Metro Atlanta problems underfunded
For decades, it has been fashionable for members of the Georgia Legislature to come to Atlanta from other parts of the state and complain about the big-spending, government-dependent big city, especially compared to the self-reliance of the good, hard-working folks back home.
It was effective political theater, and still is. But the truth is a little more complicated.
In reality, metro Atlanta has long subsidized the rest of Georgia, paying a lot more in state taxes than it receives in state benefits. A newly released study by Georgia State University’s Fiscal Research Center documents just how extensive that subsidy has become.
In 2004, each man, woman and child in the 10-county metro area funneled an average of $490 to Georgians who live outside the metro area. Put another way, metro Atlanta receives 72.5 cents in state benefits for every dollar it pays in state taxes.
“We find that the Atlanta metropolitan area generates more revenue than it receives in expenditures,” writes Peter Bluestone, the author of the GSU report. “The policy question is: Is the magnitude of the net flows appropriate? …. That is not an issue we address in this report.”
Bluestone’s deference is appropriate. Such policy questions are addressed by the Legislature and governor. And at the Legislature these days you hear a lot of ideological posturing about the evils of using taxes to transfer wealth from economic producers to non-producers.
Yet as Bluestone’s analysis documents, that’s exactly what state government already does. It transfers a significant amount of wealth from more affluent areas of Georgia to less affluent areas, a transfer that is perfectly natural and appropriate.
But how much is too much? At some point, a failure to invest state revenue in metro Atlanta’s social and physical infrastructure can begin to dull the region’s competitive edge, hurting not just the metro area but its ability to finance state efforts in the rest of Georgia as well.
For example, business, civic and governmental leaders in Atlanta have long sought state financial aid for Grady Memorial Hospital, the backbone of the state’s trauma-care system and its largest provider of health care for those unable to pay for it. The response from state leaders has been largely negative, accompanied by suggestions that maybe Grady ought to learn to live within its means and quit begging for handouts.
There’s no question that Grady needed to reform its operations, and it is doing so. But numbers compiled by GSU suggest that legislative disdain for Grady’s request is more than a little misplaced. In 2004, the state spent $2 billion on health care. Metro Atlanta —- which contributed 51 percent of that amount —- got just 28 percent of that amount in return. In effect, we subsidized health care for our fellow Georgians by $460 million that year.
Those numbers are not offered as an argument for reducing health care support. Much of that money was for worthy programs such as PeachCare for children, and such expenditures ought to be continued. But it does suggest that metro Atlanta deserves a more respectful hearing when it asks for state help.
A similar story plays out in education. The metro area generated more than $3 billion of the almost $6 billion spent by the state for k-12 education in 2004, but in return it received barely $2 billion in state money. In effect, it subsidized public education in the rest of Georgia by roughly $1 billion.
The issue is even more stark with transportation. Metro Atlantans do 38 percent of the driving in Georgia and generate 37 percent of the motor fuel taxes that are reserved for transportation. However, we do all that driving on just 17 percent of the state’s paved roadways. And what do you get when you cram 38 percent of the driving on just 17 percent of the roads?
Bad traffic jams.
It’s not likely to get better either. With right of way so expensive and road building in dense areas so politically difficult, state transportation officials have already warned that major new highway construction in metro Atlanta is unlikely. The GSU numbers back that up. Researchers studied state transportation projects over a three-year period and found that the 10-county metro region “received 28.6 percent … of the three-year total of project values.”
Given the scale of our transportation challenges, that level of funding is well short of sufficient.
That kind of urban/nonurban funding differential is common in other states, but it is usually offset by state support for other modes of transportation, such as commuter rail and transit. Not in Georgia. MARTA, for example, is the only major rail-transit system in the country that receives no operating assistance from state government, and commuter rail in the region remains an unfunded dream.
And unfortunately, opposition to state funding of MARTA and transit in general remains pretty strong in the General Assembly. As legislators outside the urban area sometimes put it, taxpayers back home in Dublin or Hahira or Toccoa shouldn’t be asked to finance MARTA or commuter rail for Atlanta.
