If you want to know what a Tea Party America might look like, there is no place like Kansas... (Wichita: school, casino)

[itsMeFred]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

I seem to recall Brownback acknowledging Kansas is a net receiver state and saying something in regard to it makes no sense to punish Kansas if the fed is going to give out the money anyway. I thought the net-receiver of federal dollars was because of farm subsidies? I might be wrong. But it appears Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma are net receivers as well.

Yep, and other rural states as well. I sure won't swear to it, but I think it's pretty likely our farm welfare is what puts us over the top.
(BTW, I ranch for a living, so this is an issue near and dear to my heart)

I'm not sure it's right to call Brownback a hypocrite because of Kansas receiving federal money. He's governor of Kansas he doesn't have dictatorial control of DC where he can magically slash federal spending and provide financial reform.

No, he's a hypocrite because he's perfectly happy to TAKE federal funds, he just doesn't want to kick IN to the kitty.
If he (any any other Tea Party leader or member) actually believed this stuff, he would be campaigning for the state to refuse federal monies....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...


I think I hear the chirping of crickets.

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by itsMeFred

Yep, and other rural states as well. I sure won't swear to it, but I think it's pretty likely our farm welfare is what puts us over the top.
(BTW, I ranch for a living, so this is an issue near and dear to my heart)

No, he's a hypocrite because he's perfectly happy to TAKE federal funds, he just doesn't want to kick IN to the kitty.
If he (any any other Tea Party leader or member) actually believed this stuff, he would be campaigning for the state to refuse federal monies....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...


I think I hear the chirping of crickets.

I have a hard time seeing it as genuine hypocrisy. Even though it doesn't match his greater ideology, he has to accept federal money to protect Kansas' interests, otherwise he would be putting Kansas at a disadvantage. I think his beef is with the way the system is set up. I'm sure he would prefer the federal government be much smaller, the states be much more independent, and more tax money stay local in the first place rather than be collected and distributed from DC. In such a scenario, each state could better run itself as it sees fit and according to more localized needs rather than an overbureaucratic, one-size-fits-all approach. Until the system is reformed more according to Republican ideology, he won't be able to practice what he preaches. I'm not good at explaining this, nor am I sold on Republican ideology, but I'm trying to at least understand where the guy is coming from.

Honestly, I think a smaller fed and more automous states could help solve some of the polarization in DC. Why not get rid of unncessary centralized powers and let each state run itself as it sees fit. If it were that way, more people could get what they want without pissing off everybody else and causing so much conflict.

[rock_chalk]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Kansas is a net receiver state, meaning that it gets more in federal tax dollars than it pays out. Therefore, Brownback displays complete hypocrisy when he rails on about too much government when Kansas already gets way more in federal funds. Brownback would never admit to that, though. Yes, big ag subsidies should get cut back massively, particularly for large corporate operations that do not need any government money. Kansas will only attract companies with low paying jobs outside JOCO.

The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005

The most recent figures I could find were from FY 2005. They show Kansas at $1.12 in federal spending per $1 of federal taxes, #22 in the nation.

I've always had some questions about these figures. If ConocoPhillips earns a profit from production operations in Kansas, and if they pay federal tax on those profits, would that be accounted for as payment "from" the wells in Kansas or HQ in Texas?
(totally hypothetical scenario)

[RememberMee]

Brownback, 55, declined to be interviewed for this article but has said he wants to turn his small farming state into a national showcase for the virtues of limited government.
“The states are to be the laboratory for democracy,”

In the real world limited government means "the laboratory for big business". Well, it's not like there is huge difference between big government and big business (the very same people "toil" for both) but at least there is some resemblance of counterbalance. There is something really wrong with Kansas. Low wage workers and dispossessed small farmers of Kansas voting in politicians that have 180 degree opposite financial & political interests, again and again. It's either inbred slavishness or insanity.

[Zembonez]

Originally Posted by itsMeFred

Though I've never understood why people in fairly poor states elect Republicans...

Right. Most elect Democrats so that they can keep getting their free ride from the government.

