Daily Beast: Paul Begala: It's Time to Defund Kentucky.

[AsburySkinsFan]

An interesting editorial piece that takes a hard look at just how much Federal money goes to Kentucky, and the disconnect that many have between voting for fiscal conservatives while relying upon liberal spending programs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-15/paul-begala-its-time-to-defund-kentucky/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL4



While its small-government crusaders decry Obama’s budget and government spending, the Bluegrass State is thriving on D.C. welfare. Paul Begala says it’s the perfect place for a truly democratic experiment.

The great Mark Shields has said that most Americans are theoretical conservatives but operational liberals. I think Shields is right. In fact, we ought to make it a law of political analysis: According to Shields’ Law, the same people who vote for politicians who pledge to slash government spending are appalled when the politicians they elect actually slash government spending.

No mother wants to see her child crammed into an overcrowded classroom, where she can experience the joys of head lice. I've never been to a community meeting where anyone said, "I'd like to wait longer for an ambulance," or, "I hope America stops spending all that money on cancer research." Nor did I see anyone at a Tea Party rally burning his Medicare card.
When talking about taxes, the late Sen. Russell Long once said, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind that tree." And so it is with cutting government spending.

Take Kentucky, please. Kentucky has given us Makers Mark bourbon, Churchill Downs, and Kentucky Fried Chicken. Kentucky has also given us Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers. While Rogers was once dubbed the "Prince of Pork" and McConnell has hauled so much pork (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/gop-senators-oppose-own-earmarks/brazen/)he's at risk for trichinosis, they are now converts to Sen. Paul's anti-government gospel. McConnell says President Obama's new budget (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-15/president-obamas-head-in-the-sand-budget/) is "unserious" and "irresponsible" (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/143937-mcconnell-obama-budget-unserious-and-irresponsible) because it merely cuts projected deficits by $1.1 trillion. “The people who voted for a new direction in November have a five-word response," McConnell said, "We don’t have the money.”

Fair enough. So here's my two-word response: Defund Kentucky. Cut it off the federal dole. Kentucky is a welfare state to begin with. The conservative Tax Foundation says the Bluegrass State received $1.51 back (http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/64.html) from Washington for every dollar it paid in federal taxes in 2005 (the most recent data I could find on the Tax Foundation's website.) We need to listen to the people of Kentucky. They don't want any more federal spending in their state—and they certainly must be appalled by the notion that they're a bunch of welfare queens, living off the taxes paid by blue states like California (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html) (which only gets 81 cents back on the dollar), Connecticut (69 cents), Illinois (75 cents) and New York (79 cents). ...remainder of article at link

[SnyderShrugged]

I bet that Rand would go along with that completely.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I say all citizens in blue states should have their Bush tax cuts taken away.

This line of reasoning by Begala is just stupid, although I have no doubt someone like Senator Paul would go along with it

[Bliz]

This article reminds me of an email I got around the election from a friend of mine who grew up in a small town called Cynthiana, KY:

"my 80 year old yellow dog democrat grandma was very upset about the primaries in KY

the day before the primaries:

"I just don't understand all these poor folks in these counties that have been declared disaster areas by the Government because of the flooding. They've been depending on FEMA to get them shelter, food, water, medical care...but then they'll go to the voting booth and all vote for Rand Paul. The same people who are crying out for 'smaller government' are the ones who have the most to lose if it shrinks."

[Burgold]

This article reminds me of an email I got around the election from a friend of mine who grew up in a small town called Cynthiana, KY:

"my 80 year old yellow dog democrat grandma was very upset about the primaries in KY

the day before the primaries:

"I just don't understand all these poor folks in these counties that have been declared disaster areas by the Government because of the flooding. They've been depending on FEMA to get them shelter, food, water, medical care...but then they'll go to the voting booth and all vote for Rand Paul. The same people who are crying out for 'smaller government' are the ones who have the most to lose if it shrinks."

Yup.

It's like all those signs saying that government run health care was evil, socialist, and the devil. But don't you dare touch my medicaid! Hypocrites all.

