“Drop Dead NY”: Chutzpah, thy name is Mitch.

For those whose access to NYT is limited (I think it is free during crisis), I enclose an interesting paragraph.

“Mr. McConnell’s comments were an explicit rejection of a top priority of Democrats who have pushed to spend tens of billions of dollars to help states. His staff members highlighted their partisan cast in a news release circulated a short time later, in which his statement appeared under the heading “Stopping Blue State Bailouts.” The phrase suggested that the top Senate Republican was singling out for scorn some of the hardest-hit, heavily Democratic states such as California, Illinois and New York.“

Now, in the interest of fairness, McConnell is fretting about money slipping into non-intended, non-crisis areas. I guess like large companies that got small business grants in the first bailout.

Yet, with some minor exceptions, the blue coastal states have been funding the poorer red states for decades. That is, they pay more in taxes to the feds than they get back whereas the others reverse that equation.

I guess Mitch and his cohorts are like the profligate offspring, they take money from Dad until he needs their help. Then it is “drop dead Dad”.

PS: “Drop Dead NY” was first attributed to President Ford when NYC was teetering on bankruptcy in the 70’s. Trump is actually in favor of state money.

PPS: Mitch’s state has done quite well on tax money from the feds, not so much on income per capita.

• Net federal funding: $9,145 per resident
• Total revenue from fed. gov.: $70.8 billion (19th most)
• SNAP benefit recipiency: 14.1 percent (8th highest)
• Median household income: $48,375 (7th lowest)

12 thoughts on ““Drop Dead NY”: Chutzpah, thy name is Mitch.

  1. Are we back to that foolishness about Blue States supporting Red States again?

    Archer Daniels Midland headquarters is in Chicago, and that’s where its income is reported. How many farms does it have in Chicago?

    Monsanto is headquartered in St Louis.

    There are lots of companies headquartered and reporting their income in Blue states and cities because that’s where capital is accessed and meetings are held, but their production is diversified all over the country.

    Blue States supporting Red States is a myth.

    Like

    1. …”with some minor exceptions”…

      Ease up their, Don. There are some exceptions, but Red States DO get their bulk of federal funding because of larger, more populated Blue States. If you don’t like that fact, that is too bad. It ain’t no myth. The work may be done elsewhere, but the tax money gets paid from where the headquarters are.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. @Tabor

      Laughable, but yes it is true.
      Food comes from farms.
      Like the farms in our most productive BY FAR agricultural state, California.

      The subject is the flow of federal tax dollars and they DO flow from blue states to red states. Period.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. It’s not a myth. Think about it. Why are the poverty rates higher in the producing states. Divorce, crime, obesity, life expectancy, addiction, education levels…every parameter except church attendance is worse.

      Either we are not willing to pay the actual producers or using too much complacent illegal labor. So if we put Archer’s headquarter in Tupelo, that’ll help?

      Liked by 1 person

        1. @Tabor

          Why are the poverty rates higher?

          Anyone with the slightest knowledge of history and genetics can make a pretty good stab at the probable answer. Over the years people in those backward places with ANY “get up and go” got up and went – leaving behind people – and their descendants – gullible enough to support Republican politicians.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “Yet, with some minor exceptions, the blue coastal states have been funding the poorer red states for decades.”

    Do you mean to suggest that blue states deserve bailouts because they indirectly fund the red states?

    If that’s the argument, it sidesteps the question, Why do blue states (uniquely?) require bailouts at this time?

    If the answer is that blue states have been fiscally irresponsible, then they don’t deserve bailouts in any case.

    I’m not asserting that the blue states were fiscally irresponsible, but the possibility of that would be a good reason to separate the bailout issue from the pandemic response requirements. I’d like it best for the federal government to behave in a scrupulously non-partisan manner when distributing Covid-19 funds.

    Like

    1. The Democrats were calling for funding for all states. Mitch is the one who cried “the Blues”.

      The primary reason for the money to the states is that they have paid up front for the costs of first responders, hospitals, buying medical equipment from all over the world at high prices, and other extraordinary expenses caused by the crisis.

      In addition, of course, the revenue in all states has tanked since the shutdown. And states can’t print money like the fed. And they can’t go bankrupt like Mitch suggested.
      Cities have gone under, but not states.

      It seemed to me that Mitch’s reasoning is just pure political partisanship while people are dying.

      We are now over 50,000, BTW. Pretty amazing for 6 weeks or so since the first deaths.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “The primary reason for the money to the states is that they have paid up front for the costs of first responders, hospitals, buying medical equipment from all over the world at high prices, and other extraordinary expenses caused by the crisis.”

        Why should federal taxpayers bail them out? If they didn’t see the pandemic coming, and didn’t prepare adequately, why would they deserve the funding?
        .

        Like

        1. Threats to our nation from outside the borders are not the purview of the states. That’s why POTUS is in charge of international affairs, the military, intelligence, pandemic information, tariffs, trade, immigration, keeping sea lanes open and anything else that can affect us as a nation.

          But Trump saw the pandemic long before anyone else. The administration had plenty of notice from the first week in January, at least, that there was a serious problem in China. And they had information that was not generally available to the public.

          Why didn’t he alert the states? He could have done so quietly and suggest that they check supplies and make sure they were ready just in case.

          Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s