Well, unfortunately not too many democrats support it.
I just want it for protection from the impending theocracy…
Looking at the discussion so far, the concept seems sound. If some red-staters move to blue states to get more government benefits, the economic cost on the blue states is just what they’re paying anyway (by paying a disproportionate amount of federal taxes that disproportionately subsidizes the red states) and they get more population (i.e. more Representatives and electoral votes). The people who move for that reason are likely to be drawn from the liberal minority in the red states (or to change their politics once they are living on undisguised government subsidies).
The other likely result is for the less prosperous red-staters to agitate for the same stuff the less fortunate blue-staters get, thus gradually purpling up the former.
JM: * Before welfare was introduced, death by starvation was very common in the US.*
No it wasn’t, but poverty and lack of social services for the poor, including the basic amenities of life like housing, health care, and schooling, were significantly worse than they are now.
Look, you’re evading the issue here. I brought up a very simple and not unreasonable question, to wit:
“If a low-tax red state doesn’t provide adequate social services to provide its own elderly, children, disabled, etc., with at least the bare minimum to support a decent life, how can we prevent their ‘externalizing’ their social-services burden onto the blue states via emigration?”
Your responses so far have basically amounted to:
-
The blue-staters should just let the red-state immigrants suffer.
-
It won’t happen, because the red states will be rich and generous.
-
Well, as long as people aren’t literally starving to death, so what?
I am neither convinced nor impressed.
SteveMB: * If some red-staters move to blue states to get more government benefits, the economic cost on the blue states is just what they’re paying anyway (by paying a disproportionate amount of federal taxes that disproportionately subsidizes the red states) *
I’m not sure we could count on that. Remember, red states now have to contribute at least something to social services for their own residents via federal taxes, besides having to conform to various national standards such as the federal minimum wage.
If states really had the option of restricting spending on social services and deregulating wages as much as they chose, I think it’s at least possible that the costs they’d end up externalizing onto blue states would be greater than the subsidies the blue states are giving them now. In short, we could be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire here.
JM: The SCotUS will still have the authority to enforce the consitution nationally.
In that case, we’d still have nationwide prohibition of government entanglement with religion, and conservative Christians would still be getting all upset over not being allowed to display the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Merkwurdigliebe *Why should the blue states fight for social welfare for all, if they are just going to get the middle finger in return? Let them have their guns, gays, and God, and see how much prayer helps them when their poverty goes up fivefold. I live in Mississippi, and I know for a fact that if the Republicans had their way here, the population would be marginalized. The point is to flush this thinking from our nation as quickly and painlessly as possible because it is stupid. *
I don’t see how fivefold increases in poverty and marginalized populations in red states would do anything but hurt the nation as a whole. Nor do I see how the process of enduring and recovering from such problems could be “quick and painless”.
I think the key assumption at play is that you would have the earlier-mentioned “purpling” – that the Redstaters would see that coming early enough to say to themselves, “Whoa there, son, maybe we should try some of them moderate policies so we don’t have half the state angry at us, and worry about the Ten Commandments later.”
JRD: I think the key assumption at play is that you would have the earlier-mentioned “purpling” – that the Redstaters would see that coming early enough to say to themselves, “Whoa there, son, maybe we should try some of them moderate policies so we don’t have half the state angry at us, and worry about the Ten Commandments later.”
Well, that would be sensible. I’m not sure, however, that common sense would necessarily trump ideology when it came to an issue as volatile as raising taxes. Certainly the current conservative Administration seems willing to tolerate large amounts of fiscal strain from high debt and deficits rather than moderate its tax-cutting enthusiasm.
No, you keep moving the goal posts. You claim starvation in the streets, and then “lack of adequate social services”. You made the claim that Blue state residents wouldn’t stand by and let people starve. That’s probably true. But you need to back up the claim that Blue state residents won’t stand by and let people live without “adequate social services”, whatever those are. We started talking about elderly, pensioneer types, and you move to families with children. If productive, working age individuals move to the Blue states, that’s ***good ***for that state, not bad.
While I think it would be a viable solution (i.e. moving social and other services from the federal level to the state level), and that the Democrats COULD go a long way with such a strategy, I think its not got a snowballs chance in hell of happening. To do so would obviously piss off or horrify the left wing base support of the Dem party…who obviously don’t get the idea at a fundamental level. Would it work? Hell yes it would work. It would take some time and long range vision to set it up and get it going, but it certainly could work, and work well. AND it would have the added advantage of allowing people to live as they want too or move to another state that better suits their moral, economic or philosophic needs.
Without going into details (I see that several have made the points I would have made already) I’ll just say that if the Dem’s DID go with such a strategy they would get my unqualified support…at the federal level. Of couse, at the state level I’d be voting for Greedonia and would avoid the Welfardonia states like the plague. 
-XT
Oh, it’d work if Jon Stewart explained it to us.
Well…
It all depends on what GWB does this term, doesn’t it?
He can cut taxes all he wants and this big looming deficit is really going to start to piss off some republicans. So it will really just be a matter of Democrats refocusing on the state level, for their agenda.
And plus, we’ve been fighting for a while now. It would finally be a chance for both of us to have our ways and see which is better. I have my opinion, and you economic liberals have yours too. Mabye it would set up a little bit of competition.
But honestly, I think of my state of Mississippi.
What would happen when the welfare of the citizens became a problem of the state of Mississippi. The politicians talk a big talk of the welfare queens, etc, but what would happen when a large portion of our society gets the rug pulled from them? Currently there are a lot of states that recieve some of the benefits of the Democratic agenda while not supporting them. You could say that they are free-riders in that way.
