# Is the administration playing politics with federal money? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185 "2015-01-29T02:04:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/21 "2015-01-29T18:27:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > What good is winning an election if you can’t use it to punish your adversaries? Bipartisanship, that wonderful thing… ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/22 "2015-01-29T18:36:00Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Bipartisanship, that wonderful thing… Based on observing the Republicans for the past six years, bipartisanship is useful only as bait to bushwack your opponent. Democrats seem have been taking their cues from _Mister Smith Goes to Washngton_, while Republicans have been emulating _Thunderdome_. It’s about time we fight back instead of unilaterally disarming. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/23 "2015-01-30T03:50:13Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > This could be just the break the McCain campaign has been waiting for! More importantly, it means the next guy to promise to be different won’t be believed. Obama brought out a lot of young, naive, new voters who bought what he was selling. They won’t get fooled again. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/24 "2015-01-30T06:23:44Z")
I’d best concede that point, don’t know anyone as likely as you to have his finger on the pulse of today’s youth, be tuned in to their wavelength. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/25 "2015-01-30T06:27:39Z")
I can read exit polls. Your coalition of the ascendant is crumbling,and you can thank one guy for it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/26 "2015-01-30T06:40:36Z")
Wait, what? The thing with the youth vote was them not turning out, how do you read the exit polls of the people who weren’t there? Ouija boards? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/27 "2015-01-30T07:24:24Z")
And why didn’t they turn out? Because they got tricked into wasting their time once. Never again. You’ll never be able to rely on those voters again. Obama squandered that goodwill. But what does he care? I don’t think he spends a minute worrying about any other Democrat’s career. He’s certainly destroyed enough of them. What’s one more when Hillary Clinton goes down thanks to him? He’ll still yuck it up. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/28 "2015-01-30T07:36:47Z")
Ah, I didn’t ask you why they weren’t there, I asked how you got exit polls from people who weren’t there. Of course, if I _had_ asked you why you thought they were not there, yours would have been an interesting, albeit predictable, answer. But no. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/29 "2015-01-30T12:39:21Z")
**adaher** , please put “(Obama personal hatred thread)” in the thread title when you start a thread that inevitably goes like this. That way I can avoid the ones that provide zero in terms of reasonable analysis and nothing beyond your extreme personal vitriolic disdain. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/30 "2015-01-30T14:11:21Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > This is all regression to the mean. The Federal largess to the red states is so out of range that it’s going to take a lot more than a couple of years of 1.5% reduction in grants to even start to make up the difference. They’ve got the gall to bring up Mississippi, which gets two dollars in Federal spending for every dollar of taxes they send the Federal government? That takes balls. That isn’t based on politics though, not really. All Americans should want States like Mississippi to be receiving a disproportionate share of dollars because it, gradually, should help Mississippi be developed into a State “closer to the mean.” It’s a lot better relative to the rest of the country today than it was in 1900, but is still quite bad off. Unless you sought to deny poor people Federal poverty benefits based on their residence in red states it is simply impossible for a red state that is poor to not receive large subsidies from the Federal government. LBJ looked at Appalachia during his Presidency and found a literal third world country hidden in the hills in the eastern United States, and established programs designed to end this. It didn’t quite work, but of the counties covered by the Appalachian Regional Commission far more are ranked “competitive”, or “transitional” than were when LBJ started the program (and less are ranked “distressed” or “at risk”), only six counties in the 13 States with ARC coverage are ranked at “attainment” (which essentially means they are economically robustly developed with all economic and social markers in line with the rest of the country or better.) But anyway, these programs are necessary and are likely to always benefit conservative voters more than liberals. So too the Western States, where often the Federal government owns more than 50% of the land in the State and is required to manage and maintain it. The Federal government could fix the subsidy imbalance there significantly be giving the land to the States (east of the Mississippi there is very little Federally owned land, never amounting to a large portion of any individual State), but the Feds prefer to keep the land. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/31 "2015-01-30T15:08:49Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I can read exit polls. Your coalition of the ascendant is crumbling,and you can thank one guy for it. Interesting. According to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating is highest among these demographics (setting aside political affiliation): African Americans: 86% approve Hispanics: 65% approve 18-25: 61% approve I eagerly await your response in which you repeat your claim that young people and Hispanics have been burned by Obama and are lining up to vote for Bobby “Kenneth from 30 Rock” Jindal. Because I know it is coming. ---
**Author:** ![Randolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Randolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randolph)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/32 "2015-01-30T15:49:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I can read exit polls. Skewed, or unskewed? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/33 "2015-01-30T15:50:48Z")
And some posters still convince themselves Democrats play hardball less than Republicans. They both come from the same self interest school of politics. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2015, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/34 "2015-01-30T18:55:17Z")
