77% prefer to cut spending, just 9% call for raising taxes

[BDKJMU]

to reduce the deficit. And this is from a CBS poll. And this wasn't a likely voter or even registered voter poll, where the numbers would probably be even higher for cutting spending and lower for raising taxes. Congress and Obama, this is another wakeup call to start cutting spending. If you don't, you'll be replaced by politicians who will.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mebison]

to reduce the deficit. And this is from a CBS poll. And this wasn't a likely voter or even registered voter poll, where the numbers would probably be even higher for cutting spending and lower for raising taxes. Congress and Obama, this is another wakeup call to start cutting spending. If you don't, you'll be replaced by politicians who will.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And how many voted to cut back on the services they receive?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but as just a generic statement, without specifics, it is pretty meaningless.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Politicians will never cut spending.

Its their core.

They give you stuff for power.

[CitadelGrad]

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
--Alexis de Tocqueville

[kalm]

to reduce the deficit. And this is from a CBS poll. And this wasn't a likely voter or even registered voter poll, where the numbers would probably be even higher for cutting spending and lower for raising taxes. Congress and Obama, this is another wakeup call to start cutting spending. If you don't, you'll be replaced by politicians who will.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And how many voted to cut back on the services they receive?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but as just a generic statement, without specifics, it is pretty meaningless.

This. Especially if you read the entire article. People like big government, they just don't like paying for it.

[native]

And how many voted to cut back on the services they receive?

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but as just a generic statement, without specifics, it is pretty meaningless.

This. Especially if you read the entire article. People like big government, they just don't like paying for it.

Big spending Democrat states are failing. Low spending Republican states are beginning to thrive. It is not an accident.

Our Federal Republic may yet endure if Repblican governors carry out their state spending cut promises. Mitch Daniels and Chris Christies havv done it. Other brand new elected Repub govs have a way to go. After Democratic Illinois raised taxes last week, the new Republican governor of Wisconsin invited Illinois businesses to "Escape to Illinois."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 99928.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


What we should be doing

[kalm]

This. Especially if you read the entire article. People like big government, they just don't like paying for it.

Big spending Democrat states are failing. Low spending Republican states are beginning to thrive. It is not an accident.

Our Federal Republic may yet endure if Repblican governors carry out their state spending cut promises. Mitch Daniels and Chris Christies havv done it. Other brand new elected Repub govs have a way to go. After Democratic Illinois raised taxes last week, the new Republican governor of Wisconsin invited Illinois businesses to "Escape to Illinois."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 99928.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




What we should be doing

Big spending states have better schools, roads, a higher standard of living while historically speaking, red states take in more federal dollars. This is a race to the bottom.

[native]

...
Big spending states have better schools, roads, a higher standard of living while historically speaking, red states take in more federal dollars. This is a race to the bottom.

Not true at all, k. California has among the worst roads and schools in the nation. Texas has among the best roads and schools.

[kalm]

...
Big spending states have better schools, roads, a higher standard of living while historically speaking, red states take in more federal dollars. This is a race to the bottom.

Not true at all, k. California has among the worst roads and schools in the nation. Texas has among the best roads and schools.

I was just in Texas. Shitty roads, tons of dumb people.

[native]

Not true at all, k. California has among the worst roads and schools in the nation. Texas has among the best roads and schools.

I was just in Texas. Shitty roads, tons of dumb people.

Even the liberal "blogging blue" site rates Texas roads, at #29, higher than California roads, at #48.

http://bloggingblue.com/2010/04/27/wisc ... he-nation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

Statemaster.com ranks the states in dozens of statistical categories.

Here are some sample comparisons for Texas and California:

Total state tax burden:
California #9 at $2,391.65
Texas #50 at $1,368.45

% of 4th Graders above basic math level:
Texas is 6th at 87%
California is 46th at 71%

[kalm]

I was just in Texas. Shitty roads, tons of dumb people.

Even the liberal "blogging blue" site rates Texas roads, at #29, higher than California roads, at #48.

http://bloggingblue.com/2010/04/27/wisc ... he-nation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well fine then. But I'd still rather live in California.

[native]

Even the liberal "blogging blue" site rates Texas roads, at #29, higher than California roads, at #48.

http://bloggingblue.com/2010/04/27/wisc ... he-nation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well fine then. But I'd still rather live in California.

Washington comes out 13th on total tax burden per capita at $2,238.66. How are roads and school performance?

[kalm]

Well fine then. But I'd still rather live in California.

Washington comes out 13th on total tax burden per capita at $2,238.66. How are roads and school performance?

