Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[Jester]

The cost to supply a service is the same, independent of who pays for it.

I don't think this is true. There are very real differences in cost and quality between what the government can provide, and what private companies can. That's at the core of the pragmatic debate over government spending, ideology left aside.

Some sectors, like the military, or the courts, cost less (all things considered) in the hands of the government. This has not always been true, but in the modern state, it almost certainly is. Economies of scale and sovereign power are simply too important to revert to some other private model of law and order. Safety regulation might also be possible in a totally market model, but the informational costs would likely be crippling. (Or not, some disagree.) We've debated education and health care, but I think those are also sectors where the unique powers of government allow for lower costs. Governments can overcome coordination problems by force of law, which may open up equilibria that are unreachable in purely private affairs.

Other sectors are almost certainly better in the hands of private corporations - they can keep their overhead down, and provide lower prices. Government bureaucracy is ill-suited to running taco stands, or designing video games.* I don't need the government interfering in the basic consumer economy, and the distortions that would follow would almost surely outweigh any benefits.

Finding a sensible division of labour between government and private industry is very much a matter of finding out which creates fewer costs, all things considered.

-Jester

*Tetris aside.

[Taelas]

Yes, often enough a lot of the taxes you pay do not affect you personally at the moment you pay them, but that's the nature of the system. If you only paid for what you personally needed, the system couldn't exist; there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running.

That doesn't make sense. The cost to supply a service is the same, independent of who pays for it. The need for that service, also. Thus, if each person payed for the service he received, it would come out to exactly the same as if the population as a whole shared the cost. It is not a matter of income.

It is not a matter of "there wouldn't be money enough to keep it running", it is a matter of the individuals not being able to pay for the service that they, individually, need. And that hurts everybody. Let me give you a personal example.

The treatment for my leukemia has run to, approximately, one and a half million dollars. I have nowhere near that amount of money. But I do have insurance. Now, insurance is basically a large group of people, each betting against himself. The 'winners' get the money. It allows people to get medical treatment that they could otherwise not afford. But it does a lot more than that. The treatment I received was not handed down from on high. It had to be developed. If, of all the people who came down with leukemia, only those that could afford millions could be treated, then there wouldn't have been enough people or money to develop the treatment. So, insurance saved my life two ways. It made it possible for me to get the treatment, and it made developing the treatment possible in the first place.

Now, my example, repeated many times, is a good argument for insurance. But who should supply that insurance? And should we *have* to buy it? Should we have the complete freedom to chose? And what should society do with those who chose not to and then need the services? Is it right to demand that everyone should be insured because everyone shares the cost for those who are not? Is it socially acceptable to allow those who chose not to have insurance to 'pay' for their stupidity -- should we just let them die? If everyone has to have insurance, is it better supplied by the free market, or by the government? If by the government, should it be federal, state, county, other (some kind of special districting)? If the government is supplying everyone with insurance, do we need insurance at all, or should we just socialize the health industry?

Now, take all of that, and think of education, roads, police, fire, retirement, the military, etc., etc.

Your arguments are, at best, shades of gray. The problem covers the complete color spectrum.

It is possible for the private sector to do this, yeah. You're right, I didn't think in those terms at all. I'm not sure that's the right answer, either. Something like this is precisely what I would want the government to take care of -- through taxes.

But this is the general feel in Denmark, at least in my opinion. I guess it's quite different in the states.

The government's job is to decide where and what to spend your taxes on, and if they're not doing it right, you kick them out and get someone new.

"The government's job" is precisely what this discussion is about. Once that's determined, then the cost to run the country is established. That, in turn (and the government's position on deficit) determines what taxes are needed and where they are spent.

As to kicking them out, who determines if they are doing it right? Indeed, what is 'right'? Is it the will of the people? That's mob rule. Is it some higher good? That's elitism or theocracy, depending on whether you take 'higher' straight or with branch water. And how do you kick them out? Popular vote? It has been shown, over and over again, that the popular vote is usually bought by whoever spends the most. Insurrection? You'd better have the numbers, 'cause they have the amps.

