West Virginia is so fucked (Update)

[SirNitram]

Shep, while I know you will come back to this thread for the express purpose of trolling, next time, read the challenge you respond to before you knee-jerk out responses. Really.

I did. And I named specific members of Congress, who accomplished far more than Byrd ever did, and with much more honor to their state. Oh, wait, that's trolling now.

Nope. Reading 'Who accomplished so much for their state' and then citing two for their service to the country is showing illiteracy, though. The giant text laughter and fallacies you used for the rest are trolling, though.

Move along.

[Gil Hamilton]

Funny, Shep. You criticize Byrd for his former membership in the Klan (rightly), but counter with other who were actively segregationists, like Carl Vinson and John Stennis?

[Stark]

Look, Gil, they're obviously great men; warships are named after them.

[LadyTevar]

Look, Gil, they're obviously great men; warships are named after them.

Indeed, they have WarShips named for them. No wonder Shep knows them well enough to mention them.

Sen. Byrd, on the other hand, simply has highways, bridges, schools, airports, and other infrastructure that he's helped fund to improve the standards of living within WV. No comparison at all to WarShips...

[Steve]

I think the base of the issue is the question of a Senator's (or Federal-level legislator) primary responsibility. While they're always going to be looking out for issues of import to their states/districts because that's part of their jobs, what is more important? The country as a whole or the state? If it was against the interests of America as a whole to spend money to finance projects in, say, Florida, which are in the interest of that particular state, should Senators Nelson and Martinez vote for their state's interest (or use their votes on other issues to get others to vote for Florida's interest) or for the interest of the whole country?

That's why I think you'll find so many non-Mountaineers are critical of Byrd. You consider him a staunch defender of your state's interests. Others see him as an old man who uses his seniority, influence, and control of committees to advance the interests of your state alone even if it's not in the interests of the rest of us. To put it as others may, "Byrd's spending our tax dollars to buy things just for West Virginia so fuck him". (Not that WV is the only state getting pork, mind you...)

Of course, one looks at the OP of this thread and other remarks and ponders if maybe Byrd's long life is the result of universal karma acting on behalf of West Virginia for how bad she and her people are suffering to give America coal for our power plants.

[MKSheppard]

Sen. Byrd, on the other hand, simply has highways, bridges, schools, airports, and other infrastructure that he's helped fund to improve the standards of living within WV. No comparison at all to WarShips...

Except that you know, Carl Vinson was responsible for the following bills:

PL 135: Vinson-Trammell Act (27 March 1934)
PL 528 Second Vinson Act (17 May 1938)
PL 629 Third Vinson Act (14 June 1940)
PL 757 The Two Ocean Navy Act (19 July 1940)

Which laid the foundations for our victory in World War II and the Post War Navy.

What's even more impressive is that Vinson's home state of Georgia until recently, was not home to any real major naval bases; or naval shipyards; virtually all of the direct money for building the great two-ocean navy he wanted was spent in northeastern states and Virginia (home of Newport News).

[SirNitram]

I can't see, Steve, how it can be in doubt. The original Senate was comprised for the express purpose of 'giving small states a say', hence it's outrageously undemocratic structure. It's change to a publically-elected group reinforced this, as they were elected from halves of states. And all modern convention shows they consider, universally, their own state first(See Kansas Senators blocking ten appointees to get a promise that Leavenworth, which holds terrorists, will not be used for holding Gitmo detainees.). This points to a continuous time as being a for-your-state-first club.

[Steve]

I'm not saying it's not, I'm pondering if it should be.

[SirNitram]

I'm not saying it's not, I'm pondering if it should be.

That's a reasonable question. Alot of things should be changed about the Senate, IMHO. 'Holds' and it's thoroughly undemocratic layout are the big things. It does not make any logical sense for Alaska to hold as much sway on things as California.

[Steve]

If you take away the federal nature of the Senate you just make it a smaller House of Representatives and further diminish, and thus alienate, the lesser-populated states.

