Re: ENOUGH - No more red & blue states

From: Kevrob <kevrob_at_my-deja.com>
Date: 28 Nov 2006 19:27:22 -0800

Rob Jensen wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2006 01:53:24 -0800, "Kevrob" <kevrob_at_my-deja.com> wrote:
>

> >
> >"Blue" states also suffer in the Federal funds distribution racket from
> >some other interesting factors, such as:
> >
> >1.) The tendency of retirees to choose states to retire in that have no
> >or low personal income taxes and no or low inheritance taxes. Low
> >local taxes and fees are a draw, too. If the "Blue" states weren't
> >such tax hells, maybe the over-65 crowd wouldn't sell off and move so
> >much, and Bluestaters would cash more Federal pension and SS checks.
> >
> >2.) Climate. With the notable exception of California, the heavily
> >"red" Sunbelt is a more attractive retirement spot than the more
> >Northern, Bluer states. My folks would have liked to have kept their
> >very nice home in a seaside town 60 miles from NYC and wintered
> >somewhere warm, but their budget, like most folks, only allowed for one
> >residence, so they took a look at the property tax bills they could
> >never pay on their pensions, at the prices of houses in Florida, and
> >decided to give up shoveling snow.
>
> 1 and 2) If the climate in Florida and more generally throughout the
> South and parts of the midwest didn't suck so badly, these states
> would be ready, willing and able to raise taxes on the populations
> just as they do in blue states, but the climates suck so badly that
> low taxes are the only way they can get people to move there and shore
> up what little tax bases they have.
>

Plenty of Midwestern states are "blue" or at least "purple", and have pretty high taxes as things are. As for the South, don't you think that the attitudes of the in-migrants from the North have an effect on their politics? Many folks moved to retire, and want low taxes because they are on fixed incomes and don't have kids of school age. Others moved to follow work, with one difference between those who headed South from their peers who stayed North being a weaker attachment to the way things were done back home. Counties such as Nassau and Suffolk on New York's Long Island went from being the most pro-Republican in the nation circa 1972 to reliably Democratic in presidential elections at the cusp of the the 21st century. The population is older, with the Boomer sons and daughters of longtime homeowners having a harder time than their G.I. generation parents finding and keeping jobs locally, especially ones that can provide enough cash flow to service a mortgage on the increasingly expensive single-family homes that dominate housing there.

A nice Newsday article on the outflow of younger families from L.I. here:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20060526/ai_n16436702

Jobs that make one tend to "stick" include civil service and teaching. Public employees tend to vote Democratic, though back in the days of the Margiottta and Zeidler machines, those with county or township jobs would probably be "registered" Republicans. Those days are gone.

> >3.) Military bases have tended to be located in the South and West for
> >some time now. Northeastern congresscritters have been famously
> >oppossed to military spending, except when a contractor is located in
> >his or her district or state. There was also the longterm phenomenon
> >of most of the 20th century where the members of Congress with the
> >greatest seniority were conservative Democrats. Northern New Dealers
> >looked the other way on civil rights while allowing the Senators
> >Claghorn to chair Appropriations and Armed Services and direct pork
> >into their bailiwicks. This all fell apart starting with the 1964
> >Goldwater candidacy, and culminating in the 1992 congressional
> >elections, but the spending pattern is nothing new, it just switched
> >parties.
>
> Note: the drastic cut in the number of military bases in California
> was done over the objection of Democrats and is largely and correctly
> seen as revenge by Repugnicans on the state of California for being a
> Blue State.
>
> --

There were the Base Closing Commissions. Since California had so many military bases, it was kind of tough not to close some of them. Federal contracting, especially in military aviation and the space program, really took a hit. As the 80s slid into the 90s, and the politicians tried to provide a "peace dividend", some powerful Congresscritters, not the least of whom was Missouri's Rep. Richard Gephart (D-McDonald-Douglas) strove to get airplane and missile production for their states. The Washington/Boeing connection was strong, too. Once the Reps had both the Senate and House, they certainly pushed D snouts out of the trough in favor of those of the Rs, as much as they could. No argument there.

Kevin Received on Tue Nov 28 2006 - 19:27:28 PST