"Every real problem has a simple, easy to understand, wrong answer."

--Pete

Currently we kick them out no matter how they did after a certain period -- we take the question out of people's hands, essentially. I'm not sure that's a better solution -- it's quite possible there isn't enough time for new policies to go into effect before the time is up, and if there's no discernible answer by that time, they'll most likely elect someone knew, who have the exact same problem.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The cost to supply a service is the same, independent of who pays for it.

I don't think this is true. There are very real differences in cost and quality between what the government can provide, and what private companies can. That's at the core of the pragmatic debate over government spending, ideology left aside.

I agree with you. However, you took that sentence out of context. I was not speaking of private versus government. I was speaking of collective paying versus individual paying. The example that I gave, of insurance and catastrophic health care costs, should have made that clear. I was refuting the claim that a system would go bankrupt if people paid for their individual usage rather than spreading the cost over many. If people indeed could afford to pay for their use of a service, it would work just fine. Indeed, most people do pay for their own food, clothing, shelter, transportation, utilities, etc. And when the government has tried to control and supply too many of these things, the result has usually been failure of the system.

Finding a sensible division of labour between government and private industry is very much a matter of finding out which creates fewer costs, all things considered.

I don't think so. That is a criterion, of course. But it is not the only one, and maybe not even the most important. Universality of access may trump cost, as might consistent quality across geographic and demographic borders. For some of those goals, government is the only institution with the structure capable of achieving them.

--Pete

[Jester]

I agree with you. However, you took that sentence out of context. I was not speaking of private versus government. I was speaking of collective paying versus individual paying. The example that I gave, of insurance and catastrophic health care costs, should have made that clear. I was refuting the claim that a system would go bankrupt if people paid for their individual usage rather than spreading the cost over many.

But that is the heart of the issue. Collective payment (at least in a government sense) often saves a great deal of money vs. individual payment. There are massive coordination failures that prevent individuals from coming together privately to provide for things like security, or law. Were people to try and pay for them individually, and were they provided on that basis, the costs would not be just their share of the equivalent collective costs. I would say another such coordination failure is evident in most private health insurance - costs are higher than in equivalent public systems.

For some sectors, the whole is basically just the sum of its parts. For others, not so - externalities, information asymmetries and coordination failures can overwhelm the basic market mechanism, or at least severely distort prices.

I don't think so. That is a criterion, of course. But it is not the only one, and maybe not even the most important. Universality of access may trump cost, as might consistent quality across geographic and demographic borders. For some of those goals, government is the only institution with the structure capable of achieving them.

True enough. There are certainly some areas where I'm happy to see government intervene, even when the outcomes are not economically optimal, in order to attain some other goal, like equality - although we always need a careful eye when we start going down that road.

However, I'm optimistic enough to think that the government can solve at least most of the problems it needs to while restricting itself to the things it (probably) does best - utilities, regulation, education, health care, infrastructure, law and order. It seems more efficient to work with those tools, than to go outside them.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

But this is the general feel in Denmark, at least in my opinion. I guess it's quite different in the states.

The opinions in the USA range over the whole spectrum. That's both good and bad. Good in that neither extreme gets to control, bad in that some necessary things get done slowly or not at all.

I know that Europeans get tired of hearing this, but they never seem to really get it. The USA is big, and it has big problems. Denmark is about 43000 km^2 with a population of 5.5 million. That population is about 90% Danes. The USA has 6 *metropolitan areas* with a higher population than all of Denmark. In population, Denmark would be between the 20th and 21st most populous state, right between Wisconsin and Minnesota. In area, it falls between West Virginia and Maryland (41st and 42nd, respectively). And in diversity, 80% of the people of the USA are lumped into the category 'white'. This includes everyone from immigrants who still feel more attached to their homeland to people with such diverse ancestry they have no idea where their ancestors came from. We have areas that are all one group, be it religious, national, or cultural, and areas where every possible mixture is represented.

