Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, said in now-infamous comments that 47% of the American electorate is dependent on the federal government, that he will never be able to teach them to take personal responsibility for their lives, and that they are certain to vote for Barack Obama in November.   He continues a tradition in his party that goes back at least three decades:  building political campaigns around the proposition that folks in the heartland exhibit the American virtues of self sufficiency and personal responsibility and the implication that other, more urban, regions display decadent social values and dependency on government.

          It is a good general rule to judge individuals on their own merits and not on the supposed attributes of the racial, socioeconomic or geographic groups to which they belong. Cultural generalizations are dangerous.   But since questions have been raised, the fearless social scientist will not shrink from confronting them.  Are residents of “red states,” who tend to vote Republican, indeed more likely to take responsibility for their personal behavior than those who live in “blue states” and tend to vote Democratic?

       Inspired by the role that religion plays in the red-state view of the world, I will organize the investigation in terms of the Seven Deadly Sins:   Greed, Gluttony, Lust, Sloth, Wrath, and so on.  We will see that measures of these “sins,” state-by-state, bear a statistical relationship with voting patterns - but not the relationship that many assume.  (For data sources and econometric details, see the statistical appendix at my website.)    

1)      Greed  
 
    The red states receive more federal spending, relative to taxes, than the blue states, as I wrote in a 2010 blog post.  Updated data show that the pattern continues.  Those who claim to be fiscally conservative are the ones who in truth tend to feed the most voraciously at the federal trough. Alaskans are the most dependent on the federal government, receiving $7,448 in spending (net of taxes) per capita.  New England, the Mid-Atlantic States, Minnesota and Illinois are the biggest net givers.  Regarding Romney’s specific  ”47%” allegation: the states with high percentages of people who pay no income tax tend to vote Republican, not Democratic.

     Figure 1 shows on the horizontal axis each state’s receipt of spending by the federal government, net of tax payments, per capita.  The vertical axis shows the ratio of Democratic to Republican votes state by state, in the last three presidential elections.    The red states (low in the graph) tend to be on the receiving end (high spending).  The blue states (high in the graph) constitute a majority of the ones that foot the bill (positive contributions to the nationwide kitty).  The relationship is highly significant statistically.
  

Figure 1:  Federal Spending Received minus Taxes Paid, among Blue vs. Red States
(Average of votes in 2000, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections)  Click here for larger image.

2) Gluttony

     States where residents suffer more from obesity, in part because they have worse eating habits, tend to vote Republican, as I showed in a blog post last June.  To illustrate, a mere 1 percentage point decrease in a state’s obesity rate is associated on average with an estimated increase in the ratio of Democratic to Republican voters from 1.00 to 1.07.  The relationship is highly significant statistically.   (Figure 2.)

               
Fig.2: Obesity (% of population) Click for larger image     Fig.3: Fitness Index  Click for larger image  

3) Sloth

     States where residents get less physical exercise tend to vote Republican.  (Figure 10d in appendix.) The relationship is highly significant statistically.    Figure 3 combines physical exercise and lack of obesity into a single index of physical fitness.

      In his recent book, Coming Apart, Charles Murray argues that those who live in the “super-zip codes” - the areas with high education levels, like Belmont, Massachusetts  - have maintained traditional American values of hard work, while those who live elsewhere show “crashing” rates of industriousness.   He writes that those who live in areas with less education have been leaving the labor force for years, often falsely claiming disability. They “goof off,” “sleeping and watching television” (p.180-181).  Those that remain employed have reduced the length of their work-week and their dedication to their jobs, at the same time that those living in the super-zip codes have increased theirs (p.176-77).  Some academic researchers and news media fear accusations of liberal bias if they talk about such things.  AEI scholar Murray may be immune from this fear: he is well-known as a conservative/libertarian whose earlier book The Bell Curve dealt with black-white differences in test achievement.  (The statistics in his recent book look at whites alone, so as to control for race.)   

4) Lust

     Sex is interesting.  Red states residents buy more online adult entertainment, according to a 2009 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives by Benjamin Edelman.   Notwithstanding proclamations about the importance of pre-marital chastity, evidence suggests that young people in red states do have sex before marriage.  It is less likely to be safe sex than among those in blue states.   States that vote Republican have higher birth rates among 15-17-year-old girls, as Figure 4 shows.   Again, the difference is highly significant statistically.    They also have higher rates of the sexually-transmitted disease Chlamydia .  (This difference, unlike the others, is not statistically significant at the aggregate state level; but it is when combined into an overall measure of unsafe sex.)