That makes a certain amount of sense, at least until you see the data documenting the fact that the subsidy works in the other direction. The real question ought to be, “Why should metro Atlanta taxpayers who are stuck in daily traffic be forced to subsidize construction of lightly used highways in rural areas?”
Under those circumstances, it’s no surprise that metro Atlanta leaders support the idea of a one-penny regional transportation sales tax, with the revenue collected from metro Atlanta and controlled by metro Atlanta. An alternative transportation funding mechanism, approved recently in the House of Representatives, calls for a statewide sales tax, which would mean that the metro region would once again be required to pay much more than it receives.
Again, it is natural and appropriate that metro Atlanta contributes more to Georgia’s needs than less prosperous areas. But it is also natural and appropriate that its contributions be treated with some respect, and that its own critical needs in areas such as transportation be addressed instead of perpetually ignored.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
91 comments Add your comment
Redneck Convert
March 15th, 2009
9:16 am
Well, Bookman’s got it wrong. Us people that don’t want to tax ourselfs more deserve the tax money that the rich libruls in the Atlanta area make. It’s not our fault they are better schooled and make alot more money than we do. Me, I think we need to go back to the old county unit system to make sure the Atlanta libruls don’t start taking more of their money back and cause us to tax ourselfs more to pay for the things we want.
We need the good roads and the schools and other stuff that makes our life good out here in the country. But we sure don’t want to have to pay for all of it. So it’s OK to put our hand in some rich Atlanta librul’s pocket and let them pick up some of the tab. Far as we’re concerned, this is the only case where Socialism’s good. We can take from the rich people in Atlanta that pay alot of taxes and keep more of what we make ourselfs. That way we can keep guvmint small. But Socialism don’t work in any other case.
So I say if you’ve got them down then stomp them some more. I love to read about how people in the Atlanta area vote to tax theirselfs more to get what they want. That just means I get more of what I want too without having to pay for it. The state will see to it Atlanta libruls don’t get to keep all the tax money they pay. That means my taxes stay low and they pay three times as much. Serves them right.
Have a good day everybody.
I Report/ You Whine
March 15th, 2009
9:24 am
There are roughly 5.5 million people in the Atlanta metro area, more than there are in the remainder of Georgia, who’s total population is close to 10 million.
In other words, less people spread farther apart.
Atlanta metro has roughly a ten percent service area by size, the rest of Georgia being about a 90% bigger land mass.
Which means Georgia, not counting metro Atlanta has more roads, more bridges, more sewers, more parks, more schools, more federal courts, etc, etc.
What, pray tell, are you talking about, Bookman?
There’s no question that Grady needed to reform its operations, and it is doing so. But numbers compiled by GSU suggest that legislative disdain for Grady’s request is more than a little misplaced. In 2004, the state spent $2 billion on health care. Metro Atlanta —- which contributed 51 percent of that amount —- got just 28 percent of that amount in return. In effect, we subsidized health care for our fellow Georgians by $460 million that year.
Oh yeah, more money for the libs favorite pet projects.
It figures.
I Report/ You Whine
March 15th, 2009
9:27 am
I got an idea, let’s figure up the tax contribution of the Grady patient base and see how much of the “fair share” that they are paying.
Okay?
gttim
March 15th, 2009
9:57 am
This has been going on for ever. Red states complain about taxes, yet take more money than they put into the federal government, while blue states have to support them? Sure they complain about liberal California and New York, but they love to take their money. Alaska is by far one of the worst, not to mention how they socialize oil tax revenue.
Rural Georgia does the same. Atlanta is the economic engine of Georgia, period. Without it, we are just another Alabama.
Granted Greater Atlanta does need to subsidize rural Georgia’s schools, roads and healthcare, but should not be forced to do so by neglecting theirs. I wonder if we could get Republicans to push for a budget amendment that specifies that 100% of state taxes collected in a county must be spent in that county. That would be the fair, personal responsibility, pull yourself up by your own boot straps way to do things. How about it?
BDAtlanta
March 15th, 2009
10:06 am
Good op/ed piece.
Thanks Jay.
Curious Observer
March 15th, 2009
10:14 am
“Granted Greater Atlanta does need to subsidize rural Georgia’s schools, roads and healthcare . . .”