[Bang]

Reminds me of the article posted here a few months ago by the guy wandering around a tea party rally listening to everyone sitting on their gov't funded scooters screaming that they want to cut spending.

Whether or not is' feasible or realistic to be so drastic as to cut anyone off,, I do think no one is prepared to make the sacrifices it will take to get us back on track.
People want the country saved, but they want to have no discomfort.
It's not possible. We're spoiled.

~Bang

[Burgold]

. We're spoiled.

~Bang

and blind.

[Hunter44]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/fed-tax-sentspent-by-state/
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee246/darthjoe8/US-Fed-State-tax.jpg

[SnyderShrugged]

so whats the point of this thread or begala's comments?

Is there an issue with the influence of Rand Paul over the Pork loving neo-cons who were already in office when he got elected? Isnt that a good thing that he might ne converting them to his line of thinking?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I say all citizens in blue states should have their Bush tax cuts taken away.

This line of reasoning by Begala is just stupid, although I have no doubt someone like Senator Paul would go along with it
Maybe Begala should have ended with "/sarcasm".

[Bang]

and blind.

Nah, I wouldn't say so. I think there's not a voter in this country who doesn't know we're in a serious financial mess.
But I also think the number of people who are prepared to cinch their belts tighter and make sacrifices in order for the whole of us to heal is very small.
A lot of people in this country feel entitled, as if they are owed something.
I've found that most people are "patriots" in word only, and a whole hell of a LOT of people just plain don't give a damn.
and of course, a whole hell of a lot of people just believe what they're told, and won't do anything because it will give credit to the _____ party.

Not surprising, considering we're loaded up with douchebags like Jeff Sessions who say one thing one day, and another the next day.
Playing politics while we swirl down the toilet is nothing short of disgraceful.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-16-2011/i-like-big-cuts
Sessions pops in at 2 minutes. Watch how the day Obama's budget came out he says that saving 1 trillion dollars over the next ten years is not acceptable, but just 24 hours earlier, explains that saving 1 trillion dollars over the next ten years is how we get out of this mess.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

so whats the point of this thread or begala's comments?

Is there an issue with the influence of Rand Paul over the Pork loving neo-cons who were already in office when he got elected? Isnt that a good thing that he might ne converting them to his line of thinking?
Come on SS, read the article, it's not so much about the elected as it is the folks who elect them. They say they want one thing, when in reality they want something completely different.

[SnyderShrugged]

Come on SS, read the article, it's not so much about the elected as it is the folks who elect them. They say they want one thing, when in reality they want something completely different.


Not sure how you can say that about every individual in the state. I am 100% positive that I could find examples of hypocritical statements in every major issue stance in existence among the people who vote.

You dont honestly believe that every person who is in support of small government in KY is a hypocrite and deep down desires more federal programs do you?

[zoony]

Take Kentucky, please. Kentucky has given us Makers Mark bourbon, Churchill Downs, and Kentucky Fried Chicken.


This is where I stopped reading - Kentucky Fried Chicken started in Utah.

[Burgold]

This is where I stopped reading - Kentucky Fried Chicken started in Utah.

Kentucky Fried Chicken is Mormon? Who knew?

(Actually, I didn't know that KFC began in Utah. That's pretty odd)

[Hunter44]

I don't think that Kentucky minds getting more money than they contribute... I guess it's okay to "spread the wealth" as long as most of it goes to red states. :silly:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not sure how you can say that about every individual in the state. I am 100% positive that I could find examples of hypocritical statements in every major issue stance in existence among the people who vote.
But, this is not just some side issue, this was the key issue in the last election cycle...smaller government, less Federal spending, cutting socialist/communist/unconstitutional government programs, and the people here in Kentucky voted overwhelmingly for the champion of this mentality, all while those same people absorb billions in Federal tax dollars.

I found this article just as interesting.
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/16/1266910_kentucky-tsks-but-takes-federal.html#more
Looking at counties that take in millions of tax dollars per year, and then overwhelmingly voting for the candidate who has vowed to cut those same tax dollars. There is a disconnect, a true cognitive dissonance.


