Let’s Give Mississippi - and Rural Virgina - Less Federal Money

Mississippi Republicans

I noted yesterday how compared to many other states, on a per capita receipt of federal funds, Mississippi is like a pig gobbling down food at a trough.  One Mississippi politician even remarked that without the large volume of federal that it receives, Mississippi would be a "third world nation."  I'd argue that with or without federal funds, much of the Mississippi electorate acts as ignorant as voters in a third world country.  In the wake of Tuesday GOP primary election, perhaps the solution is to give Mississippi Republicans what they want: less government spending by slashing the funds sent to Mississippi.  The same approach should be applied to rural areas of Virginia controlled by GOP elected representatives to Congress and the Virginia General Assembly.  These regions receive far more state and federal funds than they pay out.  Give them what they want and see how long they want to have to be self-sufficient.  A column in the New York Times looks at giving the Tea Party lunatics what they want by first slashing the government spending that they receive.  Here are column highlights:

Good news, Mississippi! This is your week. On Tuesday, the state had the most dramatic election of this primary season, and we are all looking your way. Actually, we are fascinated to know exactly what you had in mind.

Voters dealt a stunning rebuke to their courtly Republican senator, Thad Cochran, who is famous for his ability to direct federal cash in Mississippi’s direction. Cochran, who’s been in office since 1978, failed to win the necessary 50 percent of the ballots cast. Now he’s headed for a messy runoff with a fiery state legislator who opened his campaign by announcing: “For too long we’ve been addicted to federal monies.”

 Perhaps you did not expect a state that gets $3 back from Washington for every $1 it sends to be so bitter about federal spending.

“Sadly, Thad Cochran voted for billions in wasteful spending — like the Bridge to Nowhere,” said the anno uncer in a McDaniel campaign ad, as a grainy black-and-white picture of Mississippi’s senior senator flashed over a map of Alaska.

“Some cuts to spending have to take place, and Mississippi is a good place to lead that charge because we are still the most conservative state in the Republic,” McDaniel told Breitbart News. Notice that he did not say that Mississippi was a good place to lead the charge because federal spending accounts for 46 percent of all the state’s revenue: defense contracts, Social Security, farm aid, highway building, you name it.

McDaniel has been pretty darned vague. . . . .  

It may be up to us to suggest ways the state might want to trim back. What about the cotton farmers? “Their subsidies are even more generous than the usually ridiculous subsidies,” said Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group. From 1995 to 2012, he noted, the state’s cotton farmers got $4.6 billion from Washington. The top 1 percent of the subsidy recipients got an average of $4.8 million while the bottom 80 percent got $20,372.

Great way to begin! Obviously this is the sort of thing a waste-hater would be adamant about.

“The Cochran campaign never effectively responded with an argument of: Look what I’ve done for the state,” said John Bruce, the chairman of the political science department at the University of Mississippi. “Their strategy was to ignore.”

One thing the Mississippi Republican establishment and the Tea Party seem to agree on is that you’re not supposed to remind people that their state is way more dependent on Washington than the average food stamp recipient.

Again, if rural and southern Republicans want spending cuts, let's start by ending the lopsided amounts of government spending they receive.  I suspect if this happened, the Tea Party would disintegrate were quickly.   They need to be careful what they ask for.