This might not have been so much a problem way back when but now when you have a more expansive federal government, you're basically creating a system where Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, etc. have little to no influence in how the federal legislature makes decisions and the entire country is dominated by California, New York, Texas, and Florida, with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, and Michigan as maintaining some influence.

Well, okay, maybe Florida's not such a big deal since we know most people in Florida are from out of state anyway.....

[Duckie]

This might not have been so much a problem way back when but now when you have a more expansive federal government, you're basically creating a system where Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, etc. have little to no influence in how the federal legislature makes decisions and the entire country is dominated by California, New York, Texas, and Florida, with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, and Michigan as maintaining some influence.

I'm curious- why do you feel, besides that the Founding Fathers thought it necessary, that this is a bad thing?

[Mr Bean]

I'm curious- why do you feel, besides that the Founding Fathers thought it necessary, that this is a bad thing?

Those states would with that power get first dibs on every single military contract, public works project and grant that comes down the pipe. As it stands Ohio is just as likely to get some new Federal building as Montana is thanks to the Seniority system in the Senate, despite it having 1/10 the people. With only a few states with large control you get... well West Virgina

Except everywhere not a major population center.
And because those major population centers have the most people they would get the most representation and once again they would get more benfits, more contracts, and would in turn attract more people.

Which would again increase their representation. Just look at New York(The state) and how New York(The city) turns what would be a some-what conservative state into a Liberal stronghold and if New York(the city) slid into the ocean, then New York(The state) would be about level with Indiana in terms of political worth.

[Gil Hamilton]

To play Devil's Advocate:

And if New York City slide into the ocean, New York States economy would slide in along with it. More than half of New York states economy is made up by New York City proper, not even counting the Greater New York Area. Is vastly more economically powerful than Buffalo, Albany, and the rest of the state combined... so given that, why shouldn't it get the most representation when it pulls the most weight?

Same with the rest of the country. Ohio has ten times the population of Montana and I'm willing to bet its more than 10 times economically powerful. So why SHOULD Montana be on equal footing, when they aren't nearly as productive?

[AniThyng]

I thought the idea here was that is what the House is for, while the Senate provides a sort of balance to prevent a "Tyranny of the majority", such as it is?

[Simon_Jester]

If you take away the federal nature of the Senate you just make it a smaller House of Representatives and further diminish, and thus alienate, the lesser-populated states.

This might not have been so much a problem way back when but now when you have a more expansive federal government, you're basically creating a system where Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, etc. have little to no influence in how the federal legislature makes decisions and the entire country is dominated by California, New York, Texas, and Florida, with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, and Michigan as maintaining some influence.

Well, okay, maybe Florida's not such a big deal since we know most people in Florida are from out of state anyway.....

I fail to see the problem with this.

America isn't a rural nation. If it was, we'd be a lot poorer and a lot less significant in the world. The concentrations of wealth and productivity around urban centers are the linchpin of our nation's strength. They hold most of the population.

Why do rural states get a veto on all federal policy through the Senate again? It's not even clear that the veto is in their interests, because for the past few decades that veto has consistently been used in ways that are in NO ONE's best interests, not even the rural farmers and blue collar workers who vote for the senators who exercise it.

[Glocksman]

I think the base of the issue is the question of a Senator's (or Federal-level legislator) primary responsibility. While they're always going to be looking out for issues of import to their states/districts because that's part of their jobs, what is more important? The country as a whole or the state? If it was against the interests of America as a whole to spend money to finance projects in, say, Florida, which are in the interest of that particular state, should Senators Nelson and Martinez vote for their state's interest (or use their votes on other issues to get others to vote for Florida's interest) or for the interest of the whole country?

That's why I think you'll find so many non-Mountaineers are critical of Byrd. You consider him a staunch defender of your state's interests. Others see him as an old man who uses his seniority, influence, and control of committees to advance the interests of your state alone even if it's not in the interests of the rest of us. To put it as others may, "Byrd's spending our tax dollars to buy things just for West Virginia so fuck him". (Not that WV is the only state getting pork, mind you...)