You dont honestly believe that every person who is in support of small government in KY is a hypocrite and deep down desires more federal programs do you?
Well, that's a nice absolutist statement designed to force me to say that "not every person is a hypocrite" so that means that there is not a huge number of hypocrites who want these Federal dollars all while voting for someone who wants to cut them. Nice try. The truth is, and you know it, that there are a great number of people who call themselves conservatives and who turned out heavily in favor of Rand Paul who would then loudly protest if he actually did what he promised to do.

[SnyderShrugged]

But, this is not just some side issue, this was the key issue in the last election cycle...smaller government, less Federal spending, cutting socialist/communist/unconstitutional government programs, and the people here in Kentucky voted overwhelmingly for the champion of this mentality, all while those same people absorb billions in Federal tax dollars.

I found this article just as interesting.
http://www.kentucky.com/2010/05/16/1266910_kentucky-tsks-but-takes-federal.html#more
Looking at counties that take in millions of tax dollars per year, and then overwhelmingly voting for the candidate who has vowed to cut those same tax dollars. There is a disconnect, a true cognitive dissonance.


Well, that's a nice absolutist statement designed to force me to say that "not every person is a hypocrite" so that means that there is not a huge number of hypocrites who want these Federal dollars all while voting for someone who wants to cut them. Nice try. The truth is, and you know it, that there are a great number of people who call themselves conservatives and who turned out heavily in favor of Rand Paul who would then loudly protest if he actually did what he promised to do.

no, what I'm getting at is that why would anyone take paul to task over the actions of his predecessors as well as formulate a belief that all KY GOP voters are hypocrites based on a few comments?

The truth is, that maybe many people are finally starting to see that federal largess is causing severe economic turmoil and hopefully minds are changing towards reality.

I ahvent seen anyone that suported Rand in the contest loudly protesting his proposals yet, do you?

[AsburySkinsFan]

no, what I'm getting at is that why would anyone take paul to task over the actions of his predecessors as well as formulate a belief that all KY GOP voters are hypocrites based on a few comments?
I'm NOT taking Rand to task...I'm taking the electorate to task.


The truth is, that maybe many people are finally starting to see that federal largess is causing severe economic turmoil and hopefully minds are changing towards reality.
Yep they sure are, and so they voted for their champion, and when he tries to cut the spending they depend on, there will be loud wailing throughout Egypt--such as has ever been or ever will be again.


I ahvent seen anyone that suported Rand in the contest loudly protesting his proposals yet, do you?
:gus: That's because Rand is a smart enough fella to realize that his proposals to cut unconstitutional spending is completely infeasible, he knows that it'll never happen, and if he does do it he won't get re-elected...why you might ask....because the same people who elected Rand to be their champion of all things fiscally conservative don't really want him to be what they elected him to be.

[scruffylookin]

Reminds me of this little diddy from a few years ago. Gotta love the blowhard Stuck on Stupid crowd.

Joe Republican
.by Jeff Parker on Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 12:11am.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.



Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.



Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.



It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work.



He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.



He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.



Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

[Stadium-Armory]

Not sure how you can say that about every individual in the state. I am 100% positive that I could find examples of hypocritical statements in every major issue stance in existence among the people who vote.

You dont honestly believe that every person who is in support of small government in KY is a hypocrite and deep down desires more federal programs do you?

Of course its a generalization. And of course you can find examples of conflicting statements on every major issue. But do you not think there is a shred of truth to this supposition that there is conflict between the words, and expectations of some who are asking for small government?

---------- Post added February-18th-2011 at 10:25 AM ----------

To be fair, I suspect something similar is probably true in reverse. Those who might support more spending, or expansion of programs, are also (possibly) not raising their hand to pay more taxes. "Someone else will pay for it".. or "Corporate taxes should pay for it" .. "but don't raise my taxes.."..

[AsburySkinsFan]

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
Wow, that sums it all up doesn't it.

[JMS]

I bet that Rand would go along with that completely.

Maybe Rand Paul would agree to unilaterally cut federal dollars flowing to his state... But his constituents certainly would not. Not in year 1, much less year 2, 3, 4, 5... Not as their public schools crumble, their roads disapear before there eyes, and their social security and medicare checks stop coming.

