Skip to main content

View Diary: Time for some Dem-friendly redistricting (268 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In a more responsible time . . . (4+ / 0-)

    The citizens and legislators of each state would look to examples of non-partian redistricting like Iowa has, and set forth some reasonably fair method of managing elections.

    That time was 100 years ago.

    The time we live in today is decided by who is the most audacious in grabbing power. The Rapeublicans gleefully acknowledge they are bringing guns and knives to the fight. We should immediately start carving up the Blue States to progressive advantage.

    We should also press for a Taxpayer Fairness Act which mandates that the Federal government spend money in the states in exact proportion to the amount the states contribute.

    For example, the State of Washington sends in $1.10 for every $1.00 we get back. I'd like to stop funding the corruption in the Red States which are overwhelmingly the recipients of charity from the Blue States.

    We Progressives, who seem to do pretty damn good job of running our Blue State economies like California, Washington, and New York, need to let Alabama, Mississippi, and Wyoming and the rest of the country know that we aren't going to continue subsidizing them. And we need to let them know that we are going to start bringing our own guns and knives to the fight.

    If they want to elect people like Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch, fine. But they need to know there is a price to be paid for their actions.

    •  Your post is elitist (0+ / 0-)

      I really don't like the tone you establish there.

    •  booo (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MNPundit

      i'm from washington as well but i think your idea is crazy.  if you push for that kind of crap (rich states shouldn't subsidize poor states), then you're falling right into the right's bullshit trap about the rich not helping out the poor.  they'll propose their own unfair law which would state that individuals must get back services from the federal government in exact proportion to the amount of taxes they pay in.  can you imagine?

    •  Not simply elitist ... (0+ / 0-)

      but not realistic as to requirements / definition / etc ...

      For example, a good share of the 'federal dollars' that are talked about refer to -- for example -- DOD.  The military has major concentrations around the nation, such as Hawaii & Virginia -- should those forces be moved out of there since those states get disproportionate funds?

      VA/MD have lots of federal dollars due to being next to the seat of government and having offices (like the Pentagon) in them.

      There is also the serious question of counting dollars -- and how one does so.  Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Maryland -- how should you count money going to LM, when they probably have people in at least 40 of the 50 states?  How about Boeing with its HQ in Chicago?

      And, if you do have a state that is doing well (perhaps MA), does that mean that it should not be helping citizens of another (poorer) state?  Where is any responsibility for 'other' in your discussion?

      Now, do we need to rein in horrible pork barreling like that in Alaska (bridge to nowhere, etc)?  Absolutely.  But not by trying to create a 1:1 rule ...

      19 June 06, Day 1746, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 11:27:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  CA is rich, yes, but not so well run (0+ / 0-)

      Saying CA has a strong economy because it is well run is kinda like saying Exxon had record profits because Lee Raymond is a great CEO. CA has so many resources it's almost impossible for the bozos running things to screw it up. But they sure are trying.

      The Government Performance Project only gave "A"s to 2 states, both red: Utah and Virginia. California tied with Alabama for the lowest score, a "C-".

      Besides, that's not a very progressive attitude - let the poor bastards rot. I agree that Republicans and Republican voters are quite hypocritical in railing against government spending while taking a disproportionate share. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many in red states who need the help. It just needs to be distributed wisely.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site