Monday, July 7, 2014
Why Are We Not Surprised?
Last week I put up a post on the poorest states in the country. Sadly, they're all southern states traditionally run by conservative Republican governors and/or state legislatures. Not one conservative came here to explain why that is. Instead one commenter pointed out that his relatives who live in North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico are all doing well. That, of course, doesn't change the fact that the south delivers poverty and misery for most of its citizens, and it's not a stretch to say that the policies set out by those states' political leaders contribute to the sad state of their affairs.
We all know that pockets of poverty exist in all fifty states, but that's not what the statistics about poor southern states are about. The studies show that a majority of the people in that region of the country are poor, are in need of access to health care (Medicaid expansion is being withheld by their governors); and they need an education that doesn't teach them nonscientific stories in their science classes.
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, one of the poorest and one of the highest in the misery index, has said he's fine with teaching a religious story as scientific fact. Keeping people ignorant keeps people in poverty. It is shameful that a governor, who should know better, would promote religion as scientific fact.
Another study by Fortune Magazine reports on the most corrupt states in the U.S. Eight out of the top ten are run by conservative governors and/or legislatures. The other two are Illinois and Pennsylvania. Corruption in government allows funds to be diverted from desperately needed services as well as repairs to infrastructure in crumbling cities and towns--funds that could contribute to employment, which would get people off of welfare and give them a chance to be independent.
Here's what Fortune Magazine reported:
The 10 most corrupt states in the U.S.
New research takes a look at decades of corruption convictions to find the crookedest states in the union.
When we think of government corruption (as one tends to do), our biased minds often gravitate to thoughts of military juntas and third world governments. But, of course, corruption is everywhere, in one form or another. And it’s costing U.S. citizens big time.
A new study from researchers at the University of Hong Kong and Indiana University estimates that corruption on the state level is costing Americans in the 10 most corrupt states an average of $1,308 per year, or 5.2% of those states’ average expenditures per year.
The researchers studied more than 25,000 convictions of public officials for violation of federal corruption laws between 1976 and 2008 as well as patterns in state spending to develop a corruption index that estimates the most and least corrupt states in the union. Based on this method, the the most corrupt states are:
1. Mississippi
2. Louisiana
3. Tennessee
4. Illinois
5. Pennsylvania
6. Alabama
7. Alaska
8. South Dakota
9. Kentucky
10. Florida
That these places landed on the list isn’t exactly surprising. Illinois, which has gain notoriety for its high-profile corruption cases in recent years, is paired with states like Mississippi and Louisiana, which are some of the least economically developed in the country.
The researchers also found that for 9 out of the 10 of the most corrupt states, overall state spending was higher than in less corrupt states (South Dakota was the only exception). Attacking corruption, the researchers argue, could be a good way to bring down state spending without hurting services that people need.
Researchers also found that spending in these states was different than their less corrupt counterparts. According to the report, “states with higher levels of corruption are likely to favor construction, salaries, borrowing, correction, and police protection at the expense of social sectors such as education, health and hospitals.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Not one conservative came here to explain why that is.
Duh, cuz you'd just delete their comments.
No, Thersites, I delete trolls, and that's what you are. Or have you conveniently forgotten your unrelenting spamming of my blog (I have all of your spam and insults saved) that led to my turning on comment moderation 2 years ago?
So now, like a good little conservative/libertarian troll you blame someone else for your boorish behavior?
Predictable.
For your enlightenment, which you so sorely lack, KP, Les of Rational Nation, Silverfiddle, Finntan, Always on Watch, skudrunner, Free Thinke, and other conservative/libertarians have been published here. They never spammed me nor do they insult me or my guests.
Go bother some other blogger. You and your pedantic piffle are not welcome here.
Ah, the American South, where even today half the whites privately wish slavery still existed like before, and most blacks can't rise above it.
On most indicators, all the worst states are in the South, yet the prevailing Conservative agenda foments from there.
Piyush Jindal in favor of creationism as biological science
makes me wonder if he is the sole
Rhodes Scholar to have that stance.
