From what I can tell, the Conservatives and the Tea Party oppose redistribution from the rich to the poor.
They want limited Federal Government. They want the Federal Government to leave them alone.
Fine. Let's take this lunacy a few steps further.
Let's fan their flames and get them to oppose redistribution from the rich states to the poor states.
It makes sense wealthier states would pay more in taxes, and get less benefits from the Federal Government.
Poorer states would pay less in taxes, and get more benefits from the Federal Government.
This sounds vaguely like the claim the rich are paying more in taxes and getting less benefits.
I don't believe the rich get less benefits...I believe the rich benefit handsomely...but never mind.
I found, on the Internet, research titled, "Federal Taxes Paid vs. Spending Received by State",
at
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.htmlAccording to this research, some very rich, progressive states, like California, Connecticut, to name a few,
pay much more to the Federal government than they receive in benefits from the Federal Government.
Other states, like Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, even Texas,
to name a few, receive more, in benefits than they pay in taxes to the Federal Government.
Clearly, this isn't fair to California, Connecticut, and other rich states...(laughter).
California should fund it's own Social Security, Medicare and federal entitlements.
California shouldn't have to send money to the Federal Government only to get the money back.
The same should be true of other states.
The Tea Party wants limited government. Limit what the Federal government does within a state's border.
Extend this lunacy to include all Federal programs within an individual state.
The Federal government should only pay for military bases and military operations overseas.
If a state has a military base, the state should pay for that military base.
The state should pay the salaries, upkeep, all costs, of that military base.
That state should not benefit, from the Federal Government, financially.
If a state doesn't want to pay for the military base within the state, let's move the military base.
I'm sure other states would love to have the military base.
Am I wrong in believing rural states are more conservative? Are farm states more conservative?
Let's put a stop to farm subsidies...clearly farm subsidies are a Federal Government redistribution.
Let a state provide farm subsidies if it wants and can afford it. Don't ask the Federal Government.
Another Federal Government redistribution is FEMA.
There are some conservative states that benefit from FEMA each time a hurricane visits.
Let's get rid of FEMA. Let George Bush's thousand points of lights help states hit by hurricanes.
The Tea Party people believe in personal responsibility. Fine...let's have personal responsibility.
Where is the personal responsibility in building and rebuilding in an area constantly hit by hurricanes?
Let the state fund it's own reconstruction each time a hurricane hits. Don't ask the Federal Government.
The Conservatives and the Tea Party want limited Federal Government.
Fine. Let them have it. Let them have it where it hurts...in the pocketbook. Let them feel the pain.
Before anyone says what I am suggesting is lunacy...let me agree...what I am saying is lunacy.
But isn't this the same lunacy the Tea Party wants when they want to coddle the rich and not help the poor?
Why can't I extend this lunacy to coddling the rich states and not helping the poor states?
The devilish side of me believes more poor states are conservative, Tea Party friendly states.
The devilish side of me wants to punish these Tea Party friendly states.
Let's tell them to have really limited Federal Government, if we can possibly say it with a straight face.