I have a deal for you. I'll give you $1.00 and you give me $1.61. Sound fair? Of course it does. But that's what we do here in America.
We're attempting to reduce our Federal deficit here in the United States, and do so without raising taxes on the wealthy, although other tax increases, if they affect the less well to do, will be considered. The wealthy must not be taxed because if they are, they'll take all their money and go somewhere else to live and not create any jobs.
Many politicians, pundits and advisors are on a slash and burn campaign to reduce the deficit, slashing and burning the social welfare net and discretionary spending, like education. Many pols don't want poorer people to receive any unemployment compensation, food stamps, housing assistance, or health care that they can't pay for because otherwise, these people will start enjoying barely not starving while living in substandard conditions and struggling to get healthcare and not look for work. Many also worry that we're becoming Socialized, pointing to such evil socialized countries as the late USSR, Finland and other Scandanavian states, and the most ruthless of all socialized countries, The People's Republic of China, still fondly remembered in some quarters as, "Red China".
I think these people are correct. We are encouraging socialism and welfare. But we shouldn't be looking at the people.
We should be looking at the states.
The majority of American states receive more tax dollars than they pay in. Clearly, then, if they're not putting their fair share into the pot, they'll pulling the rest of us down. Why, then, should the poor people and others depending on the social net in the wealthy states suffer because of a few bad states? So cut the cash flow to those places. We must do it for their own good. Otherwise, they'll never try to improve themselves, or learn the value of hard work and sacrifice because the Federal government is giving them money, money, which I note, that they often spend on parties. Yes, I'm looking at you, Louisianna, spending money to host the SuperBowl while you're living on the government dole.
I'm not proposing that we get draconian about it. Just cut the monies a state is receiving above the amount they're giving. If they want to receive more, they just need to give more. For example, West Virginia, receiving $2.57 in Federal dollars for $1.00. So we'll cut them back by $1.57 in Phase 1. In Phase 2, we'll start addressing it on a per capita basis. It'd be cruel to do that on a per capita basis, as WV receives $3.58 for every $1.00. Not a bad deal.
I'm not picking on WV. They're number two in how much they receive for every dollar they give. New Mexico is number one. Mississippi is number three. Yes, I feel sorry for these states and their populations, but that's the way of the world. That includes my own state, Oregon, exactly in the middle, getting $1.15 for every $1.00 we give, and $1.61 per capita.
This is only fair. By forcing the wealthier states to support the poorer states, we're actively discouraging the wealthier states from creating jobs. They're all sitting around asking, what's in it for me? You're just going to take my money and give it to poor states, de-incentitizing them to try harder.
It's all about dollars and cents. You need to pay to play. If you can't pay, you don't play.
Causes Michael Seidel Supports
Kiva, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Propublica.org, Doctors Without Borders, GreaterGood.com