Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Friday, September 5, 2014

Forbes Magazine: The Most Corrupt States in the U.S.

Interesting list of the most corrupt states in the U.S. from Forbes:

"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 

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.”

This post by a fellow blogger fits in appropiately with the above report.

And this recent column by Leonard Pitts, Jr.: 

 Why do red states lag economically?: Leonard Pitts Jr.


Paula said...

"The GOP-controlled states that have expanded Medicaid, or are considering Medicaid expansion, are pretty white relative to GOP-controlled states where expansion is out of the question. Deep Southern states, where poverty is most concentrated and black population rates approach 30 percent, aren’t calling up the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington to negotiate a conservative Medicaid expansion compromise. To the contrary, that’s probably where resistance to the expansion runs strongest."

Isn't it the Tea Partiers who tell us Liberals that we're keeping African-Americans "slaves" to the Democratic Party so that Dems can give them "free stuff?"

How do conservatives explain the deliberate witholding of Medicaid to the poorest in red states? Can they tell us how they're helping African-Americans by keeping them sick and poor, because that's exactly what THEY'RE doing while they blame the Democrats for it.

Tea Party people wonder why African-Americans vote for Democrats. The A.A.s who live in the south look at how blue states take care of their sick and poor, and know which party gives a damn. It ain't the GOP.

Les Carpenter said...

Well by gum, more statistics in the great war to defeat the evil red.

I'm impressed.

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN, this isn't a war, and it isn't about "defeating" anyone. That's your interpretation, which isn't necessarily everyone's.

These are the facts. I publish them from time to time as a rebuttal to the incessant bleating from the right braying "liberalism is a disease."

If Liberalism is so bad, why do traditionally liberal states do better in quality of life issues than do conservative states?

Instead of labeling this as some sort of bashing, would the you and the rest of us want to know why conservative states under conservative policies do poorly in those areas?

George C.T., exactly. The stubborn state goverments who refuse to help their own citizens by expanding Medicaid are doing so out of spite. However, I have read that some southern states are reluctantly going to accept it because there is so much suffering, economic and physical, as a result of their spiteful anti-Obamacare stand.

Jerry Critter said...

I prefer accurate statistics to the lies that the Right used to defeat the evil Left. But then, the Left has truth on its side.

Les Carpenter said...

I do not believe I used the words "bashing" or "liberalism is a disease."

I did say I was impressed as your command of statistical reporting is admirable.

It is better statements are supported by statistics derived from cold hard data rather than fluff and stuff.

Data supporting one's views is wonderful and the desire to publish on ones blog is understandable. Hell I do it as well. All bloggers do.

I stand by my point relative to the motivating factors.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Rational Nation USA said...
I do not believe I used the words "bashing" or "liberalism is a disease."

I know YOU didn't use those words, and I didn't say you did. I was talking about SOME conservative blogs, not yours.

Shaw Kenawe said...


"Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Anonymous said...

RIP Joan Rivers. Heaven just got alot more funny

Anonymous said...

It's not "gutsy" to call the president gay and the first lady a transvestite behind their backs and not to their faces. That what Rivers did. She and other think that's "gutsy." In fact it's a cowardly way of insulting the POTUS an FLOTUS. A really gutsy person would have the courage to say it to their faces. What Rivers did was definitely not "gutsy." It was plain, ordinary bad taste.

Les Carpenter said...

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"

Really? Many would argue otherwise. They would have a strong case as well given world history.

Neither liberal or conservative is bad or good per se. It rests with the adherents and advocates of both to make it either bad or good.

Both have generally failed miserably when they move to the extremes.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Reality has a well known liberal bias."

That's a quote by Stephen Colbert, and it's humorous and at the same time true.

Les Carpenter said...

As I said, a matter of opinion.

Hunorous perhaps.

Lisa said...

And who's in prison? Nagin and 4 out of Chicago's last 7 governors.
Looks like the study ommitted that Chicago breeds corrupt politicians

Shaw Kenawe said...

The study involves STATES, not individual cities.

Plus it looks like Virginia's last GOP governor is on his way to jail. Remember him? The guy who was being considered as a running mate for Romney in the last election.

Your examples don't change the fact that 8 out of 10 of the most corrupt STATES are run by GOP governors or legislatures.

Les Carpenter said...

It is common knowledge that Chicago is and always has been a hot bed of corrupt politics and cronyism Lisa. Detroit is another example of corruption in the extreme.

Isolated situations are always present and worth noting.

Shaw is drawing attention to a much broader connection with corruption and the republican party. She draws from a legitimate "study" and reports on it. A burning desire to discredit republicans in general and the republican party specifically is the underlying motivation.

Politics is far from an honorable career path in general. Whether republican or democrat. Of course there are rare exceptions and a few honest politicians from both parties survive.

Lisa said...

The most corrupt is DC

Shaw Kenawe said...

RN: "A burning desire to discredit republicans in general and the republican party specifically is the underlying motivation."

Seriously? You now have access to what motivates me as well as reading my mind? Actually my motivation is to point out to conservatives that their economic and social issue policies are NOT exactly beneficial to their constituents. All I hear from the right is that government is the problem, it sucks, and that they want to "take back America!"

I point out that their way of governing doesn't exactly deliver such a great quality of life for their constituents and study after study after study confirms this. The red states consistently score very poorly in economics, health, education, and other social issues. With the GOP in charge in those states, it makes one pause and think when one listens to their leading politicians tell us how horrible liberalism is.

Meanwhile, Massachusetts, for a liberal example, scores among the highest and even the highest in quality of life in education, health care coverage, economics and other social issues.

Facts show that government CAN be the problem when it's a government that keeps telling its constituents to hate anything to do with government. The poor showing from the red states prove this.

Lisa, if Washington DC is so corrupt, why are you and other conservative so hot to promote your conservative candidates? Do you believe your candidates are immune to corruption?

PS Richard M. Nixon: Only president in history forced to resign because of corruption. His V.P. Agnew only vice president in the history of the U.S. forced to resign because of corruption. You can look them up.

It happens in the best of political parties.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Also this:

If the Red States are so right, why do they lag so far behind?

Jerry Critter said...

Whatever Shaw's motivation, it does not change the facts of her information. Questioning her motivation only makes it appear that you cannot dispute the facts.

Les Carpenter said...

Of course and as expected.