Even if that's true (which I'm not sure about), would economic gains from high-speed rail between New York and DC accrue to a taxpayer in Kansas? Or would a taxpayer in Kansas be bankrolling increased prosperity in a far-off part of the country that's already well off?
There is a website somewhere that says how much benefit each state gets from the federal government versus how much their people put in. Half the states lose money. And half gain. And all those gaining states have low density. While all the losing states are in the North East.
>much benefit each state gets from the federal government versus how much their people put in
No, that's not what it shows. It talks about the balance of tax revenue vs subsidies for each state. That distinction is critical and can completely change the balance of which state is receiving more 'benefit'.
If this confuses you, consider the following scenario. State A is filled with farmers subsidized to grow food so everyone in State B has a stable an cheap food supply. From a purely monetary accounting perspective A looks like a leech, but in reality it's a major part of the success of B (and the rest of the states it trades cheap food with) and separating them is a pointless exercise designed to score political points.
This applies to any states receiving subsidies to support the rest of the states (e.g. ones with military bases, government research labs, etc).
All of the states that look like they are self-sustaining mega economies would fall apart without the neighboring states that they suck cheap power, land use, etc off of. Don't perpetuate the myth that some states are just carrying the rest of them, it's just designed to divide people.
You’re saying just getting rid of the farm bill, with all its subsidies for agriculture, would hurt urban areas by destroying production? That seems like a real stretch of economic theory, to me. Subsidizing the low-margin producers in certain states and putting up agricultural tariffs like we do is really not benefitting rich urban areas.
Consumers in NYC don’t sit around saying, “thank goodness I have this expensive cane sugar and cheap high fructose corn syrup because of the exorbitant tariffs on Brazilian sugar and subsidized crop insurance for corn production!”
New Yorkers also don’t get much direct benefit from Conservation Reserve, where farmers are paid to do restoration work on marginal farmland rather than sending the topsoil down the river.
Finally, SNAP, which makes up 75% of the cost of the farm bill, last time I checked, is a conditional transfer directly to consumers, so SNAP tax expenditures to agricultural states are feeding poor people in those states, not subsidizing urban consumers in other states. That seems like a fine way to do the accounting to me.
I support the conservation bits of the farm bill, and SNAP and Medicaid (which dominate interstate transfer payments), but not because they benefit rich urban states directly; I don’t think they do at all. I just think top soil conservation and providing food and health care to the poor are moral mandates, and I’m philosophically in favor of transfer payments from the rich to the poor.
You're thesis seems to be predicated on the notion that everyone in rich states is rich. I suggest you find some retail workers in a rich area and ask if doubling the cost of their food and energy would have an impact on them.
That doesn't seem to have much to do with rail improvements? Will a better service from Boston to NYC make the federal government so much more efficient that people in Kansas will be able to tell?
Besides, the map to which you refer is the best possible result of voter preferences. Those who prefer lower spending are bribed into a compromise by those who prefer higher spending. If we didn't see the results you note, that would indicate a failure of democracy.
> would economic gains from high-speed rail between New York and DC accrue to a taxpayer in Kansas?
Yes, because that economic gain would translate into more taxes, which would be applied across the rest of the country, funding, for example, infrastructure in Kansas.
Of course, that's assuming a reasonable government...
