Indiana tends conservative, but (apart from voting for Obama):
(1) The preceding Governor (serving 2003-2005) was a Democrat.
(2) It has one GOP and one Dem senator.
(3) It has four GOP and five Dem members of Congress.
It looks close to the middle of the road to me.
The comparisons are pretty much useless. Most, if not all states prohibit deficit spending, so the borrowing being discussed is primarily for capital expenses, not regular programs or operating expenses.
If you want to show me who are the best stewards of the people’s taxes, show me a list of how much states have had to slash programs, furlough employees, increase fees, release prisoners, etc. to try and hit their budgets, vs. which states have gotten through relatively unscathed.
Also consider that up until 15 years ago, red states were underdeveloped, underpopulated shitholes - there was no one and no thing to drive excessive government spending.
Isn’t it obvious? States which have higher personal incomes and larger revenue bases and higher revenues have greater capacity to service and repay debt. Hence the responsible level of debt for them is higher than for poorer states.
Or do you believe that a millionaire should borrow more than a pauper can?
Indiana is quite conservative, but it has pretty serious population density in its Dem counties - Lake and Marion. Lake County is the NW tip - pretty much a suburb of Chicago. Marion is where Indy is.
The rest of the state is very conservative, at least on the fiscal end of things.
Bull. Red states are more likely to have balanced budget amendments, & be thus prohibited from Keynesian management.
My home state is pretty much expected to lay off or fire great numbers of state employees next year for lack of rainy day funds. I’m not sure about the facts here, but I think it’s as follows: Due to one well-meaning but short-sighted constitutional amendment, they can’t raise taxes without a referendum, which no one expects to pass. And they can’t run deficits without being denounced for deficit spending. I thought there was a balanced-budget amendment, too, but maybe not.
In any case, the GOP control the legislature, & they probably would operate this way even without the restrictions placed on them by their predecessors.
But the idea that a state running deficits in the middle of a huge economic recession tells you much about their fiscal responsibility–well, it’s simplistic.
Those of us in flyover country are not sophisticated enough to participate in “excessive government spending”?
No. I simply believe in living within your means. Regardless of whether you are discussing a family, company, or government budget. If a state has a population with a whole lotta money, they will receive more in tax revenue. Why the need to borrow more?
You wouldn’t take out a mortgage to buy a house?
It is rational to borrow to invest if the return on the investment will exceed the cost of the borrowing.
It is also rational to borrow to smooth cash-flow if the cost of disrupting expenditure patterns in order to match fluctuating revenues exceeds the cost of borrowing.
And that’s before we get into the merits of counter-cyclical government borrowing and spending to cushion the economy from the effects of sudden disruption.