Frankly though I think the proposal is disrespectful of the state of Kentucky, just because they are on the wrong end of the federal governments largess doesn't discredit their ideas in my mind or as far as the United States Constitution is concerned. The people of Kentucky want to send an irrational knee jerk reflexive small government advocate to Washington, it's their right. It's everybody elses responsibility to listen and work with that representative. Targetting hardships upon his constituency is counter to everything America should stand for.

Begala hasn't really thought through his proposal. Bottom line is this country sinks or swims with the common sense of the average citizen. Even if those citizens are today not being helpful in this state or that; the constitution has safeguards sufficient to insulate the nation from short term public opinion swings, What makes this coutry great and has always made this country great is not the genuis of the smartest, or the work product of the elites. It's that when push comes to shove over a sustained period of time, our common people have made truely inspired and thoughtful decisions which have seen us through our darkest moments as a nation. I wouldn't want to hang my hopes for the future of the nation on anything else; even though I think Rand Paul and the tea party are often unsophisticated and on the wrong side of important decisions, They are part of an important conversation which needs to be diverse in opinion for the good of the country...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is where I stopped reading - Kentucky Fried Chicken started in Utah.

So Kentucky Fried Chicken is neither chicken nor from Kentucky? How'd that name come about?

They should have named it Utah Fried Petri-dish.

[zoony]

So Kentucky Fried Chicken is neither chicken nor from Kentucky? How'd that name come about?

They should have named it Utah Fried Petri-dish.

The colonel was from Indiana. I think he opened his first restaurant in KY (was not a KFC, was just an eatery), and the state gave him that title for some sort of humanitarian work or something, I dunno. But he traveled to Utah before he found a business partner that was interested in selling his chicken out of a restaurant, and the first one opened in Salt Lake City.

My dad grew up in Utah in the 40s and 50s and remembers them, they were called something else (I can't remember).


Anywho, to come full circle, don't hate on KFC. You can't go wrong with a bucket of original recipe and some mashed potatoes and biscuits on gameday

[Destino]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

[zoony]

Not sure why so many people want to desperately pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system.


Oh come on, you know it's not fair. Also, it's not fair to bring up military spending. Those are the rules Destino, learn them please.

Can we get back to talking about those welfare bums please?

[Destino]

I say all citizens in blue states should have their Bush tax cuts taken away.I fail to see your point here. The people in those blue states voted for that *and* such a move would make the relationship Begala is talking about even more evident.

I will say this though to be fair, the data he seems to be operating on is old. Looks like 2005 numbers and the economy then would look nothing like today in terms of dollars from the fed being spent.

[Hunter44]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

I already posted it but here it is again. http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

2005 is the earliest chart I could find.

[Larry]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

Well, here's a list (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html) done in 07, using 05 data.

[mardi gras skin]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/fed-tax-sentspent-by-state/

I've seen these maps showing the differences in what states pay into the government and how much they get from the government but what federal expenses are included? For instance, the Social Security headquarters is here in Baltimore and this pumps a bagillion dollars into the local economy. Is that factored into the tax dollars received by Maryland?

Also, there are a dizzying number companies with headquarters in the state because of our proximity to DC. Of course, Maryland reaps a windfall. How is that factored into the equation?

[JMS]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.

[img]http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/bushstates300.jpg[/quote]

states which recieve the most federal dollars Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

[Hunter44]

It just says "federal spending per dollar of federal taxes." Curious as to why Alaska gets $1.84 per dollar sent to DC yet it's citizens receive a check every year from oil.

EDIT: JMS is using a little older data.

[SnyderShrugged]

Not sure why so many people want pretend this is somehow an invalid argument. If you're complaining about government spending and you're state get more back than it pays the federal government than your state is leach on the system. I'd like to see a list of all states that have this relationship with the federal government.


It's only invalid as far as saying that those hypocritical views are held by all who support smaller federal spending and influence. No one has said that the hypocracy doesnt exist, but to try and twist it into abandoning attempts to rein in the spending because of it, then its inaccurate and silly.

