Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Generally speaking, states in relatively good economic shape are concentrated in an economic “zone of sanity” across the vast Great Plains. They are also in the least “fiscal peril,” according to a recent Pew study. Not surprisingly, these states see little reason to extend federal power and increase taxation in order to bail out their more profligate counterparts.
As opposed to, say, some other places:
In contrast those states most favorable to a more powerful Washington are often the ones suffering the worst fiscal situations. They also seem least willing to solve their structural budget issues. Free-spending, poorly managed states like New York, California, Michigan, Oregon and Illinois–all of which are controlled by the president’s political allies, need massive federal largesse to pay their bills without ruinous tax increases or painful cuts. Some localities in these states could become the Greeks of late 2010 as they head inexorably toward defaults.
He points out that places like Kentucky and the Dakotas are experiencing a net gain in population. Are people voting with their feet? And who is better prepared for the future? Put it this way, in a knowledge economy, do you really have to be in a big city in a high-tax state? I’m pretty sure you can get a perfectly tasty cappuccino in Fargo. (James? Am I right?) And I know you can get a great one in Louisville.