[thriftylefty]

Any one who doesn't want to get a free ride from the Government should quit using the postal service. The problem with politicians who want smaller government is they want it to be smaller in ways that they think it should be smaller and not ways that you or I think it should be smaller . Since I don't use the post office that much I would gladly pay the real cost of someone hand carrying a piece of paper for me to some one 1000 miles away.

There are places in Kansas where Brownback is never going to get business to come to and he won't admit that, There are economic development directors all over Kansas who will attest to the futility of getting a company to come to a small rural area with no regional air support, no rail service , no major four lane roads. These are things that can't be done with out the federal Governments help. In plain English Sedgwick and Johnson county have themselves a great Governor, every body else got just another one.

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by RememberMee

Brownback, 55, declined to be interviewed for this article but has said he wants to turn his small farming state into a national showcase for the virtues of limited government.
“The states are to be the laboratory for democracy,”

In the real world limited government means "the laboratory for big business". Well, it's not like there is huge difference between big government and big business (the very same people "toil" for both) but at least there is some resemblance of counterbalance. There is something really wrong with Kansas. Low wage workers and dispossessed small farmers of Kansas voting in politicians that have 180 degree opposite financial & political interests, again and again. It's either inbred slavishness or insanity.

Okay. You believe most Kansans are voting against their own self interest by electing Republicans. Tell me, WHY should they vote for Democrats? What would Democrats do for Kansans that Republicans aren't or won't? How would Democrats improve the lives of Kansans?

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by thriftylefty

Any one who doesn't want to get a free ride from the Government should quit using the postal service. The problem with politicians who want smaller government is they want it to be smaller in ways that they think it should be smaller and not ways that you or I think it should be smaller . Since I don't use the post office that much I would gladly pay the real cost of someone hand carrying a piece of paper for me to some one 1000 miles away.

There are places in Kansas where Brownback is never going to get business to come to and he won't admit that, There are economic development directors all over Kansas who will attest to the futility of getting a company to come to a small rural area with no regional air support, no rail service , no major four lane roads. These are things that can't be done with out the federal Governments help. In plain English Sedgwick and Johnson county have themselves a great Governor, every body else got just another one.

This entire post is weird.

The post office is run by the government, yes, but it is a self-sustaining entity, run like a business. It's purpose is to ensure communication is guranteed to everybody. However, there has been talk of privatization, at least partially (even more so than it is currently).

Second, where did that come from? Where did Brownback claim to cover every square mile of the state with jobs? He's not a God, he can't magically reverse the decline of extremely rural areas. It certainly is possible though that more jobs could be brought to larger towns all over the state that already have infrastructure. There's always going to be a larger town within commuting distance that can support jobs no matter where you are in the state. If jobs were brought to those towns within commuting distance, that could have the effect of increased spending in the local economies of very small towns in extremely rural areas the workers commute from. If the fed was restructured in a way that state's were more responsible for themselves and more tax money was kept locally that currently goes to the fed, then I don't see why it isn't possible state's couldn't build their own infrastructure as an investment.

[CrownVic95]

This is just another troll thread, the likes of which we have seen time and time again.

And it belongs in the P&OC forum.

[thriftylefty]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

This entire post is weird.

The post office is run by the government, yes, but it is a self-sustaining entity, run like a business. It's purpose is to ensure communication is guranteed to everybody. However, there has been talk of privatization, at least partially (even more so than it is currently).

Second, where did that come from? Where did Brownback claim to cover every square mile of the state with jobs? He's not a God, he can't magically reverse the decline of extremely rural areas. It certainly is possible though that more jobs could be brought to larger towns all over the state that already have infrastructure. There's always going to be a larger town within commuting distance that can support jobs no matter where you are in the state. If jobs were brought to those towns within commuting distance, that could have the effect of increased spending in the local economies of very small towns in extremely rural areas the workers commute from. If the fed was restructured in a way that state's were more responsible for themselves and more tax money was kept locally that currently goes to the fed, then I don't see why it isn't possible state's couldn't build their own infrastructure as an investment.

First , If losing 2.8 billion last year alone is "self sustaining " I'll give you that
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97582V00

Second , If bringing jobs to "Kansas" Brownback didn't mean the State of Kansas I'll give you that.

The governor has said his main concerns are creating jobs, cutting taxes and bringing new businesses to the state,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...OAP_story.html