re: Removing state and local tax deduction: A left jab at liberals?

quote:

---

i posted another one which clearly explained the methodology as not including military spending

---

"as a percentage of state general revenue"

Here are the federal spending numbers, by state, for FY 2010. I didn't spend time looking for a more recent comparison by dollar amount, but I doubt it has changed much. Are you going to pretend the $333B spent in California means they are less dependent on the federal government than Alabama, where only $56.5B was spent, because of "percentage of state general revenue?"



Image is from this article from California's Legislative Analyst's Office

If you actually do think Alabama is more dependent on the federal government than California, then the question has to be this: What would happen, in Alabama, if the federal government stopped funding Medicaid, and, as a result, stopped forcing the state to pay for Medicaid, which is the largest use of federal funds, after defense spending, in this state (Source: Alabama's 2015 CAFR)? Do you think we would keep Medicaid spending at the same level (or at all)? What about other government-mandated programs? If the federal government were to suddenly stop mandating and funding all federal programs administered by the states, do you truly believe Alabama would have a harder go of it than California? Or are you simply claiming Alabama should raise its tax rates simply to make your "dependency chart" look "better" for the state? All I see is a state, in California, that is over-taxing its citizens.

Are you smart enough to realize that most of that "dependency" is merely federal government-mandated programs administered by the states and funded by the federal government?