the problem I have is that it's never a single state getting proportion. They always band together. So California with millions of voters become insignificant, when 10 states with combined total of 500,000 voters band together.
That's why we have more subsidies for corn production than science research.
I'm sorry, but 10 states in the boonies with no people, should not be able to dictate policy to California. Crap like that is exactly why California ends up subsidizing half the red states, who then turn around and vilify it every chance they get.
Well, as a resident of one of the red states that has our budget under control (ND - surplus), I don't think California's problems are of our doing. Unions in California shouldn't dictate policy to other states (and it looks like the other states are going to foot CA's bill).
If we didn't have the current system, only about 20 cities would be campaigned in for the Presidency. Also, given the bill a NY Rep tried to pass a couple of years ago, we wouldn't be growing any crops in this country (eco bill - massive urban support). The House is where population matters and is the origin of every budget. The House is where the population is considered and the Senate is for state considerations.
Your source? If you count defense spending (CA didn't want the ICBM silos), 2 air force bases, and interstate highway, yeah. We are on the border, have a low population, and are a truck route (I94 and Hwy2). Having 600,000 people will skew a lot of stats. Counting the reservations in that number might be a little deceptive. Also, do we count the ongoing flooding? If the gov would clear an outlet or just let us move a couple of towns, we could probably cut the bill pretty nicely.
That source doesn't have figures after 2005 and doesn't break it down by area. The skew is the population figure versus infrastructure and defense. I would imagine that the continued flooding will change the figure also.
California needs to get ahold of its pensions, no one can fix that but themselves.
My point is the comparison based on this one stat is pretty invalid due to population differences and basic moneys allocated to infrastructure and military by the federal government (I also bet they count the 4 reservations in the ND number which adds to the skew).
Federal money spent within a state (especially military) doesn't usually interact with the State budget. It's like saying you just can't be in debt - your employer is making a profit.
That's what just gets me about people exhorting everyone to vote when even such a supposedly well-informed group as HN has only the vaguest idea of how this country actually works.
This is why the federal government should take a smaller role on most issues. This kind of interstate bullying only happens because states' rights have eroded. No state should dictate policy to any other unless it's truly an interstate issue.
That's why we have more subsidies for corn production than science research.
I'm sorry, but 10 states in the boonies with no people, should not be able to dictate policy to California. Crap like that is exactly why California ends up subsidizing half the red states, who then turn around and vilify it every chance they get.