The true question to ask, and one that we simply dont know yet, is are those that support smaller government willing to apply that principle to what may benefit themselves. i'd say the answer to that depends on what beliefs you hold. The typical neo-con or so-con might likely reject those cuts, but your typical paleo or libertarian conservative likely would accept the cuts.

[Destino]

It's only invalid as far as saying that those hypocritical views are held by all who support smaller federal spending and influence. No one has said that the hypocracy doesnt exist, but to try and twist it into abandoning attempts to rein in the spending because of it, then its inaccurate and silly.

The true question to ask, and one that we simply dont know yet, is are those that support smaller government willing to apply that principle to what may benefit themselves. i'd say the answer to that depends on what beliefs you hold. The typical neo-con or so-con might likely reject those cuts, but your typical paleo or libertarian conservative likely would accept the cuts.

The problem is that when you argue for spending cuts as the reps or head of a welfare queen you have no credibility. It's no different than a fat man selling a diet book. Sure a diet is a good idea for most Americans but why should we be sold on HIS particular diet? It's easy to say we should spend less, here watch:

Hey America, we should spend less.

But the posters on this site would readily identify me as a democrat and associate that with massive spending. I have a credibility problem on this particular issue (and all issues, because really who the **** am I to even be having this conversation lol). The same problem exists with a red state welfare queen demanding that EVERYONE ELSE accept spending cuts.

With all due respect, you first. If it works sell it to everyone else.

[SnyderShrugged]

The problem is that when you argue for spending cuts as the reps or head of a welfare queen you have no credibility. It's no different than a fat man selling a diet book. Sure a diet is a good idea for most Americans but why should we be sold on HIS particular diet? It's easy to say we should spend less, here watch:

Hey America, we should spend less.

But the posters on this site would readily identify me as a democrat and associate that with massive spending. I have a credibility problem on this particular issue (and all issues, because really who the **** am I to even be having this conversation lol). The same problem exists with a red state welfare queen demanding that EVERYONE ELSE accept spending cuts.

With all due respect, you first. If it works sell it to everyone else.


Again, Rand Paul was called out by Bagala. Where is he not walking the walk?

[JMS]

It just says "federal spending per dollar of federal taxes." Curious as to why Alaska gets $1.84 per dollar sent to DC yet it's citizens receive a check every year from oil.

EDIT: JMS is using a little older data.

Yes my data was from 2005....

It's because the political system for despensing federal funds to the states is disconnected from state spending. Alaska benifited from Ted Stevens the longest serving republican senator in history. He was in the senate from 1968, until 2009 and served in leadership positions as the minority whip, majority whip, and President pro tempore of the United States Senate for nearly 4 decades.... The man was famous for bringing hom the bacon, including the funding for the bridge to nowhere which Palin helped to terminate, while keeping the federal funding for Governor directed projects.

[Bliz]

Again, Rand Paul was called out by Bagala. Where is he not walking the walk?

The people of KY were called out by Begala. All he says about Rand Paul is that he ran on a "crusade against federal spending" and won. The people of KY should walk the walk, if they hate federal spending so much (is his point). Not that they ARE hypocrites for electing him, but that if they meant it when they elected Rand Paul, they should, looking forward, back it up.

[SnyderShrugged]

The people of KY were called out by Begala. All he says about Rand Paul is that he ran on a "crusade against federal spending" and won. The people of KY should walk the walk, if they hate federal spending so much (is his point). Not that they ARE hypocrites for electing him, but that if they meant it when they elected Rand Paul, they should, looking forward, back it up.

so why not give them a chance to "back it up" before chiding them as hypocrites?

[Hunter44]

You really think that the people of Kentucky will give up their $1.51 in federal money for every $1.00 they send to DC? lol We shall see....I say Rand should start there, but he won't....

[Destino]

Again, Rand Paul was called out by Bagala. Where is he not walking the walk?

He talks a good game and I have no doubt he'd vote in line with his words. Would like to see the super small government state before it's forced on the rest of the country though,

[Chachie]

so why not give them a chance to "back it up" before chiding them as hypocrites?