So I should continue paying $2,200 a year in property taxes on my small, three-bedroom home plus extra local option sales taxes so that somebody in Podunk, GA can continue to pay less than a third of that amount by virtue of using part of my taxes to pay for schools, roads, etc.? The premise is flawed–seriously flawed.
Bud Wiser
March 15th, 2009
10:45 am
Grady overspends because the welfare masses use it for free, therefore, their ‘health care’ is 100% fully funded. So how much more than 100% is required to be enough? Does this mean that the rest of us, through insurance, taxes, etc., need to pay more for our ‘fair share’?
And lets talk about schools – Clayton County, for instance. Part of the Metro school system, it has lost its accreditation through mismanagement, sloppy bookkeeping, insufficient care about how the system should work, no discipline, security, add what you like, then pick one, pick them all. Do we continue to pour good money after bad into a black hole that sucks money in, and cannot give the community ONE SINGLE THING in return? How do you pull up or help a community that screams for reform, but is unwilling to do what is necessary to achieve it? All they want (one guess only) is more of our money.
As far as taxes, then figure an average millage rate for every square inch of the state, rural and urban alike, and impose the one flat tax rate on it all. Of course, it would be a rate that would be sufficient to fund current operations ONLY, and EVERYONE would pay. Period.
I am reminded of former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill, who was chairman of ways and means in the US Congress years back. A visionary of sorts, he had funded a study by several cooperative academic and economic specialists to decide what, if a FLAT TAX on all Americans were proposed, to replace the IRS and the current taxation system, just what rate would be required?
Well, the experts, with some internal dissension, decided that a rate of somewhere between 7 and 9% would be required to fund all government operations; this of course being predicated on ALL Americans paying their share equally.
Being the good Democrat that he was, Danny-boy took it to committee and proposed to up the rate to 24%, just to cover “contingency spending’. (sounds a bit like the ’stimulus’, doesn’t it?) It died in committee, and Danny later left the House in disgrace when his political career was shattered (in 1994) when he was indicted on corruption charges for his key role in the House post office scandal.
At least is is thought he paid his taxes on time, unlike the goon parade Obama is filtering through Capital Hill these days.
I Report/ You Whine
March 15th, 2009
10:56 am
“We had, in fact, tried to deal with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac some years before, with major reforms that were blocked by Democrats on the Hill – [House Financial Services Chairman] Barney Frank and [Senate Banking Chairman] Chris Dodd. So I think the notion that you can just sort of throw it off on the prior administration – that’s interesting rhetoric, but I don’t think anybody really cares a lot about that. What they care about is what’s going to work, and how we’re going to get out of these difficulties.”-Dick Cheney, Politico
Aahhh, isn’t it refreshing to hear the adults speak, after all of the goony and childish nonsense that we’ve been bombarded with?
AmVet
March 15th, 2009
11:02 am
CO, its called income redistribution “fiscally conservative” style.
A sort of demented, modern day anti-Robin Hood, where the number of ever-dwindling red-state loons keep falling further and further and further behind the rest of the country in education/intellect, in productivity, in useful ideas (much less a vision for the future – unless it looks damn similar to the McCarthyesque 1950s) and especially in social, economic and political relevance.
“…but I don’t think anybody really cares a lot about that…”
WOO HOO!
Quoting the single biggest LIAR to ever befoul the office of Vice President?
Maybe that major league arsehole should run in 2012! He’s bound to get the red state voters!
BDAtlanta
March 15th, 2009
11:06 am
They’re at it again. Catholics vs Protestants.
At least when our market and economy go to crap we don’t react like the folks in Ireland.
Light
March 15th, 2009
12:31 pm
My gosh Jay, you’ve just described the direction of our current administation and its move to widespread redistribution of wealth, i.e., punish success and reward failure….
For exammple, just a couple of cut and paste from your posting —
In reality, metro Atlanta has long subsidized the rest of Georgia, paying a lot more in state taxes than it receives in state benefits.
Yet as Bluestone’s analysis documents, that’s exactly what state government already does. It transfers a significant amount of wealth from more affluent areas of Georgia to less affluent areas, a transfer that is perfectly natural and appropriate.
