Rick Perry's Secret Plan to Save Blue States from the Red States

Of all the nonsense Texas Governor Rick Perry spews about states' rights and the tenth amendment, his dumbest is the notion that states should go it alone. "We've got a great Union," he said at a Tea Party rally in Austin in April 2009. "There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that."

The core of his message isn't outright secession, though. It's that the locus of governmental action ought to be at the state rather than the federal level. "It is essential to our liberty," he writes in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington, "that we be allowed to live as we see fit through the democratic process at the local and state level."

Perry doesn't like the Federal Reserve Board. He hates the Internal Revenue Service even more. Presumably if he had his way taxpayers would pay states rather than the federal government for all the services and transfer payments they get.

This might be a good deal for Texas. According to the most recent data from the Tax Foundation, the citizens of Texas receive only 94 cents from the federal government for every tax dollar they send to Washington.

But it would be a bad deal for most other red states. On average, citizens of states with strong Republican majorities get back more from the federal government than they pay in. Kentucky receives $1.51 from Washington for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes. Alabama gets back $1.66. Louisiana receives $1.78. Alaska, $1.84. Mississippi, $2.02. Arizona, $1.19. Idaho, $1.21. South Carolina, $1.35. Oklahoma, $1.36. Arkansas, $1.41. Montana, $1.47, Nebraska, $1.10. Wyoming, $1.11. Kansas, $1.12.

On the other hand, fiscal secession would be a boon to most blue states. The citizens of California -- harder hit by the recession than most -- receive from Washington only 78 cents for every tax dollar they send to Washington. New Yorkers get back only 79 cents on every tax dollar they send in. Massachusetts, 82 cents. Michigan, 92 cents. Oregon, 98 cents.

In other words, blue states are subsidizing red states. The federal government is like a giant sump pump -- pulling dollars out of liberal enclaves like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon -- and sending them to conservative places like Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Arizona, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Old South.

As a practical matter, then, Rick Perry's fight to save America from Washington is really a secret plan to save blue states from red states.

Perry, it turns out, is a closet liberal.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

 

 

 

Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich

Comments

[jeffbwillis]

12:51 PM on 09/14/2011

This is essentially a true fact; as things rest currently. On the other hand, states such as Alaska would change those dymanics quickly if they controlled their own resources. States like Arkansas which have plenty of natural resources and great farmland could take full advantage of less regulation. Kentucky is another state with a great potential agriculture economy. What happened to all those canneries they use to have? The answer is the "FDA." And what if states could manage their own environmental protection? In short, if Massachusetts wants universal healthcare, they have that right. If New York approves same sex marriage, it's their privilege. If Illinois wants to fund every single abortionl, it's their option. If California wants to legalize marijuana, it's their call. If Mississippi wants to provide prayer in the public school classroom, in accordance to the 10th amendment, they can do it. Robert Reich's argument is one dimensional. Give even the poor states more freedom and latitude and they will thrive for the better. Besides, it's about the kind of America our founding fathers envisioned. We are "the United States of America." Not, "United America." Most "red states" would be delighted to trade "less money" for "less Washington interference." They have learned painfully that there are always strings attached.

[Si1ver1ock]

03:53 PM on 09/02/2011

Arizona needs the money. The can't even afford their own state capitol anymore.

An example to the rest of the nation?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/07/29/20090729assets0729.html

[Daniel R Cobb]

12:52 PM on 09/02/2011

My post was removed, apparently a little too much truth. Mr Reich, thanks for writing that excellent article. It is incredibly ironic that the red states receive the most in Federal funds to sustain their economies, their people, yet these same people are often hysterical in their contempt for Federal assistance in the form of social programs, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, etc. Slashing these programs, as their Republican politicians demand, would cut deep into their local economies and literally take food off their own tables. The Republicans rail against Obama's stimulus funds for jobs programs, yet their own constituents are the largest benefactors. The dim-witted irony of this fact was caught on a Tea Party sign: Govt: Keep Your Hands off My Medicare.

[clearasmud]

12:06 PM on 09/02/2011

The simplistic mind of a Con is a dangerous thing, and Perry is about as simplistic as anyone can get.

[Dan Hydar]

07:14 PM on 09/04/2011

Ironic; you are posting simplistic generalizations about *others* being simplistic.

Is it so threatening that thinking people might just have a different opinion from yours?

[clearasmud]

09:18 PM on 09/04/2011

True Opinions on complicated subjects are never simplistic, and there are no current problems that are not complicated. Ergo, when I see someone say that all we have to do to create jobs is lower corporate taxes and dump all regulations... Not only is that unsupportable argument, but in the main it is Simplistic.

[Jason1953]

11:30 AM on 09/02/2011

Perry can stay in Texas. What a disaster he would be as President.

