For some context let me say this: what do I get called when I complain that the vast majority of tax money in Los Angeles goes to South Los Angeles? That's right! A racist!
Now: Why is Alaska the highest in this category? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the federal government owns almost 70% of Alaska? Second only to Nevada* in that category. Additionally Alaska is the largest state in land mass: 656,000 square miles but 47th in population: 683,000 citizens. Or maybe Juneau being a 4000 mile drive from Washington, DC makes it a little expensive for the feds to do things there? I guess our first line of defense against Rooskie nuke attack takes a little money to operate. Do you think the extreme weather makes roads more expensive to maintain and build? Maybe Noah thinks we should cut back on the money spent on "native" populations up there? Is the cost of living in Alaska relatively high? Why yes it is! In short, there are all kinds of reasons that Alaska leads this category, but Sarah Palin is not one of them.
In Noah's enfeebled mind it is because Palin and her Republican cronies secretly hose federal tax dollars from the Treasury to buy expensive frames for their glasses and state-of-the-art hunting rifles.
Maybe Noah should ask himself why states receive different returns on their tax dollars to begin with. He would find out that his "progressive" forbears were limited in how and how much tax money they could spend so they dreamed (I say "dreamed" not "dreamt"--it sounds more down home American, kinda like Sarah!) up the 16th amendment--which basically allows the feds to spend money wherever they want in whatever amounts they want. Prior to that taxes were to be apportioned among the several states based on what they contributed--kind of useless from the feds perspective.
Don't get me wrong, I wish Alaska got a lot less but I wish we ALL got a lot less. In fact, I prefer massive tax cuts to the point where the feds have serious difficulty running their midnight basketball & marxist indoctrination.
Noah is trying to make a point with statistics but he fails. I could just say that while Alaska gets the most per capita, they are number 44 in absolute numbers. If you were trying to make the case that Sarah Palin was "a pig at the trough" (these guys can't stop calling her a pig!) you would focus on the absolute numbers and by this measure she is the runt of the litter getting shoved off the teat. Which statistical approach is more valid? I say they are both valid but not for the argument Noah is trying to make.
And, finally: Is Alaska really the biggest consumer of federal tax dollars per capita? Among states, yes, it spends aprox. 14 grand per capita. But it and every other state is swamped by the District of Columbia which spends 65,000 federal tax dollars per capita! But, but...yes, I know that is where the federal government is! There's always a reason!
Tim Noah is always coming up with these bullshit analyses to make republicans look like hypocrits or child molestors or baby killers. I'm sure there are actual hypocrits in the GOP. So why does Noah have to pretend that Palin is? Because he's in this to win! He's an Obamatron and no distortion is too low for him to assure GOP defeat in the fall. Well, fuck him! I just busted his ass!
*Nevada is dead last in per capita tax spending mostly due to the gutting of the US military courtesy of Bill Clinton. But, if Harry Reid would stop his candyass obstructionism of Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste repository they could start getting some traction in this category.
No comments:
Post a Comment