[Washington Examiner] Migration from high-tax states to states with lower taxes and less government spending will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses, according to a study by Americans for Tax Reform Comes as a surprise, huh? I know. I was floored, too...
Eight states are projected to gain at least one congressional seat under reapportionment following the 2010 Census: Texas (four seats), Florida (two seats), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (one seat each). Their average top state personal income tax rate: 2.8 percent.
By contrast, New York and Ohio are likely to lose two seats each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be down one apiece. The average top state personal income tax rate in these loser states: 6.05 percent. That sucking sound you hear is your state government. All those backs you see belong to your populace.
The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/18/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
On behalf of all Georgians, I extend a sincere thank you to the states who have chosen to downsize their representation by..... RUNNING HARD WORKING TAXPAYERS OFF!
#4
This will be the first redistricting since Calif became a state in 1850 in which they did not gain representatives. California went from 30 to 53 seats from 1950 to 2000 (but only gained one in the 2000 census).
Now the number of immigrants from the far east has slowed and the number of immigrants from the south is balanced by people leaving the state.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
11/18/2010 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
People are voting with their feet. This is what the American people want. Our representatives should figure this out and make it so. Our representatives should not be trying to figure out ways to subvert the will of the American people.
The Obama administration is considering creating a unified national security budget that would combine elements of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development with the Pentagon, according to a draft copy of a long-awaited foreign policy strategy review shared with Congress this week.
Citing the joint planning required between U.S. military and civilian agencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proposal is one of several that would put the U.S. diplomatic corps and its lead global humanitarian agency on a stronger national security footing, according to a draft of the State Departments first-ever Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, or QDDR.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered the review last year to be modeled after the Pentagons four-year review, intended as a strategic guide for appropriators. It is part of an ongoing White House-led effort to link development and national security.
#3
DoDo, or a plan to include additional spending under the umbrella of Defense but that actually goes to abortion in Africa or something else that probably wouldn't get funding.
#4
Since we don't have a budget what's the diff? After all, SFNan thinks that budgets are optional and old-fashioned, no?
Posted by: Alan Cramer ||
11/18/2010 19:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This will go exactly nowhere when it hits the House - think that the Chairman of the House Defense Committee is going to surrender that seat to Obumbles? What about the Senate Chairman? What about the various Secretaries in the Executive Branch? This is will die a slow death by "necessary review and consultation".
#6
The old hustle, where did the money go?
I remember a Magician on Johnny Carson explaining the old Three shells and a pea hustle.
Pure scam.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/18/2010 20:45 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"see? The budget didn't change, but I we now have 105,000 more State Department Special Raconteurs for human rights or some shit that will make us less safe make me look good at the UN"
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/18/2010 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Basically an update of the old State Department attitude of looking at the Armed Forces as their dog-walkers.
There's a Madeline Albright remark that sums it up, but I can't seem to find it.
I would add that this is not a numerically fair request by the Senator. The ratings disparity of Fox vs MSNBC is huge. Fox is the source of news and opinion for many, many times more Americans than MSNBC. I think that shutting down either is wrong, but in order for some sort of parity to be achieved, you would have to shut down essentially all of the other MSM outlets (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) in order to have the same impact on the left of shutting down Fox would on the right.
Rockefeller's request is neither statistically intelligent nor fair, and seeks to use the police power of the state to advantage his point of view. Typical for a Democrat.
How the left longs for the days when they had a hegemony over the information stream, when Cronkite could lie to the American public about us losing Tet and get away with it because there were no alternate information streams.
Of course, all of this calling for the FCC to shut down Fox affiliates may be a preemptive strike on, or a distraction from, plans of the GOP to defund NPR and PBS and sell off the licenses of affiliates.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/18/2010 5:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
...Well, at least the Gentleman from West Virginia is being even handed in his stupidity.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/18/2010 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What part of the First Amendment did the good Senator not learn?
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/18/2010 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What part of "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."* did the Senator not understand?
#5
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. Unless of course some teabagging rightwing Christer clinger doesn't agree with my Imperial Senate a@s in which case they're fair game."
FTFY.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
11/18/2010 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What an arrogant prick. People like him create "McVeighs".
#9
It is one thing for Sharpton and his broadcasters to make damn fools of themselves exercising their right to speech.
It, to me, it quite another for a current Senator to suggest something so obviously against the constitution, especially outside of the context of suggesting an amendment, and most disturbingly mentioning specific organizations, that he should be brought up on ethics charges.
Totally unacceptable, no matter which party or media.
#10
The mission of this hearing was to examine the current negotiation process between broadcasters and their distributers. Yet Sen. Rockefeller, the Senates lead advocate for Net Neutrality, felt compelled to make his statements about broadcast "content". He even went so far as to suggest that the muckrakers on cable programs inhibit the "ability to do our work here in congress." Make no mistake, the Rockefeller cabal wants to control the dissemination of information as much as possible. Their goal is redefine broadcast content as a commodity in the public interest. Therefore, they can to transform information into an "utility" that can be completly regulated (controlled) by goverment agencies.(Just looking out for the consumer, yaknow.) What is is missing from the posted clip is Rockefellers directly proceeding comments. "If you don't fix it...we will."
It's not so much of a conspirecy therory really. It's just good ole' fashioned...Gangster Goverment.
#11
Try it, Senator. The federal government is already so damn unconstitutional already. Continue to piss us off by trampling our rights. See what happens.
#12
Ah, for the good old days. When the constituents were dumb, uninformed, knew their place and let their betters make all the rules.
Is that what you meant, senator?
#14
What does the FCC have to do with cable broadcasts? They're not broadcast over the airwaves (which AFAIK is the FCC's perview); one has to subscribe to some sort of cable network (for money) to see them - they ain't free.
If you don't like Fox News, "Senator," don't turn them on - that's what the channel changer is for. Problem solved.
Are you this ignorant on the rest of the Constitution, "Senator" Moneybags?
/rhetorical question
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/18/2010 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Fox News is cable, but Fox affiliates are not.
#16
FOX local affiliates are simply msm with prettier talent. No more, no less.
FOX News seems to be devolving in that direction, but so far "Steady-as-She-Goes"
Posted by: pan ||
11/18/2010 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I don't watch Fox News. I consider them too much a radical/leftist/pro-Muslim organization.
I get most of my news from Rantburg - and I think I'm much better informed than I used to be. (Where else can I get highlights of the Bangladeshi RAB?)
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
11/18/2010 23:08 Comments ||
Top||
#18
"Fox News is cable, but Fox affiliates are not."
True, Pappy, but I doubt they get anything more than their evening half-hour or hour news broadcast, if that, from big daddy. My local Fox broadcast station is all shows and sports, just like NBC/CBS/ABC. The local station doesn't have a 6 pm news show; they put on an hour at 10 pm, which is actually done by the local NBC affiliate in the NBC studios with NBC talent. The 2 anchors are (mostly) dedicated to the Fox broadcast, but the weather, sports, and non-anchor reports are shared with the NBC station.
My comment still stands. And Off-His-Rockerfeller is an idiot. And a traitor to his oath of office.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/18/2010 23:11 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