But how much is too much?
Dusty
March 15th, 2009
12:32 pm
Well, Wooten has already discussed Bluestone’s research at GSU. I guess Bookman had to put in his two cents worth. Atlanta is getting 72% of state tax money but it wants more.
I think that 72% is fair considering the way Atlanta city government works. After getting rid of criminal mayors they get a decent major but the finance department is crooked. Airport concessions are in questionable hands. Sewers and water systems always seem to be in disrepair. Potholes still abound. Police and firemen are disgruntled and staying home anytime they feel like it. Police are being sent to jail while criminals roam some neighborhoods. Certain parts of town are like a war zone (the former Simpson Street). A cancer specialist is murdered in her downtown condo. MARTA finances are bungled.
As to Grady Hospital, it DOES serve emergencies from many places. The burn unit and ER are considered as top notch. Grady does serve people who cannot take care of themselves. Even in the worst of times, we do not leave people dying and injured on the streets. I don’t mind giving extra to Grady.
When Atlanta shows that it is running its services with some degree of efficiency, then perhaps more tax money will go to the city. A well run city will raise more taxes. Most smaller towns in Georgia (but not all) seem to have less problems. The people that travel on the highways through these towns are often from other parts of the state. But smaller towns are managing on 28% inflow of tax money.
So what is fair? Small town citizens pay taxes. It does seem that those who manage well should have productive equality in receiving tax funds. Sounds like a fair direction to me. Why throw away our tax money to mismanagement?
Reality
March 15th, 2009
12:38 pm
Light above is right on target — any yet another amazing comparison to our (responsible taxpayers) current plight follows —-
Again, it is natural and appropriate that metro Atlanta contributes more to Georgia’s needs than less prosperous areas. But it is also natural and appropriate that its contributions be treated with some respect, and that its own critical needs in areas such as transportation be addressed instead of perpetually ignored.
Joe Matarotz
March 15th, 2009
12:41 pm
Hey, Jay,
AIG is going to apy out MILLIONS more in bonuses. How about getting on that story, newsboy?
Curious Observer
March 15th, 2009
12:46 pm
So Dusty once again obfuscates. The Atlanta area doesn’t get 72% of all Georgia revenue. It gets to keep 72% of the taxes it pays, while the other 28% goes to subsidize other parts of Georgia.
Try again, Dusty. But don’t put too much strain on that brain of yours. You might then turn out to be a liberal, and we don’t want people in our ranks who need course work in basic reading comprehension.
JB
March 15th, 2009
1:01 pm
Typical AJC thought process. Wealth redistribution is a positive thing for the AJC when it meets their liberal agenda, but the AJC sees it as a flawed ideology when it is not used for their agenda. Jay, thank you for making the arguement against wealth redistribution, just be consistent in how your apply your principals.
Taxpayer
March 15th, 2009
1:08 pm
How could anyone be surprised with this outcome, Jay. It’s well known that the major cities in Georgia are dominated by Democrats and the rural areas are primarily Republican. Further, Republicans do not like to pay taxes — it is one of their core philosophies. Therefore, the Democrats have to help pick up the tab for all the tax-free benefits that the Republicans think that they’re entitled to. By the way, I heard that Georgia businesses owe something like 400 million in back state taxes. Perhaps the Republican dominated state government should consider calling on these businesses to pay up and help out the state during these trying times. They could offer a free can of peanut butter to each business that catches up with its back taxes. That should incentivize them.
RW-(the original)
March 15th, 2009
1:09 pm
Is it really fair to say the costs of highways outside metro Atlanta are for the benefit of those outside the metro area and not for those in the metro area?
I would say no. I bet there are a whole lot more people from the metro area making more frequent trips outside the area than those outside making the trips in.
If you based your cost allocation by usage you could probably make the exact opposite case Jay B is trying to make.
Pink Salmon
March 15th, 2009
1:12 pm
reform?
heck yes, make the rednecks pay for it.