So, the next time you speak of the feelings or attitudes or desires of the USA, remember, there is no such thing. It is like asking what are the feelings, etc., of Europe as a whole. The answer you get might depend on whether you ask a Dane or a Greek.

Currently we kick them out no matter how they did after a certain period -- we take the question out of people's hands, essentially. I'm not sure that's a better solution -- it's quite possible there isn't enough time for new policies to go into effect before the time is up, and if there's no discernible answer by that time, they'll most likely elect someone knew, who have the exact same problem.

Every form of government has its problems and its advantages. Things like term limits solve the problem of incumbents who are way past their expiration date remaining in office. But they introduce the problem of a government run by amateurs who are expelled just as they get enough experience to do the job right. They fall into the category of simple, easy to understand, wrong answers. Unfortunately, no one really knows what the right answers are, or even if they are. Which is why there are so many different types of government and so many theories for even more. No one, I think, sets out with the intention of establishing a bad government. At most, some set out to establish self serving governments. But the best intentions don't make a bad plan good. There is no 'E' for effort in real life.

--Pete

---

Hi,

. . . government can solve at least most of the problems it needs to while restricting itself to the things it (probably) does best . . .

Just as in discussing the validity of science it is imperative to distinguish between science and scientists, the same is true for government. I agree with you about government restricting itself, but not so much about those who govern. The institution in the abstract and its implementation by individuals may be -- and often are -- two different things.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

The government overhead is the price society pays for being 'nice'.

Sometimes 'nice' is nice, but often it is the act of forcing people to do things against their will. You can start on the easy stuff, like medicinal marijuana, but it extends into many other personal choices that cause no harms as well.

---

Every form of government has its problems and its advantages. Things like term limits solve the problem of incumbents who are way past their expiration date remaining in office. But they introduce the problem of a government run by amateurs who are expelled just as they get enough experience to do the job right.

I would be happy if we just started with some reasonable happy medium, like 12 years of service at the federal level in any elected capacity. That would be 6 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate. President is already limited to two terms (eight years). The judiciary is good with lifetime appointments, although it could (and has been abused). Our congress(the one that is for the people) needs to step up and take away the legislative mistakes (i.e. misuse of federal power) that our judiciary imposes, such as Wickard v. Filburn.

[kandrathe]

Some sectors, like the military, or the courts, cost less (all things considered) in the hands of the government. This has not always been true, but in the modern state, it almost certainly is.

Mostly, because the State has the power to implement the "force" necessary for a military, or for imposing justice. I would point to a practice in California that seems to work well; To offload the burden on the courts, the litigants first go through a process of arbitration conducted my an administrative third party. The third party has no power to impose a solution, and for all intents and purposes might be a private service. The costs for the service are born by the litigants.

Economies of scale and sovereign power are simply too important to revert to some other private model of law and order. Safety regulation might also be possible in a totally market model, but the informational costs would likely be crippling. (Or not, some disagree.)

Safety regulations have a few components, first the setting of the standards, second the policing of those standards, and third the punishment of the violators. The limited imposition of force is best left to the state, however inspection (policing) might very well be a purchased service (by the regulated firms themselves).

We've debated education and health care, but I think those are also sectors where the unique powers of government allow for lower costs. Governments can overcome coordination problems by force of law, which may open up equilibria that are unreachable in purely private affairs.

I would disagree with you here 180 degrees. I believe the government lends itself to entrenchment and mismanagement of administrative affairs. Government thinks in a "one size fits all" mentality, whereas the consumer desires the flexibility to customize their consumption to what they need. For example, insurance extending coverage for maladies to which we would never succumb merely because they need to be 'blind' with regard to the 10th amendment (equal justice).

Finding a sensible division of labour between government and private industry is very much a matter of finding out which creates fewer costs, all things considered.

We agree here. My thinking is that when government provides a service, it automatically costs more as the government not only needs to provide the same activity in outlay, but they must also expend activity in generating the funding to pay for the activity. The third party payer system in the US contributes greatly to the inefficiency and additional costs to health care. The solution is to repeal the HMO laws enacted in the 1980's forcing patients to deal with third parties, rather than with health providers directly. Both health care, and education suffer from a similiar malady when funded by government, which is a lack of accountability to the consumer. You've heard that old adage, "You can't fight city hall". Well, that is the reality when you have an issue with your health care, or the education of children as well. If you disagree with something, good luck getting it changed.