The only way to do that would be to cut their funding. Rand Paul won't do that.

1. Because he'd be burned at the stake by his constituents. Hence the thread.

2. Because he (like any politician- repub or dem) pockets too much of it. I think we can all agree on this one.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's only invalid as far as saying that those hypocritical views are held by all who support smaller federal spending and influence. No one has said that the hypocracy doesnt exist, but to try and twist it into abandoning attempts to rein in the spending because of it, then its inaccurate and silly.
Fine, then only let the non-hypocrites vote for the candidates, until you do that then it IS valid.

[Destino]

I agree. They can fire back up all those coal mines that government has shut down, then they won't need assistance.
What a ridiculous post. First of all define "all those coal mines" tell us how many being that you're pretending it would make up the difference in tax money. Then when you've actually looked into the issue tell us WHY the government stepped in to shut down a mine? I'll help you: the owner couldn't pass basic safety inspections.

Yes let's stop safety inspections! Great argument.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Again, Rand Paul was called out by Bagala. Where is he not walking the walk?

No he wasn't and I've said it before in this thread....it is not Rand Paul being called out here it is the people who voted for him, and the proof is in the very first paragraph of the piece.

The great Mark Shields has said that most Americans are theoretical conservatives but operational liberals. I think Shields is right. In fact, we ought to make it a law of political analysis: According to Shields’ Law, the same people who vote for politicians who pledge to slash government spending are appalled when the politicians they elect actually slash government spending.

[Burgold]

I agree. I think that Rand Paul is proving to be a man whose words and bills have some semblance of consistency. However, while Paul may genuinely believe in an austere, trimmed, and tiny gov't that funds minimally... will the people he represents like it in reality? Kentucky and many Red states have for years if not decades preached small gov't and cut the pork, but the reality of it is that they enjoy ham far more often then just Easter Sunday. They dine on the other white meat on almost a daily basis. They've been talking out of both sides of their mouth for a long, long time.

Cut the pork! Pass me another ham sandwich, dear!

[Destino]

What on earth are you talking about?
You argued that mines were being shut down and that this contributed to the imbalance between tax dollars paid out versus federal money received. So I looked up info on Kentucky mines being closed:



PINEVILLE, Ky. (WATE) - A Bell County coal mine is shut down after a recent visit by federal inspectors.

During a regular inspection by the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration on December 7, Left Fork Mining Co. Inc.'s Straight Creek No. 1 Mine was issued three 104(d)(2) orders.

The orders were for an inadequate pre-shift examination of the mechanized mining unit, an inadequate on-shift examination of the conveyer belt and accumulation of combustible materials. http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=13921928


The federal government, in an action that it says is the first of its kind, filed a lawsuit Wednesday to close a Kentucky coal mine until its owner can make it safe for workers.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration, filing in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, seeks a preliminary injunction against the Freedom Energy Mining Co. mine No. 1 in Pike County. The mine is owned by Massey Energy Co.

"Freedom Energy has demonstrated time and again that is cannot be trusted to follow basic safety rules when an MSHA inspector is not at the mine," Joseph A. Main, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health, said in a statement. "If the court does not step in, somebody may be seriously injured or die."

Massey Energy also owns a coal mine in West Virginia where 29 miners died in an explosion April 5, the industry's worst disaster in 40 years. The mine had a spotty safety record before the explosion, with three deaths reported in the past 12 years.http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/government-moves-to-shut-down-kentucky-coal-mine/


Federal regulators performing a blitz of safety inspections on unsafe mines last month temporarily closed down six operations in Kentucky over safety violations, the Mine Safety and Health Administration announced this afternoon.

The nationwide blitz, inspired by the deadly blast in Montcoal, W.Va., earlier in the month, resulted in 1,339 safety citations and 109 withdrawal orders, MSHA said.

Joseph Main, head of MSHA, said that, in light of the Montcoal disaster, it was “appalling that these operations continued to flout fundamental safety and health standards.”http://washingtonindependent.com/84206/white-house-shut-down-six-kentucky-coal-mines-last-month

I see a lot of mines failing safety inspections. So what were YOU talking about?

