Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The difference between being a governor and being a congressperson in 1 graph

Kombiz Lasvany sends along this graph showing the difference between serving in Washington and having to balance a state budget:

tumblr_l6yd9pIuy61qbvyfno1_500.jpg
Photo credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images.

By Ezra Klein  |  August 10, 2010; 5:25 PM ET
Categories:  Charts and Graphs  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House passes state aid bill -- but is it enough?
Next: Reconciliation

Comments

The difference between having other people's money and wanting other people's money, in one easy graph.

Note to Ezra: Begging Washington for largess is the opposite of balancing a state budget.

Posted by: tomtildrum | August 10, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Damn "Tax and Spend Republicans". Luckily, no one living in 'Republican' states make the connection between their congresscritters and their, well, states.

Posted by: Jaycal | August 10, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

That's funny tomtildrum, I always thought the federal goverment collected taxes from people and businesses living in various states. Now I know they get it from a whole different imaginary country where 'they' live and the states should only expect money from 'us'.

Now, about those Republican earmarks...

Posted by: Jaycal | August 10, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

That's funny.

What's the common factor between the two groups? They're both doing what they think is best to get elected. On that chart, it kind of puts them at odds with each other.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 10, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"That's funny tomtildrum, I always thought the federal goverment collected taxes from people and businesses living in various states. Now I know they get it from a whole different imaginary country where 'they' live and the states should only expect money from 'us'."

I guess you haven't been paying attention as of late. Obama's federal government is getting money from china and the printing press. Not imaginary, but not 'us'.

Posted by: krazen1211 | August 10, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

"I guess you haven't been paying attention as of late. Obama's federal government is getting money from china and the printing press. Not imaginary, but not 'us'."

Yeah you are right - that is definitely an Obama administration original...

Its not like a responsible Republican administration would give Tax cuts during a time of war, pass huge unfunded Medicare expansions and explode the national debt without even the rationale of counter-cyclical stimulatory spending?

We cannot afford the Bush tax cuts - if it proves politically possible to allow them to lapse (nearer to a more reasonable Clinton levels) then this country will be in a hugely better fiscal condition.

Posted by: lazza11 | August 10, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Ezra Klein just made the GOoPers' heads explode.

Posted by: mojo975 | August 10, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

@kw:What's the common factor between the two groups? They're both doing what they think is best to get elected. On that chart, it kind of puts them at odds with each other.

What's funny is that they campaign together and the media never asks about this total contradiction in policy goals. Maybe more sad than funny.

BTW: From Greg's blog... Did you see my references for the popularity of Japanese internment? I found them again just for you... As to your question on polls, do you seriously believe that slavery and jim crow were not supported by large majorities in the anti and post bellum south?

Posted by: srw3 | August 10, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

"Its not like a responsible Republican administration would give Tax cuts during a time of war, pass huge unfunded Medicare expansions and explode the national debt without even the rationale of counter-cyclical stimulatory spending?"

Actually, Lazza, Medicare/caid was passed in the 1960s. Together, Medicare B and caid outweigh the cost of any tax cuts.

Posted by: krazen1211 | August 10, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't know whether you were paying attention when this happened, krazen1211, but the deliberately unfunded Medicare expansion pushed by Bush and the Republicans was Medicare Part D. Look it up.

Posted by: dfhoughton | August 10, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Ah! But the symmetry and elegance of the statement is so obvious. Republican Governors must balance their state's budgets, and they seek to do it without passing tax increases. The Republican Congress seeks to avoid passing tax increases, and therefore must go tell their Republican Governors to sit on it and rotate.

Each seeks to apply good republican economics to the problem at hand and therefore together they look like Laural and Hardy moving a Piano.

"Another fine mess you got me in."

Posted by: ceflynline | August 10, 2010 9:48 PM | Report abuse

So, given this graph, can our Republican/Conservative/Tea Party posters tell us what their true position is?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | August 11, 2010 7:58 AM | Report abuse

I've got a winning issue for the next Presidential Election! A promise for a unique income tax reform.


A transfer of income tax from federal level to state level.

A Republican President can work with state Governors to lower everyone's income by 5%...but more significantly, the income tax revenue stream will be lowered on your federal 1040 and increased on the state 1040 by 25%!

Thus every citizen will see a 5% reduction on their tax payout, but more importantly every citizen will see a dramatc improvment on the services that those taxes render because it will be delivered to them by their state directly, without those darn folks in Washington DC messing with it!!!

What do you think Ezra?

Just what the doctor ordered!!!

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | August 11, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

What about a world where the federal government simply decided to take less overall from its citizen's in every state allowing for states to raise their taxes locally in order to address their shortfalls?

State Aid is a BONDAGE racket----the federal government uses state aid as a means for imposing all sorts of control over how the state does its business.

States are independent totaltarian dictatorships that need federal government intervention in order to keep them moving in the right direction.

To the contrary, state governments are run with a greater and more intimate interraction from their citizens. Our society runs far more smoothly when populations solve their problems modularly at the local level with less one-size-fits-all regulation imposed from Ivory Towers in Washington DC!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | August 11, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

This is a no brainer. The Republican governors vote for it to get re-elected. They lnow that the Republican Senators will do the responsible thing and vote against it. In the end, ALL governors have to grow a pair and pull a Chris Christie of NJ ... and balance their own budgets. Of course it would help if the 'federal gubmnt' wasn't heaping tons of new spending requirements upon them.

Posted by: IQ168 | August 11, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Sorry....miscommunication:

States are NOT independent totaltarian dictatorships that need federal government intervention in order to keep them moving in the right direction.

Posted by: FastEddieO007 | August 11, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

One of the governors listed in the link here is Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. However, today's WSJ states that he opposes the legislation that was just passed due to the conditions that are attached.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704164904575421613093659730.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Posted by: jnc4p | August 11, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company