The south has many nice tourist spots and vacation getaways, Virginia is a particularly nice place to visit.
well, just to be fair, the sourth has given the nation good things,likem BBQ, Pecan Pie, grits....no forget the grits, Cajun cooking, cornbread and....well there must be some others.
Of course the south has many nice tourist spots and vacation getaways. I've visited and stayed in many of those states myself: Mississippi, Alabama, and Lousiana. I have a daughter who lives in Texas, a brother who lives in Tennessee, close friends in Kentucky, and I lived in Florida for several years.
That doesn't alter the fact that that region does poorly in delivering quality of life policies and services to a majority of citizens who live there.
The internet is really interesting. There is no lack of insults when it came to labeling Massachusetts as "Assachusetts" and "Taxachusetts," and maligning my particular liberal state, but say something critical about the south and everyone gets touchy.
And yet my liberal Massachusetts consistently comes out on top where quality of life policies and services matter. It is the best educated state, the state with the lowest out-of-wedlock births, the lowest number of divorces, the first state to recognize marriage equality, the state with the lowest number of uninsured citizens, among many other pluses. It also has its share of problems, and I recognize that.
The point of this post and a previous one from last week is this:
If conservative/libertarian policies are so good for the country, why, then, are the states that are run by conservative governors and/or legislatures consistently among the poorest, least educated, and lowest on the quality of life index?
And liberal states like Massachusetts do very well to fairly well on these indices.
Instead of offering possible reasons for this, you and Free Thinke avoided the discussion.
Another interesting fact is that the U.S. county that has the highest use of food stamps is both Republican and white.
West Virginia, which is among the poorest of the poor states has only 3-4% African-American population.
I mention this because someone used that to explain why the south does consistently poorly in these quality of life and services areas.
BB-Idaho, I believe Gov. Jindal spouts that nonsense because he needs to keep his base happy, when in fact what he's doing is keeping them ignorant.
Jindal converted to Catholicism, but even the popes understand that Evolution is real, and that Evolution is the accepted science that explains the origin of species.
His support of creationism and intelligent design as science has to be political, since a man with his educational background would never promote such nonsense--unless he were a complete cynic, which is probably what he is.
okjimm, the south is famous for its hospitality and great cuisine.
This post is up because I'm wondering why, in addition to all the positive things about that region, it struggles to give its populace a good standard of living. We're the richest country in the world, and yet a whole region has a problem with poverty and all that it brings in suffering and despair.
This is a political question:
Why, in a region that is mostly conservative with conservative governors and legislatures, have those conservative policies not pull their citizens out of poverty?
PS. I LOVE southern cuisine--not too much of it, though. It is very caloric, but damn good.
My my my, my comment about the south having nice vacations spots was because I could think of few other positives actually. okjimm added a few more though I see.
Oh well, if only...
oh, I absolutely get your point. I guess, and youse got it, the folks in some of those Southern spots are subject to fear proganda, and a cultural climate that does not appreciate rapid change. Sounds like Wiscconsin, right now. I believe there will be a shift back to sensible. The Tea PaRTY has gone too far, the NRA has gone too far, the Corporacy has gone too far.....too far right. A swing back to the middle is...still...a swing to the left. I have hope that some of the South has had enough,too.
Several years ago church groups in the deep south pushed legislation to modify the tax code in a few southern states and make it more progressive.
They were defeated and tax policy remains a burden to the poor.
The problem can certainly be ameliorated.
By tax policy being a burden to the poor you are referring to those who pay taxes which most poor people don't.
Does everyone in the NE hate the South and why? Is it because the poor in the south live better than in the north. Is it because the cost of living is so much lower in south. Is it because even the poor in the south believe in something called religion.
Anonymous @4:30: "By tax policy being a burden to the poor you are referring to those who pay taxes which most poor people don't."
Poor people pay taxes all the time. Gas tax, taxes on purchases goods and clothing, and if they're working poor, they pay S.S. and other taxes. So you're wrong.
Anonymous: "Does everyone in the NE hate the South and why?"
