Ain't Irony Grand?

by Cliopatria

First came the news that Bush's core constituencies were the ones most in need of his marriage promotion proposals, which may held explain why he's in favor of it. Now, a new analysis shows that states which recieve more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes --"takers" in Daniel Pink's terminology -- were much more likely to have supported Bush in 2000.

Not only are the moralists immoral, but the anti-governmentarians are the greatest beneficiaries of government.

I'm all for redistributive government, where it's justified. But irony is only funny once. Then it becomes hypocrisy, and it isn't funny at all.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Richard Henry Morgan - 2/1/2004

I don't think bases have to be a net gain for states or communities to oppose their closing. True, some bases might indeed represent a net gain to states, particularly in isolated, relatively poor areas where the value of alternative uses are low. The operative concept is that interested minority parties often get their way when opposed by only a general good -- where the costs of closing fall hard on interested minorities, and the benefits are so small and well-distributed that effectively there is nobody to speak for them.

Examples where bases were ideed closed include Ft. Ord, and much of the Presidio of San Francisco. Ord sat on a hill with a beautiful view of Monterey Bay. Ord's associated town, Seaside was an eyesore, with depressed real estate values relative to its neighbors (such as Monterey). The closing of Ord, and the creation of Cal State Monterey Bay, increased real estate values and state and local tax revenues, and provided a commuter university to an underserved area. The social benefits of the partial closing of the Presidio were so high relative to costs (the post was small, with a small multiplier effect and dependent population) that opposition was minimal.

Grant W Jones - 1/31/2004

I would be interested in seeing actual figures on business support of the political parties. I suspect that business gives to whatever party is in power in its local area or state; its called blackmail and/or bribery. "Support me, or face a hostile legislator." As the past owner of two small businesses, I've found that most small businessmen are libertarian in attitude. Bigger business will support whatever politician can do them the most good or least harm. This is why libertarian are against "redistribution" of wealth by political means. Of course, the result is corruption. "When buying and selling are controlled by politicians, the first thing bought and sold is the legislature."

But, of course, the Democrats being in the pocket of Big Labor is a good thing? This "old boy network" has worked wonders for Hawaii's economy.

Jonathan Dresner - 1/31/2004

I think Ralph is right: if bases aren't a significant net gain for their host communities, why does nobody want to see them closed? Surely it isn't just the environmental cleanup costs (which actually are a net gain, by GDP measures....) that make them fight so hard to keep "their" bases open?

Of course this is a rough measure: we could come up with dozens of different refinements, each shifting the balance towards the direction we approve of.

My personal theory: all these little programs that we think of (welfare, military bases) aren't really the issue. The vast majority of the money if filtering through the hands of Republican business owners, who are then supporting the national and state parties with that all-important political grease: money. It's just a theory, though.

Richard Henry Morgan - 1/30/2004

I should have made the point that not the full cost of federal funding for bases should be tallied to the state's advantage. The majority of benefits to the state, and the majority of costs, derive from spillover effects. As the majority of people on military posts don't pay state taxes to the state where they are located (if at all, as many list Florida or other states as home states for tax purposes), that also represents a loss to the state -- the District of Columbia, for instance, receives federal funding specifically justified by that reason.

I would add that the sense of community is reduced, and social costs increased, by the rapid turnover of miltary personnel, most of whom only reside at a location for two years. My point would have been better made that the accounting is incomplete, and that a more complete accounting reduces the "takings", rather than there is no net benefit to the state.

Oscar Chamberlain - 1/30/2004

Military bases create communities--often troubled ones to be sure--but still communities. The economic losses due to the problems of these communities are serious but usually incremental.

The losses when a base is closed are immediate, very visible, and truly disruptive to the people who have made their lives and livelihoods near that base.

This is not an argument against reducing bases. We need to. But whenever it is done there is a blow, sometimes small, but sometimes very large, to the immediate region.

Richard Henry Morgan - 1/30/2004

Military posts are disproportionately in Southern or "Bush" states, partly because of Senate seniority rules that favored the South that returned Senators to office, partly because of the need for year-round training facilities. It is an open question to many whether those military posts add more to the states than they cost in spillover effects (depression of surrounding real estate values, prostitution, etc.).