I'm not sure, but our gravel roads are well oiled and EWU is widely considered the Harvard of the Palouse.

[BDKJMU]

Big spending states have better schools, roads, a higher standard of living while historically speaking, red states take in more federal dollars. This is a race to the bottom.

If that was true you wouldn't have the following:

"Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them

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

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.

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.

And, as ATR notes, “in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.”

Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending. Nothing sends a message like voting with your feet."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... z1BDl4nOEk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[native]

Big spending states have better schools, roads, a higher standard of living while historically speaking, red states take in more federal dollars. This is a race to the bottom.

If that was true you wouldn't have the following:

"Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them

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

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.

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.

And, as ATR notes, “in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.”

Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending. Nothing sends a message like voting with your feet."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... z1BDl4nOEk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The states are the laboratories of democracy in America. To the extent that our Republican form of government survives, the competition of ideas and solutions among the states - and the freedom of Americans to choose - will be the salvation of our nation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 99928.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bronco]

This new governor seems to have good ideas....
Cut out paying for illegals would be a good start...very smart Latino
--

New Mexico’s governor plans to revoke licenses issued to illegal aliens
Sonoran Times ^ | Jan 12, 2011 | BY LINDA BENTLEY

SANTA FE, N.M. – New Mexico’s newly elected Gov. Susana Martinez has come out swinging with a budget proposal that would cut spending and close the budget deficit without raising taxes or making cuts to classroom spending or health care for New Mexico’s most vulnerable.

Martinez also stated one of her first priorities is to revoke driver licenses issued to illegal aliens, pointing out since Arizona passed SB 1070, illegal aliens have been pouring in to New Mexico, which does not require proof of citizenship to obtain licenses.

(Excerpt) Read more at sonorannews.com ...

[native]

This new governor seems to have good ideas....
Cut out paying for illegals would be a good start...very smart Latino
--

New Mexico’s governor plans to revoke licenses issued to illegal aliens
Sonoran Times ^ | Jan 12, 2011 | BY LINDA BENTLEY

SANTA FE, N.M. – New Mexico’s newly elected Gov. Susana Martinez has come out swinging with a budget proposal that would cut spending and close the budget deficit without raising taxes or making cuts to classroom spending or health care for New Mexico’s most vulnerable.

Martinez also stated one of her first priorities is to revoke driver licenses issued to illegal aliens, pointing out since Arizona passed SB 1070, illegal aliens have been pouring in to New Mexico, which does not require proof of citizenship to obtain licenses.

(Excerpt) Read more at sonorannews.com ...

You mean that New Mexico's FEMALE HISPANIC REPUBLICAN governor is going to revoke the driver's licenses of illegal aliens? I guess that means she will lose the Hispanic vote... no, wait...

[AZGrizFan]

I prefer a 77% CUT in spending---ACROSS THE BOARD, coupled with a 9% increase in taxes. That should fix the deficit in short order.

[AZGrizFan]

This new governor seems to have good ideas....
Cut out paying for illegals would be a good start...very smart Latino
--

New Mexico’s governor plans to revoke licenses issued to illegal aliens
Sonoran Times ^ | Jan 12, 2011 | BY LINDA BENTLEY

SANTA FE, N.M. – New Mexico’s newly elected Gov. Susana Martinez has come out swinging with a budget proposal that would cut spending and close the budget deficit without raising taxes or making cuts to classroom spending or health care for New Mexico’s most vulnerable.

Martinez also stated one of her first priorities is to revoke driver licenses issued to illegal aliens, pointing out since Arizona passed SB 1070, illegal aliens have been pouring in to New Mexico, which does not require proof of citizenship to obtain licenses.

(Excerpt) Read more at sonorannews.com ...

[Ivytalk]

Washington comes out 13th on total tax burden per capita at $2,238.66. How are roads and school performance?

I'm not sure, but our gravel roads are well oiled and EWU is widely considered the Harvard of the Palouse.

And Harvard is widely considered the EWU on the Charles!

[kalm]

If that was true you wouldn't have the following:

"Low-tax states will gain seats, high-tax states will lose them

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

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.

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.

And, as ATR notes, “in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.”

Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending. Nothing sends a message like voting with your feet."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/bel ... z1BDl4nOEk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The states are the laboratories of democracy in America. To the extent that our Republican form of government survives, the competition of ideas and solutions among the states - and the freedom of Americans to choose - will be the salvation of our nation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 99928.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

True dat.

I'm glad folks are moving to conk states. Socialist Utopias like Washington state are easier to manage with fewer hippies in the commune.