Tea Party...Be Careful For What You Wish

I was driving this past weekend in the Sierra Foothills of California. It was a great and scenic drive. Since it was a rural trip, the roads between the small towns I passed were recently paved and sealed and the bridges over the creeks and rivers were recently redone and widened. In the small towns that I stopped in the police were driving modern patrol vehicles that looked to have the latest in technology. As I passed through the rolling hills I spotted a recently built firehouse with up to date fire trucks and equipment in the garage which read "Volunteer Fire Department."

I also passed something that I have not seen much of in the suburbs. A sign on the side of the road that read "Tea Party Meeting," giving a time, date and location. The Tea Party whose slogan is "we're mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore." The Tea Party who is for smaller government and less taxes.

It got me thinking. If you really want to draw out this theory of smaller government and less taxes, we should start with the rural areas of which there are many. There are even many rural states. The greater populous is situated in larger cities. It is somewhat ironic that some of the more rural states receive more than their fair share of tax dollars. What, "fair share?" That's right. If we have smaller government and less taxes that means less money to go around. So it would seem that the states which contribute less to the Federal government should receive fewer federal dollars if there is less to go around. These states happen to be some of the more rural: North Dakota, South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alaska and others all receive more than $1.50 for every $1.00 that they pay in Federal taxes. Take that Sarah Palin. Your state takes from the Federal government $1.82 for every dollar it pays to Uncle Sam. There is one state, North Dakota that receives more than $2.00 for every dollar paid to the Federal government.

There are over 30 states that received more money than they paid to The US Government in the most recent collection of data. In an ironic twist many of these states voted for a presidential candidate in 2008 that would cut federal spending and taxes.

Taxes were never a pay to play proposition...until now. Our tax dollars were distributed somewhat evenly. What this is is a re-distribution of wealth. Money comes from the wealthy states (i.e. California, New York, Minnesota, etc.) and lands in some of the rural states (Montana, Mississippi, Utah, etc.). Well, what the Tea Party stands for is lower taxes, smaller government and the ability to keep their hard earned cash.

So under this new reality it would make sense that money that comes to the Federal government should stay in the states from where it has come or have it distributed more equitably. Or at very least those that rely on a more than 1:1 ratio of our tax dollars would no longer receive more than they pay in. If we are taking this argument to its full extension, should not cities and counties that collect and pay to the state the most sales tax and property tax also receive the better services while rural cities and counties who contribute less, receive less as a result? It would appear so based on this new reality of non re-distributed wealth.

Throughout this country, whether you are in Hawaii, California, Alaska or New York there are certain standards that remain constant. You can drink the water in any of these states; it is safe. No matter if you are in the big cities or the most rural of counties you have access to safe electricity, water and other public utilities. Wherever you are, there is modern plumbing or standard inspected septic. If you go to a high school in Alabama and get good grades and high scores on your SATs you are eligible for the same schooling that someone in Connecticut or New York qualifies for. That is because our education standards are roughly the same. Every state in the country has a robust interstate highway system, safe roads and streets and our public safety services remain constant. It does not matter if you are in a "poor" state, county or city. This is the result of our system of taxes (and spending). It has been the method by which wealth and a standard of living in the form of taxes have been re-distributed. Who maintains this semblance of order between urban and rural? Our government.

So if you are member of the Tea Party and you live in the city, you will continue to be pretty comfortable. If your Tea Party brethren live in the country then, you might want to reconsider your position because you are about to lose some pretty significant tax dollars and services.

Back to the drive this past weekend. Under this new political reality that is the Tea Party, that wide, two lane rural road that I was driving on would be a thing of dreams because with little tax money to spend on roads less traveled, within a couple of years it will be a poorly maintained little better than dirt road. The bridges I were driving across, would more have resembled a path across a river or creek. That remodeled new fire station with new equipment would have been an old house with at best recycled equipment that was no longer fit for the big city from where it came. No new fire house, no jobs to build it. That would include the patrol cars too, also recycled second hand no longer able to be used in the larger metropolitan areas from the big city. So while the department may have been volunteer, the equipment was well worn, even unreliable with no real money to maintain and repair facilities or equipment. These are just some of the more visible services you will lose. Good luck getting a building or business permit or finding a courtroom in a timely manner.

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, think about a couple of places where this circumstance might exist. The biggest democracy in the world, India. It is a country of contrasts; a very wealthy and a very poor class. It is a place where those with money live in gated communities and are comfortable with modern amenities. In stark contrast many more live in slums the size of big cities with little to eat, no running water and open sewers. Think about Mexico, where pictures from Mexico City show a populated metropolitan city and in contrast where rural towns are comprised of adobe shacks, sporadic electricity and dirt roads that run for miles until they meet up with what we would consider to be a highway in disrepair. Is this the type of society we want to be a part of?

It could never happen in America? Think again and think hard. Because, that, Tea Party is what you are advocating for. There is only so much money to go around and if you have your way there will be even less. So the next step is for those who pay the greatest taxes in the most populated areas receive theirs first. They have the votes after all. Who does that leave out in the cold? Be careful for what you wish.