In defense of red state socialism

For most liberals, the Constitution's aspirational goal for "We the people" to "form a more perfect Union" is a guiding statement of American national purpose. Nevertheless, these days many blue staters are growing exasperated with their red state brothers and sisters. After all, the "Southernization" of American politics has helped give conservative policies and politicians an outsized national influence for years. Almost 150 years after the Civil War resolved the issues once and for all, some Republicans still casually traffic in talk of nullification, secession and insurrection. And "states' rights," that pernicious ideological bludgeon first used to deny millions of Americans their freedom for the first century of the Republic and ignore their rights in the second, is now being redeployed to justify preventing a new generation from accessing health care and the ballot box.

But almost as galling for many Democrats is the persistent phenomenon of red state socialism. That is, despite Republican paeans to "small government" and "rugged individualism," red states benefit from a one-way flow of dollars from Washington, a federal gravy train disproportionately provided by blue state taxpayers. But hypocrisy or no, that is as it should be. Because when it comes to health care, education, public safety, needed infrastructure and so much else, Americans' mutual commitment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness cannot end at the state line.

To be sure, red state socialism is real. As a 2007 analysis by the Tax Foundation (above) of federal spending per tax dollar received by state shows, the reddest states generally reaped the most green. (As Politifact rightly noted, the rankings are based on 2005 data. The Tax Foundation is planning an updated study.) Eight of the top 10 beneficiaries of federal largesse voted for John McCain for president. Unsurprisingly, all 15 states at the bottom of the list'those whose outflow of tax revenue is funding programs elsewhere in the country'all voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Alaska's number three ranking was particularly ironic, given Gov. Sarah Palin's farewell message warning her state to "be wary of accepting government largesse; it doesn't come free."

But the ironies don't end there. A 2010 map of personal government benefits received versus taxes paid showed secession birthplace South Carolina to be one of the big winners. And as the New York Times documented earlier this year, "even critics of safety net increasingly depend on it." Even, it turns out, Tea Party die-hards  Dartmouth Professor Dean Lacy's research concluded that this development has been underway for some time now:

Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.

Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. And Professor Lacy found that the pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.

Apparently, to those who complain loudest about government, much shall be given.

(Continue reading below the fold.)