[kandrathe]

Compared to what? A society with no government? Surely not. As Pete rightly says, the question is where government intervention ceases to be beneficial, and instead becomes meddling. The first dollars spent on defense, policing and laws are surely worth spending - societies without that are hellholes. The question is - where after that do you stop?

Yes, we need a limited set of government to protect individuals rights.

You are a rational employer, paying "extra" to buy "extras" - a quality employee who will remain loyal. So you are in no sense paying higher wages than necessary, you are paying the wages necessary to secure the quality of employee you want, and prevent poaching.

Yes, this is the one. As an employer, I remove as many distractions and detractors from a person's job as are in my control, while creating opportunities for growth in the areas that would be in the best interest of the company for person to grow (and within their areas of interest).

Again, you fixate on one side of the price equation, and not the other. Supply is one half - what the employer decides they want to pay. Demand is the other - what the employee is willing to work for. Employers are concerned about the gross pay, because that's what comes out of their pockets. But employees are concerned about the net pay, because that's what ends up in their bank account. A lower-tax environment means employees take home more of their paycheque. They should, therefore, be willing to accept less gross income to produce the same net income.

They should, but they don't. I've negotiated salaries and raises for 20 years, and no one ever looked at it from a "take home pay" perspective. They look at it from their research in what the position's gross salary rate is (even if that is in a different region with a higher cost of living). They do measure a couple of other factors, with benefits being a close 2nd, and the third from my perspective is their vision of what the job entails. That last one includes, things like how much stress there would be, how many hours they work, the intensity of the position, the opportunity for growth in their areas of interest, contribution to the greater good, and other "fun" factors.

Now, if government and private business are exact substitutes, and people buy the exact same services they previously paid for with tax dollars, they're going to demand net income to match their new expenses, which should raise wages right back up to where they were.

My experience in working with both private sector, and government employees has been that private sector employees are much more productive, and in some cases twice as productive as government workers.

The question is, then, is the government providing bargains, or not? That is a very difficult question. In some sectors, surely. In others, surely not. Where that balance lies, we'll need a lot of evidence to know.

Reason Foundation article; Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries"...according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, private-sector employees worked an average of 2,050 hours in 2008, 12 percent more than the 1,825 hours worked by the average public-sector employee."

"Even on an hour-for-hour basis, one would expect private sector workers to be more productive due to the lack of competitive forces in government. Private sector businesses face constant pressures of competition to innovate and improve their goods and services, lest they lose business to their competitors. Government agencies, by contrast, are typically monopolies protected by law, and thus are not subject to such competitive incentives and pressures."

If I were your benevolent dictator, with the budget in my libertarian hands, I would be able to easily trim about 1/2 of the jobs from my States budget, and 2/3rds of the Federal budget. That is not to say, overnight, nor to say those jobs would be removed from the economy. They would just be done better, and more efficiently by private sector interests with government management, and reduce spending and waste tremendously. Better services, and lower taxes. Vote for me!

[--Pete]

Hi,

"...according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) National Compensation Survey, private-sector employees worked an average of 2,050 hours in 2008, 12 percent more than the 1,825 hours worked by the average public-sector employee."

Who is included and how is this measured? For instance, including school teachers would reduce the number of hours worked by the public-sector. Not because teachers work fewer hours, but because only the hours 'at work' are counted. The time spent on lesson plans, grading, test preparation, etc. is 'free'. Also, where I worked, you worked 2088 hours a year, plus overtime, minus unpaid personal leave. That means that vacation time, sick leave, and holidays were all 'working hours'.

Apples to oranges I can handle -- there are many similarities. But apples to asteroids?

If I were your benevolent dictator, . . .

You'd be wearing a target t-shirt, and I don't just mean one from the store of that name.

