We're all familiar with the term Red States and Blue States. It's a term we'll repeatedly hear as we move through our upcoming national election in November. Here are a couple of interesting observations about that term you may not be aware of.

Do you know the origin of that term? It apparently became a popular description after usage in the political discussions of the 2000 national election by NBC's Tim Russert.

In the current issue of U.S. News & World Report they've published a list of the nineteen best hospitals in America. Four of the hospitals are in Red States and fifteen are in Blue States. I guess the Democrats care more about the health care of their neighbors, at least they're better at it than the Republicans.

Several years ago someone sent me two op-ed pieces that dealt with Red States and Blue States. They're written as humor, although the facts stated are accurate. Here's the first...

Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at the way you've treated California and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly:

You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Clintons and Kennedys. You get Mark Foley and Larry Craig. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms. Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro choice and anti-war and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home.

We wish you success in Iraq and hope that the WMDs turn up but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand we will have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90% of all cheese, 90% of the high tech industry, most of the US low sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States you will have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California.

Here's the second one...

Each year, the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group, crunches numbers from the Census Bureau to produce an intriguing figure: how much each state receives in federal spending for every dollar it pays in federal taxes.

For example, according to the most recent data, for every dollar the average North Dakotan paid in federal taxes, he received $2.07 in federal benefits. But while someone in Fargo was doubling his money, his counterpart in neighboring Minnesota was being shortchanged. For every dollar Minnesotans sent to Washington, only 77 cents in federal spending flowed back to the state.

Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50 states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax dollar they send to Washington. Thirty-three states are Takers; 16 are Givers. (One state, Indiana, has a perfect one-to-one ratio of taxes paid and spending received.

As seat of the federal government, the District of Columbia has no choice but to be a Taker, and is therefore not comparable to the 50 states in this regard.

The Democrats' electability predicament comes into focus when you compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states -- while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy, would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse.

George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states.

Consider:

78% of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states. 76% of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.

Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25. Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12.

Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party -- their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states, the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers, are left to carry the load.

Good one ..LOL

That's strange. Not one repub chiming in on this one. {sarcasm}

Wonder why?

Repubs are down right speechless over this topic.

We still have over 90% of the grain and corn. So don't come crying to us when your starving. On the note of seceding I think that Washington needs to be split up. You liberals can keep Olympia-Tacoma Seattle, and us conservatives get the Peninsula, Puyallup, and everything East of Bellvue. Since really the only reason that Washington is a blue state is because of the crazy liberals in Seattle. Also, Greco, we all know that those who mooch off the system are poor, urban liberals





And besides, this red state/blue state crap doesn't pan out. Because (and yes I know that this is a cliche) there is no red state or blue state just purple states.

__________________