Arkady
President
As was the case in the 19th century, talk of secession normally comes from southern, rural, conservative whites:
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/01/chr...confederate_talk_grows_louder_at_the_fringes/
I've always found that odd, since if there was a secession, along red-state/blue-state lines, it seems almost certain it would turn out better for the blue states.
As most people know, red-states are much more likely to be net federal tax dollar leeches than blue states. The federal budget represents a net subsidy of "Red America" by "Blue America," and if that flow of funds were halted, it would mean a windfall for Blue America and sudden hardship for Red America. Using 2012 presidential election outcomes to designate "red state" and "blue state,' "Red America" collectively received $165.792 billion more in federal expenditures than it pays in federal taxes, using the most recent budget data available (2005). "Blue America" received $74.191 billion LESS in federal expenditures than it pays in taxes:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005
Yet, even without considering the impact of ending that leeching by the red states from the blue states, Blue America would be markedly better off than Red America following a secession. First, Blue America would be much larger (about 200 million citizens vs. 115.5 million), with an economy over twice as large. And it would be much richer. Median household income of Blue America would be 16% higher than for Red America. If you then account for the ending of net flows of federal funds from blue to red states, Blue America would be roughly one-quarter ahead of red (I'd need a precise household count by state to do that calculation).
It's not just that Blue America would be richer, either. It would also be better off sociologically, in terms of less crime, lower teen pregnancy, lower obesity, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality, better academic test scores, and so on. For example, the weighted average murder rate for Blue America is 4.4, versus 5.3 for Red America, meaning someone in Red America would be about 20% more likely to be murdered than someone in Blue America. Blue America would also have the headquarters of the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies, most of the elite universities in the country, most of the elite cultural offerings (the best museums, ballets, symphonies, etc.), and even a disproportionate share of the best sports franchises, as well as being the location of most movie and TV studios.
If secession were to happen along red-state/blue-state lines, the resulting Blue America would remain an economic and cultural powerhouse, while climbing up the international rankings when it came to socioeconomic well-being of its citizens. Red America, by comparison, would fall to an international prominence somewhere between Japan and Mexico, while sliding still farther in most international rankings. It's odd that secession talk isn't more popular on the left, and less so on the right.
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/01/chr...confederate_talk_grows_louder_at_the_fringes/
I've always found that odd, since if there was a secession, along red-state/blue-state lines, it seems almost certain it would turn out better for the blue states.
As most people know, red-states are much more likely to be net federal tax dollar leeches than blue states. The federal budget represents a net subsidy of "Red America" by "Blue America," and if that flow of funds were halted, it would mean a windfall for Blue America and sudden hardship for Red America. Using 2012 presidential election outcomes to designate "red state" and "blue state,' "Red America" collectively received $165.792 billion more in federal expenditures than it pays in federal taxes, using the most recent budget data available (2005). "Blue America" received $74.191 billion LESS in federal expenditures than it pays in taxes:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005
Yet, even without considering the impact of ending that leeching by the red states from the blue states, Blue America would be markedly better off than Red America following a secession. First, Blue America would be much larger (about 200 million citizens vs. 115.5 million), with an economy over twice as large. And it would be much richer. Median household income of Blue America would be 16% higher than for Red America. If you then account for the ending of net flows of federal funds from blue to red states, Blue America would be roughly one-quarter ahead of red (I'd need a precise household count by state to do that calculation).
It's not just that Blue America would be richer, either. It would also be better off sociologically, in terms of less crime, lower teen pregnancy, lower obesity, higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality, better academic test scores, and so on. For example, the weighted average murder rate for Blue America is 4.4, versus 5.3 for Red America, meaning someone in Red America would be about 20% more likely to be murdered than someone in Blue America. Blue America would also have the headquarters of the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies, most of the elite universities in the country, most of the elite cultural offerings (the best museums, ballets, symphonies, etc.), and even a disproportionate share of the best sports franchises, as well as being the location of most movie and TV studios.
If secession were to happen along red-state/blue-state lines, the resulting Blue America would remain an economic and cultural powerhouse, while climbing up the international rankings when it came to socioeconomic well-being of its citizens. Red America, by comparison, would fall to an international prominence somewhere between Japan and Mexico, while sliding still farther in most international rankings. It's odd that secession talk isn't more popular on the left, and less so on the right.