[Bang]

Whiney coal miners.
Why should anyone give them sympathy when they knowingly put themselves in harm's way?

~Bark!

[Hubbs]

Wow, that sums it all up doesn't it.

Of course it does. Because it always does. Go ahead and name the government program that's supposed to be a bad idea. Is there a Department of Screwing Up? A Federal Agency of Tripping Over Itself? Does the Onion's National Money Hole really exist?

If we're going to limit complaints about government spending to those about programs that inherently don't make sense, we probably won't get many complaints. But that ends with the government always taking the side of expansion. So the real question is this - what would you cut? If we can accept the premise that the world will suffer if it's run by the state because we've been shown that that doesn't work, then what nice-sounding initiatives would you slice? Or do you want to argue that the government has grown to an appropriate size and that we just don't happen to have a trillion dollars to pay for it? Sooner or later the ability to borrow a trillion dollars (within an entire world with a GDP of about $54 trillion) runs out. We're lucky enough to have a currency that the rest of the world uses to back its own money. Imagine if we didn't. That sort of ability doesn't last forever, and when it runs out, it tends to happen relatively suddenly. One day, the world stops thinking that your pieces of paper are worth more than what they're printed on. I can tell you what happens then. It isn't good.

I'll borrow a phrase from JFK to illustrate my point. We don't have to make these decisions because they're easy. We have to make them because they're hard. The sad fact about our budget is that 2+2 doesn't equal 4. We have the luxury of borrowing beyond our means for as long as the world lets us. It could be two months, it could be twenty years. All I know is that when it stops, it'll stop faster than we think it will, because when you stop having an excess trillion... well, for lack of a better phrase, it sucks. It sucks as much as losing 1/54 of the entirety of the world's economy probably should.

Until then, though, you can keep buying things on that credit card.

[Thiebear]

Who would use Governmet supplied scooters as an example.
Of course you take care of the very ill and poor.

I try and draw the lne at 300% poverty. people painting with broad brush

[twa]

There are variables to consider...I would like to see more current numbers though

http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/john-wildermuth/6175-donor-state-problem-not-easy-solve

Let’s talk about the payment side first. Despite its ongoing financial problems, California is still a wealthy state, with the ninth-highest household income in the nation.

With a progressive tax system, higher incomes means more tax money headed to Washington. It’s no surprise that of the 10 leading donor states in a 2006 report by the Washington-based Tax Foundation, all are in the top 17 of income states (California is number nine).

High earnings mean high wages, which translate into bigger federal payroll tax payments. And Californians also drive a lot, which means more federal gas taxes leaving the state.

On the payment side, much of the federal money California gets comes from direct payments to individuals, which means Social Security, Medi-Care, SSI disability and federal retirement pay.

And since California’s population is relatively young (fourth lowest median age in the 2000 census, behind Utah, Alaska and Idaho), that means there’s going to be a lot less of that money flowing into the state then goes to Florida, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, which lead the nation in senior citizens.

The closure of California military bases and a decline in big dollar defense contracts since the early ‘90s, when the state was getting back about 92-cents on the dollar, also have trimmed federal payments to the state.

States like New Mexico and Mississippi get back more than $2 for every buck sent to D.C. If a state wants to join them on that government “pay to” list, it helps to have a low per capita income, a small population and plenty of federal installations, complete with workers getting paid by Uncle Sam.

[Larry]

Who would use Governmet supplied scooters as an example.

It's something that's easy to ridicule. (Especially since, let's face it, many of us have seen those scooters being ridden by people who's handicap appears to be that they're too overweight to walk.)

OTOH, even an easy to ridicule expense like that, I can see the wisdom behind.

If buying Grandma a government-paid-for scooter keeps her out of a government-paid-for nursing home for, say, a year, then for gawds sake, buy the lady a scooter.

[Thiebear]

i have no issue with means testing: I get mad when i get no stimulus money 3 times and others get 600 ea.
and i make too much to get out from under my stupid crack house. But my girls should not pay 4trillion for 3 years of average.