I don’t think that migration would be a problem. I imagine that political change would be more likely. If there are no problems, then political change wouldn’t happen and then everyone would be happy.
You know, if GWB weren’t in office this would be much more feasable if someone like Reagan were in office. He wouldn’t let the deficit run up the way it has.
But what is Bush going to do about the deficit? Will he ignore it to our peril, or will he take action to fix it?
Who knows…
BTW**, Merk**, I think you’re getting too carried away with this red state/blue state analysis. You need to look at the COUNTY level to see that this is more of an urban vs rural or urban vs suburban issue. I still think that devolving our highly centralized system is good, and that people generally trust their state governments more than Washington, but it is more complicated than just red state/blue state.
JM: *You claim starvation in the streets, and then “lack of adequate social services”. *
Okay, I fully retract and humbly regret any references to literal starvation. But that’s just a side issue. My main point still stands: if red states don’t provide social services at a level that blue-staters consider a bare minimum of decency, then what is to prevent them offloading their social-services burden onto the more adequate provision of the blue states?
You are indeed evading that question, and you don’t seem to have any better answer than “well, the social services in the red states are probably going to be adequate, so don’t worry about it.” That’s not good enough.
Not going to speak for John Mace, he does a better job than I do at it, but I’d say that there could be two answers to this question. First, the economy of red states divesting themselves from the majority of social-services at a government level would be better (thus attracting more businesses and having a stronger local economy) so more folks would work. Having more money in the local economy there would be more money for local charities or other philanthropic ventures.
I guess it all comes down to what exact ‘social services’ the local peoples of the states voted in…and what they didn’t. And how this effected the over all health of the local economies. Its debatable how cutting (or increasing) social services at a state level would effect such things.
-XT
That’s true, I know, but if you start making the strategy focused around cities it has a lot less power. I imagined that the percentage of red or blue people in a state will determine where they go. A state like Pennsylvania will certainly not be as liberal as New England states.
Plus you have to consider, a red in Georgia is much different than a red in California or New Hampshire. Just because California is 40 to 45 percent red doesn’t mean that they would have the same religious values as the red state of Oklahoma. Conversly, the blues in Mississippi aren’t like the blues in New England.
What we have now, is the most extrememe faction of the republican party in power, while most republicans don’t identify with that.
So you may be right in saying that its an Urban/rural divide, but its also more complex when you consider the different types of Republicans and Democrats in these different states. Hell, Ronnie Musgrove (then Governor of MS) offered to take the Ten Commandments off of Roy More’s hands. That’s not something you would see in MA.
Merk: What would happen when the welfare of the citizens became a problem of the state of Mississippi. […]
I don’t think that migration would be a problem.
And what I’m asking is, do you have any reason for that opinion other than wishful thinking? The phenomenon known as “welfare migration” is already considered a problem by several governments with good social-service programs and a large pool of poorer neighbors, both among US states and European countries.
If, as you and several other liberal proponents of neofederalism here seem to be hoping, red states would indeed find themselves with impoverished populations after losing blue-subsidized federal funding, why do you feel so confident that the red-state sufferers would patiently wait there for the next election in order to fix the problems with legislation and higher taxes, rather than packing up and heading for a kinder, gentler land over the border as soon as possible?
The question is far to vague to respond to. Define “bare minimum social services”. It’s unclear to me that the red states wouldn’t offer those in the first place.
JM: Define “bare minimum social services”. It’s unclear to me that the red states wouldn’t offer those in the first place.
More evasiveness. I’m asking, what will happen if the red states don’t provide what their blue-state neighbors consider bare-minimum social services? We don’t have to pick any particular level or type of service. The hypothesized conditions are simply these:
-
Blue states have a certain minimum standard of decency that they feel a state is morally obligated to provide for its elderly, disabled, etc. citizens.
-
The social services provided by nearby red states don’t come up to the blue states’ minimum standard of decency.
Under those conditions, what would prevent red states from offloading large numbers of their elderly, disabled, etc. citizens onto blue states who would feel morally obligated to provide for them?
If you haven’t got an answer to that question, just say so upfront, and then we can go on to discussing whether conditions (1) and (2) are unrealistic. But what I’m asking first is, given those conditions, how do we avoid a free-rider problem?
Sorry, the last sentence of the first paragraph of post #55 should read:
And I could just as easily ask: What will happen if most of the industry flees to Red States, and the Blue states simply can’t afford services for even their ***current ***residents?
The problem with your analysis is that it is static. You can’t make major changes in social policy and expect everything else to remaing the same, including how people react to the suffering of their fellow citizens. I am dead serious when I say that Blue state folks will harden their hearts if Red state refugees flood across the border. History has shown this to be true over and over again.
You are saying: what if things change drastically but people don’t change in their reaction to those things. That’s not the way the world works.
xt: I’d say that there could be two answers to this question. First, the economy of red states divesting themselves from the majority of social-services at a government level would be better (thus attracting more businesses and having a stronger local economy) so more folks would work. Having more money in the local economy there would be more money for local charities or other philanthropic ventures.
This isn’t unreasonable, but it doesn’t address my question. I want to know, first of all, how do we avoid a free-rider problem if the red-state social services are inadequate by blue-state standards?
If you’ve got a solution for avoiding “welfare migration” under such circumstances, then fine, problem solved. If you don’t, then you can start trying to convince me that red-state social services actually wouldn’t be inadequate, so there’d be no tendency to welfare migration and the problem wouldn’t exist in the first place.
(BTW, apologies to John for my snarky tone heretofore; I stand by all the points I made but I could have been nicer about them.)