McCain & Palin: Greedy, Pork-Barreling Liars

Not that I think Obama needs any help winning the election but, damn, there’s just no way I can keep myself from mentioning this…

STATE GREED – Who gets the most of your money?

Have a look at the map below and note that the dollar amount you see for each state is the total that state gets back from the government for every dollar they pay in federal taxes. In other words, this graphic details which states request more from government coffers than they pay in and which states request less.

SOURCE: The Tax Foundation (.pdf link)

With all the harping about which candidates were the guiltiest of requesting earmarks for their constituents, I would ask that you have a look at four states in particular:

Illinois and Delaware: $0.82 and $0.79 | Total: $1.52 | Average per state: –$0.24

Arizona and Alaska: $1.30 and $1.87 | Total: $3.17 | Average per state: +$0.59

As you can see, the McCain/Palin total is more than twice that of Obama/Biden. Hell, Alaska’s total by itself is more than those of Illinois and Delaware combined. In fact, Alaska and Arizona are the second and third greediest states in the country. Make no mistake: the right-wing accusation that Obama is the master of pork-barreling is an outright lie, just like the majority of their pitiful, desperate claims.

Bonus tidbit: Alaska was actually 12th in the union for federal expenditures ten years ago, but by 2004, they had shot up ten places to number two. Think about what that means, especially in light of the fact Alaskans pay neither sales tax nor income tax and receive dividends from the state’s oil sales.

Why, exactly, does Alaska need that much of your money? I think we all know the answer to that…

Read and post comments


About kirkstarr

I draw pictures for a living.
This entry was posted in Can I Say Something? and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to McCain & Palin: Greedy, Pork-Barreling Liars

  1. YGRS says:

    This is so totally No Surprise.I'm trying to stay calm & be realistic but the closer the election gets, the more I can feel my stomach doing flip flops. I'm so disgusted by how NASTIER and stupider the frickin' Republican ads have gotten the past week. Their ads were ALWAYS just nasty and negative, name-calling & picking Obama apart, where Obama's ads were mostly all based on telling what he will do when he's elected, not resorting to name-calling back and neener neener. I'm so sick of McCain & Palin's ads just whining about Obama — first he's Inexperienced – then he's a Celebrity – then he's an Elitist – then he's a Terrorist – now he's a Socialist. Now this morning I hear they're saying he has an aunt somewhere who's legal imigrant status isn't clear. Jesus christ ——— is it possible that they have a chance in hell of winning a campaign based completely on smear tactics like this???And this morning I heard a radio ad with JOE THE FUCKING PLUMBER speaking for McCain??? wtf!?Seriously — I feel like I've been bombarded with shit and it's all piling up on me. I don't know how I'm going to handle it if Obama doesn't win. I hear people saying both candidates will be equally good or bad, whoever wins, and I think "jesus — look at how each one has conducted themselves during their campaign and you SERIOUSLY believe that crap???"I'm scared.

  2. Kirk says:

    "I don't know how I'm going to handle it if Obama doesn't win." I said the same thing to Karin this morning almost verbatim. But tomorrow night, as I watch Obama's landslide victory, I expect my faith in my countrymen to grow back to its original size.I think most of us can accept conservative thinking, but this election has shown us Republicans can no longer be defined as "conservative" and I believe most Americans are downright repulsed by what the Right has mutated into. Many right-wingers have turned into batshit nut-cases who do things like discriminate against clueless little children on Halloween for not backing the right politcal candidate. Talk about impotent, irrational nutbags! Good lord! This election is turning the might-is-righties into frightened, gibbering half-wits!But see, this is what happens when Republicans don't have a massive financial advantage: they are exposed and become quite petulant and nasty. There's an expression for this phenominon. "The toothless get ruthless."

  3. YGRS says:

    I know that if I was one of the undecided, I'd absolutely be repulsed by watching how the GOP is acting. They totally are "gibbering half-wits" and the depths to which they have sunk in this campaign are shocking! (and they talk about "how negative Obama's ads have been??? puhlease!) When you look at how dignified Obama has run his campaign and how intelligently he is presenting his ideas and reaching out to us all — he makes me feel proud & hopeful. McCain & Palin are just scarey as hell. I so hope you're right, Kirk — and tomorrow night we're all watching an overwhelming victory for Obama — and it'll be safe to finally exhale."The toothless get ruthless." Toothless bastards.

  4. SandyU says:

    Very interesting map. As you say, not surprising either.

