luckydawg
Posts: 2448
Joined: 9/2/2009 Status: offline
|
I can only comment about Alaska (where I used to live). The analysis is not valid. To start only 10% of what you see on a map is actually "the State of Alaska". Most of the land mass is Federal land, either parks or Millitary bases. And yeah the feds pay to maintain thier parks and Millitary bases, which the people in Alaska get no more say over than people in Mass or New York. Also the federal government has treaty and trust obligations to the Alaska Natives. Which the Feds pay for, and the State of Ak gets virtually no say over. The majority of the coast line in the USA is Guess where? Alaska. Hence the feds pay for the Coast Guard. The Artic is at the forefront of climate change (as we are told over and over) so studies about it are done where? In the arctic (Alaska). Now a lot of people in Alaska want the feds to give them more controll over the use of the land there. And the Republicans generally agree. And the dems often seem to want to turn the entire state into a park. Consider the ANWR issue. Way more in jobs and revenue would come in for the people of Alaska. So I don't see the voting against thier own interest (though I do understand that is a talking point regurgitated over and over by the dems, it was in a book 15 or so years ago). By, " cling to cherished delusions", do you mean pretending that the blue areas subsidise the red areas, as you and Julia seem to be doing? The article you cite clearly shows that with a simplistic glance that seems to be the case, yet it isn't true. The amount of Military bases is the largest factor. Also it is the Red areas that drive the blue states economically. Also New Mexico the highest offender in the list is a solid blue state....
_____________________________
I was posting as Right Wing Hippie, but that account got messed up.
|