True Blue Americans

Remember how hard New York's elected representatives had to fight to get $20 billion in aid for the stricken city — aid that had already been promised? Well, recently Congress agreed to give farmers $180 billion in subsidies over the next decade. By the way, the population of New York City is about twice as large as America's total farm population.

I've been a stern critic of the Bush administration, but this is one case where Democrats in the Senate were the lead villains. To its credit, the administration initially opposed an increase in farm subsidies, though as in the case of steel protection, it didn't take long before political calculation trumped the administration's alleged principles. But politics aside, maybe the farm bill debacle will help us, finally, to free ourselves from a damaging national myth: that the "heartland," consisting of the central, relatively rural states, is morally superior to the rest of the country.

You've heard the story many times: the denizens of the heartland, we're told, are rugged, self-reliant, committed to family; the inhabitants of the coast are whining yuppies. Indeed, George W. Bush has declared that he visits his stage set — er, ranch — in Crawford to "stay in touch with real Americans." (And what are those of us who live in New Jersey — chopped liver?)

But neither the praise heaped on the heartland nor the denigration of the coasts has any basis in reality.

I've done some statistical comparisons using one popular definition of the heartland: the "red states" that — in an election that pitted both coasts against the middle — voted for Mr. Bush. How do they compare with the "blue states" that voted for Al Gore?

Certainly the heartland has no claim to superiority when it comes to family values. If anything, the red states do a bit worse than the blue states when you look at indicators of individual responsibility and commitment to family. Children in red states are more likely to be born to teenagers or unmarried mothers — in 1999, 33.7 percent of babies in red states were born out of wedlock, versus 32.5 percent in blue states. National divorce statistics are spotty, but per capita there were 60 percent more divorces in Montana than in New Jersey.

And the red states have special trouble with the Sixth Commandment: the murder rate was 7.4 per 100,000 inhabitants in the red states, compared with 6.1 in the blue states, and 4.1 in New Jersey.

But what's really outrageous is the claim that the heartland is self-reliant. That grotesque farm bill, by itself, should put an end to all such assertions; but it only adds to the immense subsidies the heartland already receives from the rest of the country. As a group, red states pay considerably less in taxes than the federal government spends within their borders; blue states pay considerably more. Over all, blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year.

And within the red states, it's the metropolitan areas that pay the taxes, while the rural regions get the subsidies. When you do the numbers for red states without major cities, you find that they look like Montana, which in 1999 received $1.75 in federal spending for every dollar it paid in federal taxes. The numbers for my home state of New Jersey were almost the opposite. Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America's rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.

There's no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it's a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations — mainly, though not entirely, red states — disproportionate representation in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the Senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.

But while this raw political clout is a fact of life, at least we can demand an end to the hypocrisy. The heartland has no special claim to represent the "real America." And the blue states have a right to ask why, at a time when the federal government has plunged back into deficit, when essential domestic programs are under assault, a small minority of heavily subsidized Americans should feel that they are entitled to even more aid.

This guy may not know his head from his hindquarters when it comes to tax policy, but frankly, I'm glad someone has the guts to point out how Americans in profitable industries are subisdizing unprofitable farmers while those welfare queens claim moral superiority for spending all day in the fields (on our tab). Politicians of both parties are to blame for this mess.

Krugman's comparison of "social indicators" is very misleading. Per-capita rates for almost anything will be lower in the "blue" states than the "red" states simply because the "blue" states are more urbanized (which means they enjoy more police protection, more hospitals, etc.).

He can quote all the statistics he wants. What I do know is that if my car breaks down in New Jersey I will have about 2.2 million people driving past me complaining about the inconvenience. If I break down in Montana the third guy to drive up the road would stop to help me out, and he'd apologize for the other two.

Add in the hidden subsidies, like below-cost provision of water for irrigation, nearly free use of federal land for grazing and so on, and it becomes clear that in economic terms America's rural heartland is our version of southern Italy: a region whose inhabitants are largely supported by aid from their more productive compatriots.

You would think that these states would support tax cutting, spending cutting, reduce the size of government fiscal conservatives, but sadly the opposite is true.

It's also worth noting that this large-scale subsidization of rural America by their Northeastern counterparts was one of the main themes of FDR's "New Deal." Maybe Democrats will end their idiotic love affair with FDR once they realize that Republican states are the primary beneficiaries of this policy.

One thing that is clear is that we Northeasterners tend to be a fairly ignorant lot. The same people who would complain to high heaven if the price of a loaf of bread rose from $1.50 to $2.50 would gladly pay $1 in wheat subsidies just to keep the price at $1.50.

Krugman could have made the comparison even more stark if he concentrated just on southern states, rather than including the more sparsely populated rural midwestern states. Since his focus was on farm subsidies, it muddled the stark contrast between regions like the south and the northern coastal states in particular:

Let's Ditch Dixie - Slate Mag March 14, 2001

More people live below the poverty line in the old Confederacy than in the Northeast and Midwest combined. You are three times more likely to be murdered in parts of Dixie than anywhere in New England, despite a feverish devotion to "law-and-order" that has made eight Southern states home to 90 percent of all recent U.S. executions. The South has the highest infant-mortality rate and the highest incidences of sexually transmitted diseases, while it lags behind the rest of the country in terms of test scores and opportunities for women. The Confederate states rail against the tyranny of big government, yet they are the largest recipients of federal tax dollars. They steal business away from the North the same way that developing countries worldwide have always attracted foreign direct investment: through low wages and anti-union laws.

On the topic of divorce, the new england states of Massachusetts and Connecticut have the lowest divorce rates. THe highest divorce rates outside of Nevada are found in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennesee. Since these are not "depopulated" states of the Great Plains, like Wyoming or Montana, it's not just a statistical blip.

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.