The argument that people will vote themselves a slice of someone else's pie, no matter where they live, misses the point. The chief argument against federal entitlements and the taxes that go with them is that it interferes with state sovereignty, putting an undue burden on every state. So why is it the same states, yearin/year out that are struggling with high poverty levels and every other symptom of government disfunction or failed leadership, like high teen pregnancy/teen parents, low educational attainment, poor health (obesity and diabetes, etc.)?
Looking at the list of states with the highest entitlement recipients is like looking a map of the US, circa 1863: the old confederacy is well-represented, with the addition of New Mexico and Idaho. If you live in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, or Idaho, why are your state governments so pathetic at doing what governments are supposed to be doing — making things better for the people who live there?
If these states are so well-endowed with traditional values like a good work ethic and integrity, who do these continue to circle the drain? If those states are so morally superior to the rest of the country, as we're often reminded, why do they tolerate so much suffering and waste of human life? We're often treated to lectures about how morally superior those states are.
If you live in one of those states and voted for the policies that make your state a net loser, you really don't have any standing here. You're part of the problem. You've supported policies that either create or perpetuate a permanent underclass, by underfunding education or job training or any benefit program that allows people to make more of their lives. And then you complain there are so many poor people voting for federal programs that will help them? Maybe if the states were doing a decent job of ensuring