgusting when those same people forget the bonds of mutuality this country was founded on to bitch about the taxes they pay which help make this republic possible. You can't get much more un-American than that.

Posted by: Charles Foster Kane | Nov 10, 2004 7:05:08 PM

"For every celeb who declares as a republican, 20 scream they'll leave the country if Bush gets elected."

Really?

Name 40 (20 for Arnold and 20 for Ron).

Posted by: Cal D | Nov 10, 2004 7:17:49 PM

BTW, it's not just divorce rates that tend to be lower in blue states and higher in red states in general. Murder rates, violent crime in general, and teen pregnancy rates all follow that same pattern with remarkably few exceptions.

Small wonder so many folks in red state America seem to think our civilization is in decline...

Posted by: Cal D | Nov 10, 2004 7:48:23 PM

The map above also illustrates why the federal deficit and the national debt will continue to balloon as long as Republicans are in charge of the federal government. If you're spending more than you're taking in, you basically have three choices:

1. Cut Spending
2. Raise Taxes
3. Continue spiraling further and further into debt

Republicans always have to opt for #3 because political realities make them institutionally incapable of fiscal responsibility. They can't vote to cut spending because most of their home-state economies tend to rely heavily on federal hand-outs. And of course they can't vote to raise taxes to cover shortfalls because they would be drummed out of the Republican party if they did.

Posted by: Cal D | Nov 10, 2004 8:14:01 PM

Mike is unbelievable. He accuses Dems of the "nasty tone" of their campaign. Hey, Mike, were you even paying attention during this campaign? Bush ran one of the most negative campaigns in history. Most of his commercials attacked Kerry, rather than promoting himself. But I can hardly blame him. There's really nothing positive that can be said about him.

Posted by: jason | Nov 10, 2004 11:10:10 PM

Ho - Hum. There really is no need for the Democratic faithful to gnash teeth and tear hair.
President Clinton was elected twice because he had credibility with both "red" and "blue" voters - his humble upbringing and determined rise to intellectual and political excellence appealed to both the "up by your bootstraps" middle Americans and the Ivy League liberal brain trust. Bush has the same intrinsic appeal - Yale educated, but down and dirty oil business savvy; a hard drinking, educated good ole boy who saw the light and feels at home in Wabash or Washington. It's a trait that can't be faked, bought, spun, or ignored. Kerry doesn't have it, Clinton and Bush do. If the Democratic electorate is looking for a scapegoat, how about the rocket scientists who disregarded the above and forwarded a candidate without the "both sides of the tracks" credentials to carry the day.

Posted by: Frank | Nov 11, 2004 4:01:28 AM