[seldoc]

09:34 AM on 09/02/2011

With the Articles of Confederation, we tried the sort of government that Mr. Perry supports. What happened was the states spent more time bickering among themselves that cooperating, the economy barely functioned and the military was ineffective. In short, it was an abject failure, and it didn't take long for the the founders to realize it. So, how could anyone possibly think it makes any more sense today than it did then?

[clearasmud]

12:08 PM on 09/02/2011

When does a con ever think about facts and history. It is all ideology to them. Wether or not it works is beside the point.

[seldoc]

02:10 PM on 09/02/2011

I know, but the lack of any sort of analytic thought bothers me. So, I just keep on trying. I'm sure you do the same thing.

[OldTart]

08:28 AM on 09/02/2011

What strikes me is how myopic this vision is, the thinking of a governor of one state (and what a state! what a governor!) as opposed to the thinking required to embrace all the states, to preserve the union. This is consistent with governors who run for presidential office with few exceptions. I suspect that few people realize how vast and challenging the chief executive position is until they are actually in the office and dealing with governance at that level. Clearly, Rick Perry is not up to that challenge. Few candidates are, regardless of party. But for sure it starts with a brilliant mind and a talent for multi-tasking as well as delegation, a capacity for learning that is huge and fast. And we haven't even discussed the overwhelming influence of corporations and their lobbyists, which must be honored even though it stinks to high heaven. Rare is the person who can handle all that - and look how it ages them!

[clearasmud]

12:17 PM on 09/02/2011

Fanned and Badged for objective truth.

[RKTesq]

12:50 AM on 09/02/2011

Dear Mr. Reich,

With all due respect, please don't expect that American voters, the dumbest voters in the world, will ever grasp this argument.

[soarer]

09:40 PM on 09/01/2011

Robert, how come you don't mention New Mexico in your article... the number one state at $2.03. Is it because it is a blue state? And what is the source of your data? The only thing I find is a 2005 study which has exactly the $ numbers you quote? Surely there is more current data to make the argument with.

[satyrday]

09:16 PM on 09/01/2011

Great points. This needs to be trumpeted a lot louder.

[Dan Hydar]

11:04 PM on 09/06/2011

Why? You want to reduce federal spending? If not, you're just being foolish and spiteful.

[Freedomaphile]

07:14 PM on 09/01/2011

Perhaps Texas really has joined the more money out in Federal taxes than coming in states.

But until recently it was getting $1.25 in for every $1.00 out.

[jmbsjy]

06:37 PM on 09/01/2011

Why didn't they secede?

[Frickett]

06:22 PM on 09/01/2011

California would be in great shape if we didn't have to subsidize the red states who obviously couldn't balance a budget if their lives depended on it. They don't like government? Great, let them go it alone and good luck to them. Funny how the red states constantly howl about how much they're taxed. Not only do we Californians have one of the highest state taxes in the nation, we get back less than ANY other state on every dollar. We're a little nutty out here, though. We actually like clean air, clean water, nice beaches, pristine state parks. You know, little stuff like that. And we're willing to pay for it. Maybe we should secede and keep our money.

[mmulkeen]

08:17 PM on 09/01/2011

Agreed. Too bad the North won the Civil War or for that matter too be the free colonies struck a bargain with the slave colonies. We then wouldn't have to deal with as many radicals like Perry, who in a blue country would be effectively marginalized.

[jmdziuban1]

09:00 PM on 09/01/2011

Admittedly unlikely, but is there any correlation between the tax rates in a particular state and the money received from the federal government. Do states with higher rates receive less from Washington because they need less, whereas states with low tax rates receive more since their own rates leave them short? It probably has more to do with being more diverse economically, with better average incomes, as well as simple size to population ratios. As a former resident of Alaska, they have large size, little population, and much federal land.

[RKTesq]

12:59 AM on 09/02/2011

I believe what you describe is the difference between states with educated populations and sustainable commerce and industry, and those without. I.e., Blue vs. Red. For some illumination, I suggest you read Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" In short, residents of red states don't mind being poor and dumb so long as they have a reason to hate and folks around them who hate equally. To its credit, the Republican Party has tapped into the resulting willingness to vote against one's self-interest, and thereby actually does better in Red states when the economy falters.

[clearasmud]

12:11 PM on 09/02/2011

Education is the key difference.

[mwilbur137]

05:43 PM on 09/01/2011

I have been saying what Mr. Reich has just written about...for years now. It's nice to see someone with a little clout agrees with me...now, how do we REALLY get this message out to the masses to make the Red State heads explode...?

[RKTesq]

01:00 AM on 09/02/2011

Unfortunately, even if anyone in Red states could READ the message, they wouldn't understand or heed it.

[jjtx]

05:26 PM on 09/01/2011

Why do we continue to send subsidies to states whose constituents are so against federal monies.

[jmbsjy]

06:37 PM on 09/01/2011

Good question.

[jnkekoa]

08:27 PM on 09/01/2011

Have a look at Bob Cesca's latest-"Can we have it back?"