Parasites in the Heartland?

Mises.org ^ | 05/27/2002 | James Ostrowski

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Paul Krugman has put out a clever analysis of the demographics of the "blue" and "red" states (New York Times, May 7, 2002). His analytic knife, however, doesn’t cut deeply enough to get to the truth of the matter. Krugman alleges that "the heartland" states--the red, pro-Bush states--have more crime, divorce, single moms and net-tax eaters than the blue (pro-Gore) states: "Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year." Krugman doesn’t cite sources for these statistics, which is not uncommon in op-ed pieces. I am prepared to assume that these statistics are true for the purposes of this article.

What happens if we look, not at red and blues states, but at cities and counties? The most murderous cities are blue--Detroit, Atlanta, and St. Louis, for example. The rural and upper-scale suburban counties that went for Bush tend to have lower murder rates. All this is very obvious, and one wonders why Krugman thought no one would call him on it. In general, there is an inverse relation between the murder rate and the Republican vote. The places with the fewest Republican votes--such as the inner city--have the highest rates of murder. Focusing on states as opposed to localities obscures this obvious fact.

As for divorce, ready statistics correlating with voting patterns are not available. However, I do recall that Bush got the married-with-children vote, while Gore got the single-mom vote. Bush got the practicing Catholics, while Gore got the nominal Catholics. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that Bush won the serial divorcee vote.

Krugman claims red states have more out-of-wedlock births. How can this be?  Bush won 54 percent of the white vote, 9 percent of the black vote and 35 percent of the Hispanic vote. These numbers are reversed for out-of-wedlock births: white--27 percent; black--69 percent; Hispanic--42 percent. You do the math.

Finally, Krugman implies that the Bush voters were on the dole, while Gore voters were paying the freight. Krugman never decries the redistribution of wealth as such. His only concern is the alleged hypocrisy of the reds in thinking they are "morally superior to the rest of the country." Again, looking at the situation at the state level distorts reality. Bush voters were much wealthier than Gore voters. Most tax revenue comes from wealthier people. If red states are subsidized by blue states, the only rational explanation is that red persons in blue states are subsidizing blue persons in red states.  

I find the heartland not guilty of the charge of hypocrisy. I also find one New York Times columnist guilty of mendacity--or perhaps mere ignorance. Mr. Krugman may not realize that the heartland is not a place but a way of life.

---

James Ostrowski practices law in Buffalo, N.Y. See his Mises.org Articles Archive and send him MAIL.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

A few years ago, I was in an argument whether the pro-Bush states tending to take in more tax money per capita than the pro-Gore states. I actually calculated the statistical correlation between the percentage of vote for Bush vs. the per-capita surplus or deficit (government money received minus tax money collected). The result was there was no correlation.

[winin2000]

Krugman alleges that "the heartland" states--the red, pro-Bush states--have more crime, divorce, single moms and net-tax eaters than the blue (pro-Gore) states: "Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year."

I don't look for this post to be very long-lived, given JimRob's propensity to run screaming from the room at any idea construed to be "racist,", but here goes the ultimate answer:

Ahem, the "tax eaters" are poor blacks and Hispanics! Bush swept the South cleanly, which is home to the overwhelming majority of the nation's blacks; ditto for Texas and its Hispanic population. Look closely at the revealing red/blue county breakdown the author speaks of, and you will see that, for the most part, the only Southern counties that went for Gore were substantially black; white Southern counties voted Bush.

In states that are highly economically stratified, like California and New York, there are enough culturally liberal, yet very affluent suburbanites to outstrip the liabilities of the inner-city poor. Thus you get a blue state that is net tax producer.

I would also wager Krugman's figures represent "per-capita" federal spending. This is not merely Social Security, welfare, et cetera, but might be anything from farm subsidies to operational expenses of a federal agency headquartered there. It, of course makes no sense to suggest an individual resident isn't pulling his weight simply because federal projects that happen to be in his state are receiving funds he never sees a dime of. And this sphincter Krugman damn well knows it.

[RAT Patrol]

Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year." Over all, red taxpayers subsidize blue taxpayers to the tune of much more than $90 billion a year. Why else do RATS want to raise taxes (taken from Republican's) and Pubs want to lower them?