Does McCain oppose earmarks partly because they cut a tiny bit into his Federal swag, allowing Blue States

[ProgressiveEconomist]

allowing Blue States to get a tiny bit closer to their fair share of Federal expenditures?

Why is John McCain so popular with Charlie Black, Phil Gramm, and other high-paid lobbyists?

Obviously, it's because of his POWER. Republicans have controlled the Senate for most of the past three decades. Even now that Democrats have a bare Senate majority, McCain has seniority that translates into control over how and where hundreds of billions of Federal dollars are spent, and over trillions of dollars in corporate profits directly due to "deregulation".

One measure of a Senator's power is the extent to which his or her state gets more in Federal expenditures per capital than it pays in per capita Federal taxes. Earmarks are small potatoes compared to the tens of billions Red states like Arizona and Alaska rake in from Frederal taxes paid in states like Illinois and Delaware.

Why does AZ get $900 per person more than their citizens pay in Federal taxes, while Illinois gets $1600 less? (See the table in Post #1 below).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, many Republican Senators have amassed so much power in committees because of fundamental corruption in the politics of their state by the same corporate interests, election after election. Otherwise, there would be turnover and rotation of parties in and out of control over statewide offices.

In any case, in talking about earmarks, we must not lose sight of the distribution of the other 99 percent of Federal spending.

McCain and Palin don't HAVE to turn to earmarks to get their states more of their fair share of Federal spending. Because of past seniority of their Senators (McCain, Stevens, etc.) and Reps, McCain can make sure Arizona gets far more than its fair share of Federal spending.

The table in Reply #1 (from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/fedgov.pdf ) is for 1999 because the project that created it lost its funding when its ailing patron Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan quit the Senate and the Y2K election was stolen. But what it shows very likely still is true. It ranks the home states of the Presidential and VP candidates by the extent to which per capita Federal spending outweighs per capita federal taxes paid.

Like most Blue States, Illinois (#47) and Delaware (#43) rank near the bottom. Like most Red States, Alaska (#6) and Arizona (#20) rank in the top half.

A state like Arizona gets its Federal loot upfront, because its Senators are so powerful. Other states like Illinois and Delaware have little more than earmarks with which to fight to at least get back for their citizens what they pay in Dederal taxes.

IMO, this is the real hypcrisy in Republican crocodile tears over earmarks: Blue states are scrambling to get a piece of the less than 1 percent in Federal spending that is made in earmarks. Meanwhile, Red states have built a corporate-government complex over the last three dacades that routes the other 99 percent disproportionately to Red states.

What do you think?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

1. Per capita Federal Balance of Payments by State, 1999

From http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/fedgov.pdf ,
page 313

"U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 2002
Federal Government Finances and Employment
No.462. Per Capita Federal Balance of Payments by State: 1999

[In dollars, except rank. For year ending Sept. 30.
Represents federal spending within the borders of
the 50 states, including defense and excluding
interest payments on the federal debt. Each state
runs a balance of payments surplus or deficit with
the federal government. Put another way, each state
indirectly subsidizes or is being
subsidized by the other states]


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal spending in the state
. . . .  Balance. . . . . . . ------------------------------
. . . .. of pay-. .. Federal. . . .1 . . . . Non-. . Social.
. . . .. ments. Rank taxes. . Total Defense defense Security

Alaska.... 2,777 . 6. 4,872 . 7,649. 2,194 . 3,786 .. 657
Arizona..... 904. 20. 4,713 . 5,617. 1,361 . 1,689. 1,474
Delaware. -1,025. 43. 5,876 . 4,851 .. 615 . 1,458. 1,578
Illinois. -1,669. 47. 6,260 . 4,592 .. 354 . 1,442. 1,501

X Not applicable. 1 Includes categories of spending,
not shown separately.

Source: Jay H. Walder and Herman B. Leonard, Tauber
Center for State and Local Government and John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,
The Federal Budget and the States, annual.

[flpoljunkie]

2. You make a very interesting and salient point.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. Thanks for reading