I'm in a weird place, politically speaking. There are some great Republicans that I like, but most of the ideologues in the GOP make my head hurt. I hold some views that some would call liberal, but I'm not all that far to the left. I'm a moderate, maybe slightly left-of-center, and an independent. But I love politics and I like kicking at politicians who say one thing but actually do another. Take Kentucky. Please.
There's a great post in the Daily Beast by Paul Begala, who asserts that it's time to defund Kentucky.
You see, Kentucky's senior senator is the pork hog (and Senate minority leader) Mitch McConnell, and they have re-elected the Prince of Pork himself, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, since 1981. It wasn't until the rise of the Tea Party darling Rand Paul that they changed their tunes. Now, both of these pork hogs (seriously, these guys should check their cholesterol) are criticizing President Obama's new budget, saying that it doesn't attack the deficit as aggressively as is necessary (it cuts it by $1.1 trillion dollars - that's a good start).
Considering the fact that neither of these guys had ANY problem with deficits when President Bush was funding massive wars in the middle east and borrowing hand over fist from China, or that they weren't concerned about the budget deficit when pushing for continued tax cuts, I think author Paul Begala presents a brilliant idea: in honor of the Kentucky delegation's newfound fiscal responsibility, let's cut all federal funding to Kentucky:
Defund Kentucky. Cut it off the federal dole. Kentucky is a welfare state to begin with. The conservative Tax Foundation says the Bluegrass State received $1.51 back from Washington for every dollar it paid in federal taxes in 2005 (the most recent data I could find on the Tax Foundation's website.) We need to listen to the people of Kentucky. They don't want any more federal spending in their state—and they certainly must be appalled by the notion that they're a bunch of welfare queens, living off the taxes paid by blue states like California (which only gets 81 cents back on the dollar), Connecticut (69 cents), Illinois (75 cents) and New York (79 cents).
I've liked this idea for several years. As it turns out, the poorest states that collect the most money in federal funds tend to be the most conservative (and tend to oppose any idea of wealth redistribution), whereas the richest states that pay out the most money to be redistributed to said poor states tend to be the most liberal (and thereby support some form of wealth redistribution). So, let's cut off the poor states and let the rich states keep their money.
Unless, of course, they don't really mean it.