. . . with the budget in my libertarian hands, I would be able to easily trim about 1/2 of the jobs from my States budget, and 2/3rds of the Federal budget. That is not to say, overnight, nor to say those jobs would be removed from the economy. They would just be done better, and more efficiently by private sector interests with government management, and reduce spending and waste tremendously.

I'm sorry, but again the logic escapes me. If those jobs are not going to be removed from the economy, then you are going to have the same number of people doing the same tasks as they did in the government. How is that going to reduce spending tremendously? Are you going to base that on the income difference between private and public sector. Because, as far as I can see, those numbers are bogus. As a fraction of the respective workforces, how many hamburger flippers, dog walkers, house cleaners, farm workers, and assembly line drones does the government employ?

Besides, even if you do adjust the salaries, that will only make a small difference. To get 'tremendous' reductions, you are going to get the individual efficiencies up. Which means you either need to find them more work (a privately run treasury running more shifts to print more money for the government comes to mind -- with a guffaw) or let some go. One way does not reduce the costs, although it might increase (unnecessary) services. The other does reduce the costs, by having more unemployed.

Better services, and lower taxes. Vote for me!

How about no services because of no jobs paying no taxes leaving the public and private sector bankrupt?

Thanks, I'll stick to the Alfred E. Neuman / George P. Burdell ticket.

--Pete

[Jester]

For example, insurance extending coverage for maladies to which we would never succumb merely because they need to be 'blind' with regard to the 10th amendment (equal justice).

There's too much here for me to reply to right now, but this struck me as being particularly odd. How many of these illnesses are there, exactly, that exclusively affect one group and not another? Sickle-cell Anemia? Pregnancy-related disease? Testicular cancer?*

How much money would one save, optimizing plans in this way? A penny or two?

-Jester

*that one episode of House notwithstanding?

[Taelas]

Hi,

But this is the general feel in Denmark, at least in my opinion. I guess it's quite different in the states.

The opinions in the USA range over the whole spectrum. That's both good and bad. Good in that neither extreme gets to control, bad in that some necessary things get done slowly or not at all.

I know that Europeans get tired of hearing this, but they never seem to really get it. The USA is big, and it has big problems. Denmark is about 43000 km^2 with a population of 5.5 million. That population is about 90% Danes. The USA has 6 *metropolitan areas* with a higher population than all of Denmark. In population, Denmark would be between the 20th and 21st most populous state, right between Wisconsin and Minnesota. In area, it falls between West Virginia and Maryland (41st and 42nd, respectively). And in diversity, 80% of the people of the USA are lumped into the category 'white'. This includes everyone from immigrants who still feel more attached to their homeland to people with such diverse ancestry they have no idea where their ancestors came from. We have areas that are all one group, be it religious, national, or cultural, and areas where every possible mixture is represented.

So, the next time you speak of the feelings or attitudes or desires of the USA, remember, there is no such thing. It is like asking what are the feelings, etc., of Europe as a whole. The answer you get might depend on whether you ask a Dane or a Greek.

How is that good? If either extreme were popular enough to get to control, they would be popular. Yes, the people who feel the opposite extreme is better would be left out to dry, but that will be a minority, especially since those in the middle would be satisfied with getting something done.

A bad decision is better than no decision, and all that.

[kandrathe]

A bad decision is better than no decision, and all that.

But... But... This is why I want things to be local. Sure, our rights as given by the Federal constitution need to be protected as a broad consensus, but how we choose to implement some policy, or whether we want to allow people to smoke pot surely can be handled as local concerns. So, let New Yorkers choose what works best for New York, but if they go bankrupt --- keep their fingers out of the Federal cookie jar! They chose badly, and now they need to suffer their own crappy choices. Individuals and corporations from other around the world should be free to choose to help out with things like Katrina, or an oil spill cleanup. In our great system, even that is restricted by things like the Jones Act.

[Jester]

A bad decision is better than no decision, and all that.

