Skip to comments.Bush Budget Cuts Hit Democratic States, Boston Globe Analysis Finds
Posted on 02/12/2005 8:01:01 AM PST by gopwinsin04
Massachusetts and other traditionally Democratic states would see their share of federally granted monies shrink under President Bush's 2006 budget, compared to Republican states in the South and West, according to a Boston Globe analysis of funding projections compiled by the White House budget office.
The result is that the highest percentages of increase in state and local grant monies would go to Arkansas, North Carolina, Arizona and Missouri, while New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Hawaii and Vermont would be among the states with the smallest increases.
Massachusetts, with a projected 1.9 percent increase, is tied for 35th while liberal leaning California and Washington State would see a reduction in federal grants next year.
Representative Barney Frank, a Newton Democrat, said that while the budget may not have been designed to hurt Democratic leaning 'blue' states, 'they can do it without trying' because many of the budget cuts tend to hit urbanzied areas.
'It's not just red states vs. blue state, but blue communities within the red states,' he said. 'Their ideaology reflects that.'
In all, the representatives of the Northeastern states say that the budget favors 19 out of 25 Republican 'red leaning' states which would recieve the biggest percentage increases of the budget.
'We are the United States of America, not a series of red vs. blue states,' said US Sen. Ted Kennedy who said he would fight the proposed 'cuts'.
'Unfortunately, the president's budget divides America by undervaluing our cities and demonstrating that education and national health care are not our priorities.'
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Maybe it's because democRats rely on the government for handouts.
I would venture to guess that if one takes Amtrak out of the equation, the NE states would actually be getting more federal money just by sheer demographics..
Another good reason not to be a Democratic state.
It's fascinating that most of the article is devoted to quoting both supporters and critics of the budget as well as putatively neutral observers as saying that there is no deliberate red state/blue state political overtone to the budget. In other words, it means that the premise upon which the Globe article was written is not supported by the facts. Yet that did not stop the Globe from writing that article and publishing it with the provocative and misleading headline.
Of course, the Boston GLobes definition of 'cuts' are reductions in spending growth, not actual monies decreasing
Yeah, a real 'shocker'. Gee, who'd have thought that the heavily-subsidized, blue nanny-states would feel the budget cuts the most. (sarcasm)
That's true...I'm glad Amtrack will finally have to venture off on their own.
Sounds about right to me.
TO THE VICTOR GOES THE SPOILS.
The Demodog states can wallow in their filth by themselves and get out of their own mess. It is about time power politics was played by this party.
Chuckie Schumer is still saying that he will fight off cuts in Amtrak, so by Senate rules he will probably get it..
We've got a record budget, but somehow everything's being cut.
Blue states need to be spanked to a blushing red:)
Barnie Frank, swimmer Ted, and Schumer--they made their bed now they can lie in it!
Wait a second -- Boston Globe "analyses" have been telling us for months that a disproportionate amount of money flows from red states to blue states, and how red state people were voting against their own best interests by supporting GOP budget cuts. Now when we actually see some of these cuts, the "analysis" flips back to say it is in fact blue states that will be hurt. It's so confusing. I have to read Boston Globe editorials more intensely so that I can understand.
NASA-Lewis in a red-state, but the employees are from Dennis Kucinich's Steffie Tubbs-Jones, and Sharrod Brown's districts.
Needless to say, folks are pretty smart and already picked up on this and calling radio stations with comments that perhaps these Dem Reps should be unemployed for mouthing off and not understanding how diplomacy works. In other words, never considering that Bush could win.
lol! Interesting how that happens afte ran election..
Let's see, the demonrats have been setting up pork barrel spending to siphon money from the working people of the United States to their elitest satraps for 50 years and now they're surprised that when it comes time to cut the waste, fraud and abuse those cuts come from where the money is being spent?
Yep. Mississippi and Alabama aren't taking their fair share of the cuts. That's the ticket, Massachussettes. We're right behind you. Go ahead and try to screw us again. We're used to it by now.
But don't be surprised if we thump you even harder when you try.
By the way, that 20 billion dollars in waste and fraud funneled into Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and John (Heinz) Kerry friendly firms in the Big Dig? We want it back. Tuesday will do.
Yeah, the Globe is pretty shameless. But it's been fun watching their heads spin since the election. I'm really enjoying living in Boston these days, having a front row seat for the liberal meltdown.
I could've saved this idiot a lot of time and trouble if he'd have just called me. Liberals dependent on government? Shocking!
The "blue" states tend to be the wealthier states. By transferring federal tax dollars to the red states, Bush is actually doing what liberals claim to want: redistributing wealth.
The Blue Staters were proclaiming their states were more affluent and better educated. Bush took them at their word, apparently.
It is their way of life, what each has learned from birth (that is providing they survive long enough to be born)...
What do you expect? WE WON!
Maybe it's because democRats rely on the government for handouts.
Yep, this is why our fine Socialists get so upset when they think one single tax dollar is going to be kept from their slimey hands...all the little piggies at the government pig trough might start getting hungry and vote Republican!!!
Blah blah blah.
The Bush budgets are not only hitting the Dem states, but long term will destroy the economy of the nation as a whole. When the foreigners get tired of losing money on their bond investments the end will come in a hurry.
What happened to fiscal conservatism as a character trait for someone who claims to be a republican? Hoover II coming.
When you give them money, they steal it or waste it (CA's grant for new voting machines that wound up in a Dem pols pocket and Boston's Big Dig, for example), so why give these corrupt cities and states our hard-earned tax dollars? Let them wait for a Dem in the White House so they can resume their graft big time. Till then, let them whine...besides, a 1.9% increase is not a cut.
Sounds fair to me.
This can not be repeated too often. I am so sick of Leftists redefining the language to gain political advantage.
Whaddasupprise--good news published in the Globe. Amazing.
Well, what do people expect. It is politics. Imagine the Presidents schedule for the day has one opening for an appointment with a Senator. And imagine that both Senator Murray from Washington and Senator Hutchison from Texas want a meeting to discuss program funding. Who does anyone think is going to get the time?
As I recall, clinton redirected $15 or $20 billion to California before the 1996 election, because he needed the electoral votes. I don't remember the media complaining about it. They just thought he was clever.
I doubt whether Bush specifically cut any Democrat-dominated state budgets. That's more of a Democrat sort of trick. But maybe he should consider it. To the victors go the spoils. Reward your friends and punish your enemies. The Democrats certainly do so, and no one ever complains when money is directed specifically toward blacks, feminists, or other Democrat support groups.
Glad there was a decrease somewhere
well, it follows that if the blue states are the most socialized that they would see the greatest cuts if bush is really reducing the federal budget (which he really isn't and hasn't)
"Bush's $2.6-trillion budget for 2006, if approved by Congress, would be more than one-third bigger than the budget he inherited four years ago. It is a monument to how much Republicans' guiding fiscal philosophy has changed over the 10 years since the GOP "Contract With America" called for a balanced budget and abolition of entire Cabinet agencies."
Please hit Bobby Byrd of WV and Christine Fraudoire of WA hard.
We can thank Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Waxman, Waters, et al. Actually we are lucky that we are getting anything back with the disorganized mess of hippies, socialists, communists, and other assorted space cadets (gypsies, tramps, and thieves) we send to Washington.
That is, if they really wanted to do something about the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.