Taxpayer
March 15th, 2009
1:16 pm
The truth is out there. And, Glenn Beck is on to us. In a recent spot on FOX and friends, Beck claimed that he had conducted “research on” the so called concentration camps being built by the Obama WH as part of a conspiracy to establish totalitarian rule in America and the he could not “debunk them.” According to Beck, “If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out. There is something happening in our country and it ain’t good.” We must call on our alien brethren to subject Glenn to the mind eraser again now that he has stumbled onto our master plan.
Pink Salmon
March 15th, 2009
1:17 pm
Atlanta is thus another poster child of american liberalism.
take any city say…philadelphia, dc, detriot, sicago, miami, san francisco etc, etc.
blue prints for how NOT to run a government…
Jay
March 15th, 2009
1:18 pm
The study suggest that is incorrect, RW. The study says the metro Atlantans spend roughly the same amount outside the metro region as non-metro residents spend here. It also says that we do 37 percent of the driving but are 43 percent of the population, suggesting our usage is slightly less per capita.
That makes sense given our shorter distances and at least some transit.
Taxpayer
March 15th, 2009
1:19 pm
And, I would bet that most people that travel into Atlanta on a daily basis eventually turn around and depart and vice versa. It’s as though there were a pattern. Hmmmm. What could it be.
RW-(the original)
March 15th, 2009
1:28 pm
Taxpayer,
I think you’re confusing “City of Atlanta” and “metro area.”
Jay B,
Do you happen to have a handy link to the study?
mm
March 15th, 2009
1:45 pm
The wingnuts are going batsh*t crazy. The crazier they get, the more they lie. Concentration camps? Chuck Norris for Texas president? Each and every lie is another lost seat in congress. But nevermind that. The base just eats it up.
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 15th, 2009
1:45 pm
This discussion has been going on for decades and probably will go on for decades more. They were having this same argument for decades when the State government was nearly 100% Democrats, so it isn’t a party thing. I believe that as many things as possible should be paid for locally. We obviously can’t have a major trauma hospital in every county so some state funds should be involved in paying for that. In the county I live in over 30% of the land is part of the National Forest and belongs to the Federal Gov’t. (Much of that land was sold to the Gov’t for a dollar an acre by the way). The National Forest is a good thing but this decreases our tax base. We have fewer services because of this. For instance if I call 911, my first responders have to drive ten miles to get to me.
There have been some local projects here that were paid for with State grants that shouldn’t have been built. If they don’t benefit us enough to pay for them why should someone in another part of the state pay for them?
Rural people and metro people live in different worlds really and we need to find the best way we can to balance the needs of both.
One thought on roads and transportation which would apply to both rural and metro areas, wouldn’t it be nice if big developers had paid some of the price for upgrading roads, etc since they played a large part in creating the problem and profited most from it?
The Corporal
March 15th, 2009
1:49 pm
Jay – kind of like North Fulton does for the rest of Fulton county?
Go Milton County !!
Dusty
March 15th, 2009
1:50 pm
Dear Curious Observer, 12:46
Aren’t you a real sweetheart as usual? Do you and Taxpayer compete for the title of most obnoxious?
You ARE correct. The quote from Bookman is “Metro Atlanta receives 72.5 cents in state benefits for every dollar it pays in state taxes.” Therefore Atlanta is getting cheated of almost 28 cents of each dollar, just to support the rest of the state. Yet, the rest of the state is paying taxes just like Atlanta. Oh well…I would think that most capitol cities help support the rest of the state with tax money.
That does not change the fact that Atlanta mismanages the city business AND if that management were better there would be more money from taxes to give to whomever. The biggest industry I have heard coming to Atlanta is the drug industry i.e. drug cartels. I doubt that such as that will help the finances of Atlanta.
Brad Steal
March 15th, 2009
1:51 pm
Problem with Atlanta #1. It’s surrounded by Georgia.
AmVet
March 15th, 2009
1:52 pm
“…land was sold to the Gov’t for a dollar an acre by the way…”
Hillbilly Deluxe, I don not understand this statement.
Isn’t it the other way around?