Of course, one looks at the OP of this thread and other remarks and ponders if maybe Byrd's long life is the result of universal karma acting on behalf of West Virginia for how bad she and her people are suffering to give America coal for our power plants.

Shit, I'll freely admit that most of my criticisms of Byrd are based on his success at 'bringing home the bacon'.
I can only wish Indiana's Senators had been even half as successful over the years.

IOW, yeah it's envy.

That said, my respect for Byrd has gone up over the last several years.
The argument can be made that's simply because I've become more liberal as I've aged.

That may have some basis in truth, but I'd also like to think it's because I've seen beyond his party label and looked at what he's done and how he's changed since taking office.

Similarly while I still have my differences with Indiana's senior Senator (Republican Richard Lugar), I've come to respect him as a politician who can look beyond the next election and serve as the 'conscience of his party' on certain issues such as nuclear proliferation.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that both Byrd and Lugar leave me with mixed emotions.
Though if Dick Lugar's primary opponent if a 'Club for Growth' true believer, I'm switching back to being a registered Repub and voting for Lugar in the primary.

I can think of no more effective endorsement of a candidate if the 'Club for Growth' backs his opponent.

[Darth Wong]

I'm curious- why do you feel, besides that the Founding Fathers thought it necessary, that this is a bad thing?

Those states would with that power get first dibs on every single military contract, public works project and grant that comes down the pipe.

And that would be worse than the current situation, where rural states wield inordinate power to grab contracts all out of proportion to their populations? It's not as if the current situation helps regions like the Appalachian area of WV that we're talking about; the governor of the state is very much pro-coal.

And because those major population centers have the most people they would get the most representation and once again they would get more benfits, more contracts, and would in turn attract more people.

Cities are not friendly to industrial activity, because of the high cost of real estate and the space-intensive nature of industrial activity.

Which would again increase their representation. Just look at New York(The state) and how New York(The city) turns what would be a some-what conservative state into a Liberal stronghold and if New York(the city) slid into the ocean, then New York(The state) would be about level with Indiana in terms of political worth.

What precisely is this point meant to prove?

A stronger central government and weaker decentralized state government system is the best solution to the political problems of the US right now, but that will never happen. Americans are in love with the idea that state governments should have as much power as possible. The problem is that you have fifty of the fucking things. That's just too many squabbling regional interests.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I think the base of the issue is the question of a Senator's (or Federal-level legislator) primary responsibility. While they're always going to be looking out for issues of import to their states/districts because that's part of their jobs, what is more important? The country as a whole or the state? If it was against the interests of America as a whole to spend money to finance projects in, say, Florida, which are in the interest of that particular state, should Senators Nelson and Martinez vote for their state's interest (or use their votes on other issues to get others to vote for Florida's interest) or for the interest of the whole country?

That's why I think you'll find so many non-Mountaineers are critical of Byrd. You consider him a staunch defender of your state's interests. Others see him as an old man who uses his seniority, influence, and control of committees to advance the interests of your state alone even if it's not in the interests of the rest of us. To put it as others may, "Byrd's spending our tax dollars to buy things just for West Virginia so fuck him". (Not that WV is the only state getting pork, mind you...)

Of course, one looks at the OP of this thread and other remarks and ponders if maybe Byrd's long life is the result of universal karma acting on behalf of West Virginia for how bad she and her people are suffering to give America coal for our power plants.

I would say that the costs to the nation are negligible compared to the benefits to the populations of individual states. We reap the benefits of the people in smaller population high resource states like AK and WV, while they have their resources shipped off, and the wealth generated by their efforts siphoned away to people who do not live in their states. Building their schools I think is the least we can do, and there is almost no cost to us to do it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah lets not forget the TVA, I mean why provide cheap hydro-electricity to all those hillbillies? Oh yeah, it was the right thing to do during the depression.

[MKSheppard]

All that money Massey Energy and other Corps get from mining doesn't stay here.

About $3.5 billion in gross state product was generated by mining in West Virginia.

The Payroll for WV miners in 2006 was $1.9 billion for 40,000 workers (average salary of $47,500 Yo!), and the coal industry pays $70 million in property taxes, and $214 million in the Coal Severance Tax annually.