But... But... This is why I want things to be local. Sure, our rights as given by the Federal constitution need to be protected as a broad consensus, but how we choose to implement some policy, or whether we want to allow people to smoke pot surely can be handled as local concerns. So, let New Yorkers choose what works best for New York, but if they go bankrupt --- keep their fingers out of the Federal cookie jar! They chose badly, and now they need to suffer their own crappy choices.

Strange how, in your world, it is New York that has their fingers in the Federal cookie jar, when New York pays out far more than it receives, NYC especially.

The major recipients of Federal money are the poor, sparsely inhabited, rural states. The major contributors are the small, wealthy, urban states. If everything was "local," and everyone kept their fingers out of the "cookie jar," the result would be a sharp increase in rural isolation and poverty, and an increased gap between the Mississippis and the Massachusettses.

-Jester

[Taelas]

A bad decision is better than no decision, and all that.

But... But... This is why I want things to be local. Sure, our rights as given by the Federal constitution need to be protected as a broad consensus, but how we choose to implement some policy, or whether we want to allow people to smoke pot surely can be handled as local concerns. So, let New Yorkers choose what works best for New York, but if they go bankrupt --- keep their fingers out of the Federal cookie jar! They chose badly, and now they need to suffer their own crappy choices. Individuals and corporations from other around the world should be free to choose to help out with things like Katrina, or an oil spill cleanup. In our great system, even that is restricted by things like the Jones Act.

Remember the whole insurance thing Pete mentioned not too long ago? This is the same thing. You pay insurance (whatever part of your taxes that go towards that "Federal cookie jar"), so that when something bad happens, you're not left out in the cold with no way out.

The only difference is that this is mandated, whereas most (if not all) insurance isn't.

I get that you don't like it, but there really aren't any other option. If you did not have said insurance, the country would end up in shambles. As soon as something major goes wrong, the state goes bankrupt, and people leave. If you can't see where that would lead to a downwards spiral going from bad to worse to worst, I don't know what to tell you.

[kandrathe]

Strange how, in your world, it is New York that has their fingers in the Federal cookie jar, when New York pays out far more than it receives, NYC especially.

The major recipients of Federal money are the poor, sparsely inhabited, rural states. The major contributors are the small, wealthy, urban states. If everything was "local," and everyone kept their fingers out of the "cookie jar," the result would be a sharp increase in rural isolation and poverty, and an increased gap between the Mississippis and the Massachusettses.

The method you are thinking of is flawed. The amount of spending on large states like NY is much higher than for small states like North Dakota, however you wish to measure it per capita, or per revenue dollar received. Of course, areas with higher density are going to share a resource more efficiently. Also, I see very little correlation between federal spending (gross, or per capita) and the relief of "rural isolation and poverty". The money is not having the stimulating effect you suggest.

Federal Distribution by State

So for example, a highway bridge over a major waterway may get a million uses per year by citizens in NY, while the same bridge in ND would get maybe 1000 uses per year. Both groups of citizens have an equal need for a bridge.

I don't perceive that "rural isolation and poverty" would be the result, merely that lower density states would grow infrastructure more slowly, as it would take more time to fund their needed infrastructure. Currently, yes, NY, CA, TX, and FL fund wasteful boondoggles like Alaska's infamous bridge to nowhere. This is quickly solved by removing the federal cookie jar altogether.

[kandrathe]

Remember the whole insurance thing Pete mentioned not too long ago? This is the same thing. You pay insurance (whatever part of your taxes that go towards that "Federal cookie jar"), so that when something bad happens, you're not left out in the cold with no way out.

The only difference is that this is mandated, whereas most (if not all) insurance isn't.

I get that you don't like it, but there really aren't any other option. If you did not have said insurance, the country would end up in shambles. As soon as something major goes wrong, the state goes bankrupt, and people leave. If you can't see where that would lead to a downwards spiral going from bad to worse to worst, I don't know what to tell you.

What you may not know though, is that the States determine the details on insurance rules. If New York passes very libertine laws, which bankrupt their coffers, how is that the fault of anyone but New York, and the voters of New York who elected their gaggle of bozos?