So the article at least shows they they tried to control for some factors. Let’s look at that: > [@](#): > > At Reuters’ request, Hudak ran a statistical analysis of spending over this period, controlling for differences in population, economy, percentage of elderly residents, miles of federal highway and the number of research universities and hospitals. > > Red states still came up short. After 2011, the average red state got 15 percent fewer grants **and 1.3 percent fewer grant dollars** than the average swing state. That comes out to roughly 500 grants and $15 million for an average-sized red state like Tennessee - enough to pay for 115 additional police officers or upgrade a rural airport to handle larger planes. So 1.3 percent is the difference in totals dollars. It’s a pretty small difference. Is that even statistically significant? The article doesn’t say anything about error bars or significance. Even if it’s significant, that’s actually pretty impressive compared to what I expected. Ohhh but the article also has data on Bush and Clinton using same methodology. > [@](#): > > Under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Hudak found that purple states got about 7.3 percent more grants and 5.7 percent more grant dollars than states that were firmly in one camp. Hmmmmm… so assuming everything is statistically significant and there aren’t other appropriate controls that were more relevant pre-Obama, his administration is showing less partisan results. Now there’s not much I like about Obama. I don’t think he’s a particularly effective executive. \*\*There is a change for the better under him in this study though. \*\* Maybe that is because he’s not good as an executive and is failing to meet his partisan money directing schemes. Maybe he’s genuinely less partisan in directing the funding. Either way a solid move towards less partisan numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2015, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/35 "2015-01-31T06:58:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s not illegal, and I wouldn’t even call it much of a scandal. But coming from a man who promised to change that sort of thing, it shouldn’t be surprising why he’s unpopular. People take a dim view of being sold fake products. I bet he doesn’t get re-elected POTUS come 2016; you mark my words. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/36 "2015-02-01T19:15:36Z")
This is really more of a Great Debate than an Elections discussion. Off to GD. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/37 "2015-02-02T00:01:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s not the conclusion of the study, which does not show other factors accounting for all of the disparity. > > And I think it’s well established by now that he never had any intention of changing politics. There was no real difference between him and Hillary Clinton. At least Hillary will never promise to run the most honest and transparent administration in history. There’s virtue in being honest about being dishonest. I am shocked, shocked! that money and politics are somehow linked. I’ll never vote for Obama for President again. I assume that the Medicaid money red state governors have refused is not in this study. That would make the differences even greater. Perhaps the red states don’t make grant proposals because Washington is so evil? BTW, that these studies can be made shows that there is transparency. That just means that the data is available, not that every thing anyone does is published. I wonder if those who wish we had the kind of government we had in the 19th century love patronage too. ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2015, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/38 "2015-02-02T13:45:22Z")
> [@Randolph](#): > > Skewed, or unskewed? Man, I really miss that “Unskewed polls” guy, and his insightful and 100% wrong analysis. _sigh_ ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/39 "2015-03-25T01:41:34Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The article indicates every President since at least LBJ has done this (if I read correctly.) It seems unlikely Obama isn’t doing the same given the observed discrepancy is there. However it’s also probably not that significant. So Tennessee has $15m less dollars, even a mid-sized State like TN has a budget of around $31bn, $15m is a rounding error. Additionally it’s unlikely 100% of the $15m difference is political. I worked in State government here in VA for 5 years after retiring and grant writing was a significant part of my work. The vast majority of programs we filed grant applications under were Federal State partnership programs in which getting the Federal grant was contingent on the State committing to spending X. So to get a Federal grant VA might need to agree to kick in $1m and the Feds would kick in $4m. But a lot of red states have been implementing what amounts to austerity measures, so it’s possible TN is getting less grant money because it is filing fewer grant applications because its legislature has cut bureau budgets and thus the civil servants can no longer commit as many State funds as before, and thus are getting fewer Federal grant dollars. Some red (governed) states, such as Wisconsin, have refused federal grants for high speed rail and expansion of Medicaid, among other things. Seems like their own fault. ---
**Author:** ![Syne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Syne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syne)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185/40 "2015-03-25T03:18:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > There aren’t many specifics here – the broader story (that blue states are getting more federal money for various things) could be easily explained by many red state governors/legislatures refusing things that would be otherwise beneficial because they are “tainted” by Obama. It’s reasonable for the WH to more effectively and efficiently dole out financial assistance to states in which the governors and legislatures say “Mr. President, please help us in the areas of X, Y, and Z – some money here and there would really help the people of our state” than ones who say “fuck you Hussein”. Not because of the personal animosity, but just because the WH needs to know what the problems and possible solutions in each state before they can try to solve them. > > It’s very likely politics, but is it the politics of the WH offering more help to “friendly” states, or the politics of “unfriendly” states refusing help if it comes from Obama? This saved me from writing a reply, because basically I agree with this entirely. Red states get less money because they want less government. They are simply getting what they asked for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-administration-playing-politics-with-federal-money/711185.md?page=3)