So out of $3.5 billion in $$$ made by mining in WVA, about $2.1 billion, or 60% stays in WV from a rough calculation. Not exactly bad.

I wonder what the equivalent % for Chicken Farming on MD's eastern shore is by giant corporations like Tyco or Perdue.

[Broomstick]

All that money Massey Energy and other Corps get from mining doesn't stay here.

About $3.5 billion in gross state product was generated by mining in West Virginia.

The Payroll for WV miners in 2006 was $1.9 billion for 40,000 workers (average salary of $47,500 Yo!)

Yes, that totally makes up for shit like dying of the black lung at an early age. Not to mention that black lung can affect the families of miners as well as the miners themselves.

That also totally makes up for there being little alternatives in the way of gainful employment. Oh, wait - there are some pharmaceutical companies there, that's how my dad came to move us there in the late 60's. the Pharms recruited from out of state though, as the school in state were so shitty the graduates seldom, if ever, were capable of technical work required.

And that $47k also totally makes up for entire communities displaced, the water supply being toxic, watersheds ruined, and mountains leveled.

[Alyrium Denryle]

All that money Massey Energy and other Corps get from mining doesn't stay here.

About $3.5 billion in gross state product was generated by mining in West Virginia.

The Payroll for WV miners in 2006 was $1.9 billion for 40,000 workers (average salary of $47,500 Yo!), and the coal industry pays $70 million in property taxes, and $214 million in the Coal Severance Tax annually.

So out of $3.5 billion in $$$ made by mining in WVA, about $2.1 billion, or 60% stays in WV from a rough calculation. Not exactly bad.

I wonder what the equivalent % for Chicken Farming on MD's eastern shore is by giant corporations like Tyco or Perdue.

47.5k spread over a miniscule fraction of the population... in exchange for that they are basically enslaved to the mining companies, the state's mountains are pulverized, the water supply is made toxic (and toxic sludge pits are locked away in unsafe impoundments that overflow with a good rain)

The state gets raped for that 2.1 billion dollars, which is only 60% of the money involved in the farming.

Do you seriously think that they are getting a good deal out of that? Are you that fucking obtuse?

[The Yosemite Bear]

This is Shep, if it's not Military Related it doesn't matter, Plato's Republic and all. Also one has to factor in that goal revenues are kept low, to keep polluting energy cheap.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is Shep, if it's not Military Related it doesn't matter, Plato's Republic and all. Also one has to factor in that goal revenues are kept low, to keep polluting energy cheap.

Note on above post: Farming should have been mining. I go off on so many farming practice screeds that my fingers did the muscle memory thing.

But yeah, pretty much. Hell, even clean coal is decidedly not, I dont even want to get into heavy metal impoundments...

[LadyTevar]

All that money Massey Energy and other Corps get from mining doesn't stay here.

About $3.5 billion in gross state product was generated by mining in West Virginia.

The Payroll for WV miners in 2006 was $1.9 billion for 40,000 workers (average salary of $47,500 Yo!), and the coal industry pays $70 million in property taxes, and $214 million in the Coal Severance Tax annually.

Yes.. 40K coal miners in a state with a population (as of 2006) of 1,818,470. I'm not sure where your average wage information came from, but the US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists the majority of miners get an average of $40,170 per year, with only those qualified for Continuous Mining making $47,380/year. With Mountain-top removal and other strip-mining operations, the lower salary is more likely to apply.

What does that leave the rest of WV? Mean average for all occupations in WV is $33,510, with a median hourly wage of $12.62 and a Minimum Wage of $7.95/hr.

So out of $3.5 billion in $$$ made by mining in WVA, about $2.1 billion, or 60% stays in WV from a rough calculation. Not exactly bad.

So how much of Virginia's Gross State Product stayed in Virginia? Is there 40% leaving Virginia's coffers as well?
What about New York State? Or Ohio? How much money stays in non-Appalachian states, and how much goes to Out-Of-State businesses? We need this information if we're to make a fair comparison.