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 15th, 2009
2:00 pm
To AmVet @1:52
No. The land was privately owned and sold to the Federal Gov’t in the early 20th century to create the National Forest. The Land had been distributed by lottery in the early 1800’s by the State Gov’t after it was taken from the Cherokees (who took it previously from the Creeks). Each adult in the State got one draw and Revolutionary Vets or their heirs got 2 draws. Not everyone who drew was awarded a lot though.
And to your Traveling Music comment the other day, yes I agree the first two Skynyrd albums were excellent. I would put the Marshall Tucker Band in the same league as the Allman Brothers and Skynyrd.
Dave R
March 15th, 2009
2:03 pm
Taxpayer, as usual you are wrong. Saying that metro Atlanta is populated by Democrat reps is a no-brainer (which is, I’m sure, why you said it), but the formula for income redistribution across rural Georgia comes straight from former and current Democrat reps. BEFORE this state turned mostly Republican. Those formulas are still in place, and certainly won’t get changed any time soon. Simply take a look at how federal road funds are distributed “evenly” across the 13 Congressional districts. If memory serves me right, 80% of all federal road funds are evenly distributed, with the remaining 20% going to trouble spots. Not the best way to address traffic issues in metro Atlanta.
And Jay – you complaining about income redistribution?
What’s next? Dogs and cats sleeping together?
Dave R
March 15th, 2009
2:08 pm
Oh, and Taxpayer?
North Fulton is carrying the rest of Fulton County. North Fulton has the Republican base. Cobb County is mostly Republican. Forsyth the same. Gwinnett, too.
Its the Republicans that are picking up the tab for the rural counties and the city of Atlanta.
Taxpayer
March 15th, 2009
2:17 pm
You kids are so easy. But, that’s what I like about you.
Bumpkin from Lumpkin
March 15th, 2009
2:21 pm
We’re not going to solve anything, EVER, until you “blue state/red state”, “liberal/conservative”, “Democrat/Republican” ideological idiots shut the hell up. When will you all realize it’s YOU and your ignorant ideologies that’s causing the problem our country is currently having? “Educated” idiots and religious zealots, oh what a great place this would be without them both.
Dusty
March 15th, 2009
2:25 pm
With some respect to Mr. Bluestone, statistcs are sadistic! They can prove almost anything you want to prove, so ’tis said. It saves people from thinking real hard about a problem.
Atlanta cannot do without the state of Georgia. The rest of Georgia cannot exist without a capital city. The only fair way to distribute tax money would be to have a reverse Fair Tax or Fair Re-imbursement. Take ten percent to maintain the capitol building and pay the governor. The rest would be divided and each Georgia citizen would receive a check.
Don’t laugh. Palin is returning state excess funds to each and every Alaskan citizen. But then she is a practical Republican who knows how to run a government, state or city, without running it into the ground. That is an “art” that liberals never learn, how to manage with what you have.
Mr. Snarky
March 15th, 2009
2:25 pm
Yeah, like Georgia doesn’t have enough counties.
Fulton County bailed out Milton County back in the 30’s. Now that people who live in the former Milton county have some money they want to take their ball and go home. Mostly they just don’t like the idea that their money might be going to support “those people”.
If Milton does go its own way, given long term trend in oil prices, it wouldn’t suprise me if 50 years from now its not such a desirable place to live and needs another bailout. But then why would anyone from Milton engage in long term thinking when their money might be going to “those people”?
AmVet
March 15th, 2009
2:34 pm
HB, thanks.
That little old band form Spartanburg is one great act. I saw them recently here in Atlanta. That was at least the third time for me since I first saw them at the Georgia Jam in 1974. It’s not the same without the Caldwell brothers, of course, but they can still tear it up…
RW-(the original)
March 15th, 2009
2:37 pm
Funny how I can have a study’s suggestions thrown in my face in nine minutes, but a request to see the study goes without a mention or a link for over an hour.
Here’s another dubious finding in what we can see of the study. From what Jay B has shared we see a dollar breakdown from 2004 and a metro area defined as ten counties. The US census bureau says metro Atlanta has 28 counties and while I think that’s stretching it the metro area is certainly more than ten counties. It’s also easy to see that there would have been disparate spending numbers in those counties just outside of “metro 10″ in the years right around the time of this study.
