So, the city so nice they named it twice is apparently net positive in payments to DC. Seems like it is one of our most profitable investments of federal funds. At least NY carries it's own weight, as well as a herd of other states.
Now, seeing as they had a gigantic terrorist attack, and are suffering from various financial problems due to down economies and a little lack of foresight, how about we see about maybe sparing $1B this year to get them by.
Our federal budget is $2000+B. NY always helps out everyone else with their financial problems. What would be a good reason for not doing this?
For that matter, how about all those states that are net positive getting a little something extra back to help them along, so they might be in better shape after these hard times? Since these states with more productive urban areas are the ones that cover the annual shortfalls of the usual suspect states sucking at the front teat of the fedral return of payments to states, doesn't it make sense to insure that the productive states be able to recover as quickly as possible?
BTW, I live in rural IL, which, like most midwestern states, is net positive in contribution to the federal till. In fact, IL is the third largest contributor in net dollars to the federal till, paying enough additional money each year than it receives back to pay for 80% of the trough slop inhaled by the states between IL's southern tip, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Think I'll contact my representative and see if they can see there way to earmark 5% of IL's net extra payment to New York City. An extra $2B to help keep the subways running so people can continue going to work and paying for NM, MT, MS, SC, and 29 other states.
P.S. Anyone ever hear if NY got that $20B they were promised after 9/11? Or was that just a lot of talk.
Posted by dglynn at March 9, 2003 03:03 AM