News -> INDReporter WED, OCT 13 5:15PM by Walter Pierce

Louisiana among most ‘hypocritical’ states

Louisiana comes in second in The Daily Beast’s new list of the most hypocritical states. The rankings are based on two opposing criteria: federal expenditures per capita and identification with the tea party movement. The website references the U.S. Census Bureau to establish the amount of federal spending per resident and the polling firm Rasmussen Reports for the percentage of residents who say they identify with the tea party movement. 

According to the website’s data from the aforementioned sources, Louisiana, with a population of just under 4.5 million, receives $2,567 in federal funds per person ($11.5 billion total) and 31 percent of the Louisiana populace are sympathetic to the tea party movement. Underscoring Louisiana’s second-place rank: Over the last two years the state Legislature has used $3 billion in American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds — otherwise known as President Barack Obama’s stimulus — to balance the state budget.

Only 43 states are ranked; the site was unable to find sufficient data on seven states to include them in the rankings. Not surprisingly, in the context of the list, red states rate more hypocritical than blue states, based on the 2008 Electoral College map. In fact, with the exception of New Mexico, which went for Obama in ’08, every state in the top 10 voted for Republican John McCain. In descending order, the top 10 are Wyoming, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, South Dakota, North Dakota and Utah.

See The Daily Beast’s complete ranking of the most hypocritical states here.


Walter Pierce
About the author:


Comments (16)add
...
written by RCajunrunner , October 14, 2010 - 01:18 am
If our state was receiving a fair share of the offshore royalties for the oil & gas we supply for the country off our coast, we certainly would not need that high number of federal funds.

Our Louisiana delegation needs to buck up and start demanding that at a minimum, the revenues provided from Landrieu's bill in 2006 start coming into effect NOW rather than 2016. That along should amount to an extra 1-2 Billion per year for our state.
...
written by Hypotenuse Jones , October 14, 2010 - 01:24 am
Maybe the Tea Party types (31%) see the damage done to that part of the state population on the take, i.e. Federal dollars, better than in the Blue states. Whatever the reason, it is Ricky Hardy's fault.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 14, 2010 - 01:24 am
LOL! The Independent, and Lafayette City/Parish government, is awash in this exact same kind of hypocrisy!
...
written by Walter Pierce , October 14, 2010 - 01:48 am
I'm not sure I get that, ragin. Please expound.
...
written by The Original Northsidian , October 14, 2010 - 10:05 am
I have been saying that for years. And that was without a study!! We don't want the GUM'T in our business but, we sure as hell want the MONEY!! How can anyone even have half-ass respect for a politician!!!!
...
written by NORTHSIDIAN SHOTGUN , October 14, 2010 - 01:20 pm
Ga Walter don't be so thin-skin, tis easier to get a rise out of you than a yiddish Cheesecake, everyone knows you are a neutralist, and you don't make waves, me i'm elated to know you are in with the elite's, you double OO.
...
written by Walter Pierce , October 14, 2010 - 02:33 pm
What on earth are you talking about, Mr. Shotgun?
...
written by Holeinthedonut8 , October 14, 2010 - 04:40 pm
If it wasn't for Fedflex this wouldn't happen
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 14, 2010 - 05:12 pm
Walter --

Our mayor and councilmen have all openly talked about the "madness in washington", and I'm sure at least 31% of Lafayette voters would identify as "Tea Party" and also describe federal spending as "madness". But, many council meetings and Lafayette Live episodes center around how Lafayette will get/use federal dollars for local projects. I guess it's not madness when it rains money on Lafayette--that's hypocrisy, isn't it?

I have also read posts from commenters who believe that federal spending is bad, but local spending is good. That's hypocritical, as well.

I think that the philosophically consistent position on all this is that all government spending at all levels needs to be drastically reduced for many reasons, and that the amount of services government provides also needs to be drastically reduced at all levels. You, on the other hand, deny that philosophical consistency is even desirable and you argue for higer local spending even in tough economic times.

So there it is, similar hypocrisy in and around Lafayette and the Independent to that of the state as a whole.

I guess one man's hypocrisy is another man's pragmatism. One man's consistency is another man's nihilism. Hopefully, hearing it from the Daily Beast will change some minds. :)


...
written by Walter Pierce , October 14, 2010 - 05:46 pm
Um, OK, ragin_cajun. But I'm not a tea party sympathizer.
...
written by RCajunrunner , October 14, 2010 - 07:00 pm
Yeah, at least Walter and the IND are consistant with their advocacy for big government spending and programs. You got to give that to them, Ragin_cajun.

However, I do believe Louisiana is in a position now where, for what we provide for the rest of the country in means of petro-chemical/hydro-carbon energy and products, we deserve either sufficient federal funds to help protect our coast from storms and erosion and/or, we should receive an extra $2 Billion in offshore royalty sharing.

The dead zone in the Gulf that is killing our seafood and marine life...not the fault of "Big Oil", but rather, is the result of states above us dumping all their farm chemical run-off into the Mississippi River.

It is time that our delegation grow some actual courage and start demanding that Landrieu's legislation from '06 go into effect NOW, and...work towards that share being increased even more for future years.
...
written by Walter Pierce , October 14, 2010 - 07:20 pm
Be careful, RCajunrunner, you said "Landrieu" and "share" in the same breath. Ragin_cajun's going to be mad. Very mad.
...
written by RCajunrunner , October 14, 2010 - 08:54 pm
The Federal Government keeping so much of the revenues from oil & gas drilled off our coast, and in turn, our state having to beg for peanuts to help protect ourselves from hurricanes and erosion, should be used as Exhibit A for the need to de-centralize government as much as possible.

This country was in a hurt with gasoline prices sky rocketing right after Katrina and Rita. They blamed "Big Oil", when in fact, Louisiana, as well as the other Gulf of Mexico states who choose to participate, should have been able to keep a larger share of oil & gas royalties from production off their coasts. That would have provided our state with more money for protection and infrastructure.

All those Florida residents who don't want to allow any exploration less than 125 miles from their coast, despite the fact Cuba is exploring less than 90 from FL, why are they paying the same amount of gasoline as the producers? They CHOOSE not to help out with a national and economic security delima.
...
written by ragin_cajun , October 15, 2010 - 02:00 pm
Walter --

"But I'm not a tea party sympathizer" I know that, and I was very careful not to say that you were. I went back and looked, though not REAL thouroughly, and could not find a statement from you advocating lower federal spending, or expressing alarm at high spending levels in Washington. Not yet anyway :)

But the statements that I did attribute to you, the postions that I said you hold, are accurate. Are they not?


...
written by ragin_cajun , October 15, 2010 - 02:12 pm
runner --

"at least Walter and the IND are consistant with their advocacy for big government spending and programs. You got to give that to them"

Not so fast :) I'll have to go back and read through some past articles to be sure of the "editorial postion" of the Independent :) I have time, why not. But either way -- statist, or statist AND hypocritical -- both positions are impossible to defend :)


...
written by ragin_cajun , October 15, 2010 - 04:22 pm
runner --

You're right. "Walter and the IND are consistant with their advocacy for big government spending and programs" However, let's not forget that Walter values "pragmatism" over "consistent philosophy", so the editorial position could change at any time :)

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in using your Facebook account or register if you do not have an account yet.

busy 
LA LA Land
Advertisement
Most Read
Advertisement
Advertisement
in case you missed it