Anonymous, are you serious? How does pointing our a tragic situation in the south mean "everyone in the NE" hates the south? What sort of twisted logic is that?
Anonymous: "Is it because the poor in the south live better than in the north. Is it because the cost of living is so much lower in south. Is it because even the poor in the south believe in something called religion."
You've entirely missed the point of this post, and instead of engaging in a discussion, you set up strawman arguments and contributed nothing but your own total misunderstanding of the post.
If you had any sympathy for the people who actually live in the conditions pointed out in this post, you'd try to find out how to fix the problem and not bring up issues that have nothing to do with this post.
The facts are there. The south is a solid bloc of poverty and a great many of the people in our southern states suffer this poverty as a result of corruption.
I didn't do the research; I reported it.
You don't like the facts? Do something about it instead of complaining and blaming others for them.
Anonymous, unfortunately, Rush the Vulgar gasbag has trained many conservatives to think of only the income tax when the subject of taxation is raised.
For reference
"Mississippi families making $18,000 or less pay 12.1% of their income in state and local sales, property and income taxes, while those making more than $224,000 pay only 5.4%"
In other words, not even close to a flat tax.
And the proposal to resolve this issue was made by local southern churches.
Thersites... maybe you could explain why there are in fact conservatives commenting here, granted not the lunatic variety, and yet not one liberal voice is even welcome at some conservative blogs?
You seem to imply that is wrong for a blog owner to decide who gets to comment at his or her site...
Is that true?
So are you saying the poor should pay no taxes even local and sales tax?
Even the rev J Jackson is in the swing of things where he says the country needs to provide training and Jobs. That is quite a departure for him. It is much easier to blame others than do something.
If you need to place blame for the living conditions of the poor, including the poor in boston, blame The failed president currently in office. All he cares about is blaming everyone for his inabilities as he pushes his ideological agenda.
Why don't we open the borders so we can have more people who depend on the government for their daily existence. At least most illegals want to work.
Anonymous, we understand why you chose that I.D. Why would anyone want to use a real identity, even a blognym, and embarrass him/herself by writing the poppycock you left here?
Reporting actual facts is not blaming anyone. It is a fact that a majority of people in the south live in poverty, have poor educations, and poor health care choices.
It is also a fact that the south is solidly politically conservative and that the governors and/or legislatures are led by GOP politicians.
Next, you whine about President Obama, when, in fact, many of the south's problems can be solved by their governors and legislatures, just like liberal states solve their problems.
It was not George W. Bush, who in 2003 passed legislation in Massachusetts that recognized equality in marriage, for example. And our REPUBLICAN governor, Mitt Romney, was responsible for implementing Romneycare, the model for Obamacare, and as a result of that legislation (where the Democrats in our statehouse worked with Gov. Romney), Massachusetts has the LOWEST RATE of uninsured citizens in the country.
Texas, with their solid GOP leaders in its state has THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF UNINSURED in the country.
Now try to explain to all of us here why that is? And how that can be blamed on President Obama.
We can guess. Could it be that conservative policies keep the poorest of their poor in their states in poverty? Texas is a rich state. The governor, if he cared about people rather than GOP ideology, could lift so many of his citizens out of the horrible condition of being uninsured.
He doesn't. Why is that?
Yes, as I stated, Massachusetts can do better. But take a look at this map by the Census Bureau and see for yourself which states are the worst for keeping their populations in poverty.
Little Massachusetts (compared with Texas) does a far better job than huge, rich Texas.
Mr. Obama has nothing to do with the choices the GOP governors of the poor states make--the choices that keep those citizens in poverty and misery.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Apparently these facts make you uncomfortable, so in bitching about my post on the south's problem with poverty, you BLAME the President.
Irony truly is dead.
Keeping people ignorant because it keeps them in poverty is the point. Pay people at the bottom less (by getting them to vote for "right to work for less") and there is more money for those at the top.
D.S., all we have to do is look at the south to see how well that philosophy works for the GOP.
Post a Comment