Oh well, as Dusty put it best, statistics can tell you whatever you want them to.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 15th, 2009
2:48 pm
“Fulton County bailed out Milton County back in the 30’s. Now that people who live in the former Milton county have some money they want to take their ball and go home.”
eh, peas in a pod. Consider who’s cheerleading for Milton County–a guy who sucked at the government teat for income and retirement, who now gets online every day and tells us gawdless liberals to stop taxin’ and spendin’.
But maybe I’m just in a surly mood because active.com and the ajc have screwed the pooch on Peachtree–they got overloaded this morning, I couldn’t get back online until this afternoon only to learn that they’re full up. Way to go, guys!
fearless fosdick
March 15th, 2009
2:50 pm
Dusty…Alaska has NO state sales tax, nor state income tax. In Other words there are NO tax payers in Alaska.
What Ms Palin is doing is taking the money that Alaska collects from
oil companies and then what is not earmarked to fund the state is redistributed. Hardly the same thing as we have here in the lower 48.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
RW-(the original)
March 15th, 2009
3:00 pm
DB,
Just pick up the Saturday version of next Sunday’s paper and be the first one on your block to mail in the form.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There’s hoops to be watched and brackets to be pondered.
Later y’all !
Dusty
March 15th, 2009
3:28 pm
fearless fosdick,
You can call it Christmas in Alaska as far as I am concerned. GOVERNOR Palin is giving money to the citizens of Alaska instead of spending it on other projects. She is letting the citizens decide how to spend money belonging to them. That is a concept liberals cannot understand.
catlady
March 15th, 2009
3:45 pm
I agree about the unwillingness of many rural counties to tax themselves for education. I don’t think any county taxing 15 mils should get money from counties taxing 20 mils. That isn’t right! (I live in one of those 15 mil counties)
However, on some of the other “inequities”, rural Georgia, I would guess, has far more poor people than metro Atlanta. Therefore, that more would flow to those counties on some items would not be unsupportable. Wealth, disproportionately, is concentrated in the Atlanta region. Folks in my area who are “rich” would not qualify as rich in Cobb County, for example. The metro wealth skews the numbers.
catlady
March 15th, 2009
3:47 pm
Dusty, make Sarah Palin governor of Alabama, and see how much she “returns” to the taxpayers.
G
March 15th, 2009
3:48 pm
I’m sure you all remember that Palin was able to give every man, woman and child in Alaska an additional $1,200 last year because the oil companies were ripping us off to the tune of billions a year. That was in addition to the $2,100 they were already getting. This money the people of Alaska get every year is paid for by the rest of the states buying Alaskan oil.
Now, if Palin truly was a “fiscal conservative”, she would have used that extra oil tax revenue to pay for the things she is asking us to pay for through earmarks.
In addition, Alaska is already a welfare state. They take $1.84 for every $1.00 they put into the federal government.
Remember, this is a state that gives every man, woman and child a huge check every year just for being a citizen of Alaska.
You betcha!
Dusty
March 15th, 2009
3:51 pm
Dear RW,
Have you seen any reports on the T-shirt designs for the Peachtree? Every year I send in a MOST beautiful art piece (ha!) and for some unknown reason I never hear from the judges. What fuddy duddies! What do they know? This year, my peach looked a little bit like a pugnacious pumpkin. That shouldn’t matter, should it? Viva la difference!
The Corporal
March 15th, 2009
3:56 pm
Mr. Snarky:
Nice try to make it a racial issue. It has nothing to do with “those people”. It’s just a continuation of Jay’s example regarding the state as a whole. I live in John’s Creek. Even though we’re not “Milton County” yet I have seen more local improvements by the city in 2 years than I have from Fulton County in 20 !!!
Taxpayer
March 15th, 2009
3:57 pm
OK, I went here and plucked out the Presidential election results for the 28-county metro Atlanta area and the results are 52% for Obama and 48% for McCain. Hence, the metro Atlanta area had a voting majority that was Democrat in the 2008 Presidential election.
Amelie
March 15th, 2009
4:05 pm
What were Ms. Palin’s requests, more helicopters, more hunting rifles, abstinence seminars or
McLostmyway for 2012?