[Jester]

The method you are thinking of is flawed. The amount of spending on large states like NY is much higher than for small states like North Dakota, however you wish to measure it per capita, or per revenue dollar received. Of course, areas with higher density are going to share a resource more efficiently.

Federal Distribution by State

Once again, are you reading these tables? Or just assuming you know what's in them? Because your link (once again) flat out contradicts you.

New York federal spending per capita: $7932. (This is slightly below average.)

North Dakota federal spending per capita: $9903. (This is almost 20% above average.)

Now, that's only half the story. The other half is federal tax dollars going into the coffers. New York contributes much more, and more per capita, than North Dakota.

So for example, a highway bridge over a major waterway may get a million uses per year by citizens in NY, while the same bridge in ND would get maybe 1000 uses per year. Both groups of citizens have an equal need for a bridge.

On an individual basis, maybe. But in sum, the NY bridge is a thousand times as valuable. Demolishing it would inconvenience a thousand times as many people. If they cost the same to build and maintain, then the cost-benefit analysis is obvious.

I don't perceive that "rural isolation and poverty" would be the result, merely that lower density states would grow infrastructure more slowly, as it would take more time to fund their needed infrastructure.

And yet, they need more infrastructure to provide the same level of services. Slower growth combined with greater needs means substantially lower levels of service. Lower levels of service means a less attractive place for people to live and businesses to set up, which means slower economic growth. Add that up over time, and the urban areas win, rural areas lose. The longer it continues, the more this will be true.

Currently, yes, NY, CA, TX, and FL fund wasteful boondoggles like Alaska's infamous bridge to nowhere.

Those states are paying in a larger share of federal revenues than they're taking out - NY and CA getting barely 80 cents on the dollar, Texas more like 95, and Florida not quite breaking even. Alaska, on the other hand, gets back almost two dollars for every one it sends to Washington. Good deal for Alaskans. Bad deal for everyone else.

-Jester

[Taelas]

What you may not know though, is that the States determine the details on insurance rules. If New York passes very libertine laws, which bankrupt their coffers, how is that the fault of anyone but New York, and the voters of New York who elected their gaggle of bozos?

I have no idea how the finer details work, but regardless of whose "fault" it is, I can't see how the rest of the country could possibly afford to have a major state go bankrupt.

[kandrathe]

Once again, are you reading these tables? Or just assuming you know what's in them? Because your link (once again) flat out contradicts you.

Yes. Did you read what I wrote? New York received $157,789,000,000, whereas North Dakota received $6,766,000,000. New York received over 23 times more federal funds.

On an individual basis, maybe. But in sum, the NY bridge is a thousand times as valuable. Demolishing it would inconvenience a thousand times as many people. If they cost the same to build and maintain, then the cost-benefit analysis is obvious.

Right, so the New Yorkers should be able to finance their valuable bridge, whereas the North Dakotans will need to suffer for awhile to raise the funds, or do without. This is entirely fair.

And yet, they need more infrastructure to provide the same level of services.

Why should Fargo get the same level of services as New York City? If it's important to them, they'll fund it. If they lack the population to be able to afford it, then let them attract growth. If they can't then why would we invest money there? I don't believe in building Xanadu in the middle of the wilderness.

Good deal for Alaskans. Bad deal for everyone else.

Hence, why I feel federal expenditures for states are wrong.

[Jester]

Yes. Did you read what I wrote? New York received $157,789,000,000, whereas North Dakota received $6,766,000,000. New York received over 23 times more federal funds.

Did *you* read what you wrote? Here's the key part, in bold:

The amount of spending on large states like NY is much higher than for small states like North Dakota, however you wish to measure it per capita, or per revenue dollar received.

New York may have received 23 times the funds, but it has over 30 times the population. Since per capita measurements are the only ones that make sense I think the point stands - New Yorkers are paying out, and North Dakotans are collecting.

-Jester

(Afterthought: Measuring federal spending per federal dollar received is a novel concept. I think you'll find all states are shockingly equal, measured that way.)