The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 7)

Mr. Goff, while I am a Blue Stater (good guess), I am certainly no blue blood. I am simply a TAS reader voicing my opinion. Judging by your response as well as several others', the Red Staters are simply unwilling to recognize the truth that they are overwhelmingly on the dole. If you actually followed the link I provided, you would find that my Blue State of Minnesota receives only $0.78 back for every dollar we fork over to the federal government -- a 22% loss. We already pay out the nose both in taxes and at the grocery store for our food because of those subsidies. Where do some of those subsidies go? The leeching state of Wyoming. You, Mr. Goff, receive $1.05 back for every dollar you "invest" in the government. You are a welfare state. Every time you go for a drive on a nicely paved road, pick up the phone, or turn on the tap and have fresh water; think of me and my family and the taxes we pay. You can thank us Blue Staters that you have those luxuries.

I might add that free market economics and trade seem to be a foreign concept for some of the respondents, despite the fact that we are reading The American Spectator. Subsidizing agriculture not only makes farmers uncompetitive, but it also raises the price for the rest of America. This summer's milk inflation is a great example. Did the market determine the price? No. Government did through regulation and subsidization. Frankly, the Red States would be worse off selling to Blue States because without subsidies and the protection of agricultural tariffs they would be forced to compete in a free market, which is to say, selling at a substantially lower price than they do now. And unlike current policy, they would not be paid for NOT growing food. Moreover, without irrigation subsidies and corn/wheat/sugar subsidies the Blue State's farming sectors would once again be competitive. And aside from Texas (which would probably prefer to be a county rather than part of a massive welfare system) the blue states have infrastructure. Rail, ports, factories, etc. are scarce in Red States. The Red State "resources" are dubious as well since they apparently require subsidies to remain competitive.

p>At any rate, my original point was that it is entertaining to see Red States voting predominantly for limited government, more freedom, less taxes, etc. with one hand while with the other they are taking from the rest of the country. The fact is, they may not call themselves socialists but actions speak louder than words. As in Catch 22 , many Red States are suspicious of everything the government does thinking it to be creeping socialism, so long as it doesn't affect its monthly check from Uncle Sam for not growing. br> -- Devin Foley br> St. Paul, Minnesota /p> p> ON THE WATERFRONT br> Re: The "Bluer Than Blue" letters in Reader Mail's If At First You Don't Secede : /p>

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Trade, Health Care, Economics, Social Security, Abortion, Military, Iraq, NATO, Socialism, Conservatism