  5. GinBaby says:

    I don't think the graphic, or others like it that I've seen previously, actually prove what you seem to be using it to prove. For one thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that McCain or Palin is responsible for its state's amounts, just like it's almost certain that Obama, who has been in the Senate for about 3 days, has little to do with his state's amount.
    Second, in Alaska's case (and this applies to some of the Southern states as well), much of the discrepancy is explained by relative population density and average household incomes. Population density is especially key in Alaska because it's a big freakin state with very few people, but they still have needs in terms of education, transportation, and infrastructure to support their industries. Most states do rely on federal funding for some or all of those things, but since we're talking about ratios to how much they pay in federal taxes, then you also have to take into account how much money the average household makes. In Alaska, as in Hawaii, this is offset, too, by the cost of living there. Seasonal employment is rampant in Alaska and many households probably don't have any federal tax liability at all, but that's part of the nature of living there. I assume you believe, though, that Alaskans have the same right to education and so forth as any other Americans.
    If you look at the 10 "worst" states, they all share some characteristics such as relatively high poverty rates (or, at least, rates of households making little enough money that they have no tax liability) and, for the Western states, low population densities and a higher proportion of Indian reservations and public lands (many of which are administered out of the federal budget–some are state lands of course) than the states with the "best" records. That should be relatively unsurprising and unlikely to change no matter who (or which party) is governing.
    You're right that Republicans do not represent conservatives, but McCain (at least, the pre-campaign McCain) represented conservatism somewhat better than Republicans do. He's morphed into something unrecognizable, though. But I also think you're wrong to assume that most people who will vote for Obama would accept anything about conservative thinking. Frankly, I doubt most people who will vote for Obama know anything about conservative thinking. They tend to think that conservatives are just greedy bastards who don't like to pay taxes to help other people and so on. More and more, people don't read or watch anything that really questions their own positions, least of all anything that is dead opposite to their positions. This is why each side is "scared" of the other and just hurls invective across the aisle. Not a great way to move the country forward, in my opinion. (I realize that you are more open-minded to talking about conservative thinking and reading conservative blogs and so forth, but most people aren't like you, Kirk).
    Honestly, I don't get the Obama worship at all. He would seem at this point to be the lesser of two evils, but I'm not sure I'd go much further than that.

  6. Kirk says:

    You make some good points, GB, and I guess the main thing I'm driving at here is that it's very hard to see how the blue team is the less fiscally responsible than the red team when items like this keep coming to light."…in Alaska's case (and this applies to some of the Southern states as
    well), much of the discrepancy is explained by relative population
    density and average household incomes… Seasonal employment is rampant in Alaska and many households probably don't have any federal tax liability at all…"That might be true, but the thing is, according to the US Census Bureau,
    Alaskans actually do better on average than we do here in Washington State and it
    appears they always have. What's more, even
    when adjusted for their higher cost of living, the average family of
    four in Anchorage still fares better than a comparable Seattle family. So
    I'm still wondering why they need my other 22 cents on the dollar. "I assume you believe, though, that Alaskans have the same right to education and so forth as any other Americans."Absolutely. I'm one of those guys who wants to give healthcare to everyone, as well. I don't have a problem giving people what they need. I have a serious problem being played for a sucker. Washingtonians make less on average than Alaskans, but our state gets by on less than half of what theirs does? Really? Something about that stinks worse than caribou entrails."They tend to think that conservatives are just greedy bastards who don't like to pay taxes to help other people…"I don't think that about conservatives, but you pretty much nailed the definition of a NeoCon.

  7. GinBaby says:

    Well, where we lived in Alaska, the average income was very low. I think that it gets skewed in some places because of the oil income–obviously, there is wealth there because of the natural resources. I could be wrong. But, for Alaska, the population density is probably the bigger factor. Schools can only be built so far from the students, which in very rural areas means they end up serving far fewer students but for similar levels of money. In New Mexico, for example, the high school I went to was one of only two in the entire county–the biggest county in NM which is already a fairly big state. If not for the distances involved, all the students in our county could have fit into one school, easily. In Alaska, in some places, the population densities are even lower, so the kids are more spread out which tends to make for more buses and roads necessary, more school buildings and administrators, and so on.
    My points about poverty, though, still hold for some of the other states, including Arizona. Illinois and Delaware have lower poverty rates than the national average, by quite a bit in Delaware's case.
    Anyway, the blue team still may or may not be the more or less fiscally responsible. Like I said, that isn't really what I'm disputing; I just don't think this map particularly demonstrates anything about these four people. There is the fact that Obama's proposals as they stand will cost much, much more than McCain's proposals as they stand, but since I don't believe that either of them will get through the proposals as they stand (and Obama may make up some of the money if he gets the troops out of Iraq, but he won't if he then sends them to Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran, some of which he has left on the table), I'm not especially worried about it. If you look at the bailout bill, if you plow through some of the earmark pork in there, though, a lot of it is from Democrats.
    In general, and aside from the rare case of Clinton balancing the budget and even getting a surplus by acting like a conservative, I think that all parties in Congress are roughly equally susceptible to overspending on their states in bald attempts to please their constituents. I know I'm really cynical about it, but I can't tell that either party behaves very well if left to their own devices.

  8. Miz Blo says:

    Huh, doesn't Mrs McCain look frumpy?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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