      Apparently the gap between what they say and what they do is particularly wide for teen-agers who describe themselves as evangelical Christians.  According to research by Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas, Austin, white evangelical adolescents usually state a belief in pre-marital abstinence — 74 per cent — but in fact are surprisingly active sexually, compared to mainline Protestants and Jews who do not tend to state such a belief.  When the evangelicals do engage in sex, they are less likely to use protection than others.  The gap between word and deed is strikingly high for the millions of teenagers who take a formal pledge to remain celibate until marriage, typically in a ring ceremony, according to a New Yorker article by Margaret Talbott (”Red Sex, Blue Sex“).  The majority of them, though holding out for awhile, “end up having sex before marriage, and not usually with their future spouse.”   Two other sociologists, Peter Bearman (Columbia University) and Hannah Bruckner (Yale) find a positive correlation between the abstinence pledge and Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD).  Pledgers are less likely to use a condom if and when they first have sex and overall are slightly more likely to contract a STD.  (Under George W. Bush, the federal government subsidized such abstinence pledge program despite their questionable effectiveness.)
              

                  
Fig.4: Teen pregnancy rates  Click for larger image         Fig.5: Firearms Assaults  Click for larger image

5) Wrath

     Nobody is surprised to hear that red states have higher rates of gun ownership than blue states.  But there is an important distinction between those who use guns responsibly and those who do not.   The data show that ¾ of the states with high rates of firearms assaults vote Republican.  (Figure 5.)   The regression is statistically significant.

6) Drunkenness  

     People who drink too much endanger themselves and endanger others as well.  You guessed it: States with high rates of fatal accidents from drunk driving tend to vote Republican (Figure 6).     Statistically significant. 

     
Fig.6: Drunk driving fatalities  Click for larger image       Fig.7: Smoking rates  Click for larger image   

7) Smoking

     Finally, states with high rates of smoking vote Republican too, as Figure 7 illustrates.   Again, the relationship is highly significant statistically.   

     Many of the Seven Deadly Sins can indeed be deadly.  It is particularly striking that the states where the most residents exhibit behavior that endangers their health and that of others - with many of these unhealthy people later free-riding on their fellow citizens when they show up uninsured in the hospital emergency room - are also the states where congressmen tended to vote against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in 2010.  This risky behavior includes poor physical fitness (as measured by rates of obesity, lack of exercise, and poor diet), careless sexual behavior (as measured by rates of teen pregnancy and Chlamydia), smoking, drunk-driving (as reflected in fatalities) and irresponsible use of guns (as reflected in armed assaults). 

     Each obese American incurs medical costs 42%  higher than those of normal weight.  Often others are stuck with the bill, if the patient has not been able to get health insurance because of a weight problem.  These people are free-riders on the health care system even if they don’t want to be.   The individual mandate of Obamacare was designed to fix this free-riding problem and re-establish personal responsibility.  Yet congressmen in states with high rates of obesity or other health risk factors voted against the legislation.  (See my blogpost or an op-ed on Obamacare for the evidence.)   

     Utah is the most conspicuous outlier in most of these relationships.  It has a high population of Mormons. Apparently they follow the strictures of their religion more closely than those of other religious denominations.  (Could this be why evangelicals tend to resent Mormons so much, according to opinion polls?)   But Utah notwithstanding, the relationships hold on average.

     The five most “red” states are Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and Alaska.  The five most “blue” are New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Hawaii.   The average score of the five reddest states is worse in each category than the average score of the five bluest states: more obesity, smoking, Chlamydia, teenage pregnancy, drunk driving fatalities, and firearms assaults.  In the latter three of those measures, the “reckless” shares of the population are almost twice as high among the first five states as among the last five.  While we are at it, we might as well acknowledge that the red state populations also tend to be less educated and more prone to divorce. 

     There you have it, the surprising statistics.  ”Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

[This article draws in part on an op-ed concerning Obamacare in the Christian Science Monitor and another concerning Romney's "47%" remarks at Project Syndicate.    VoxEU also has a version.   Details on data and computations are available in a posted statistical appendix.]  

     The Supreme Court today upheld the Affordable Care Act of 2010, otherwise known as Obamacare.  Judging from the polls, American public opinion appears to be very sharply divided over the legislation.  Some view it as socialism, others as the first success in a half-century of efforts to achieve a sensible national policy on health care.

       What explains the wide divergence of views?   An economists’ approach - cynical or naïve depending on how you look at it - would be to assume that citizens vote according to their own personal interests.   Getting the uninsured onto paid insurance through the individual mandate is very much in some people’s interest, but not necessarily as strongly in others’ interests.  Let’s take a look.

       Those who have the most to gain from President Obama’s health care legislation are those who have a pre-existing condition or are pre-disposed to illness, for example because they are overweight.  They are more likely to need medical care in the future, but can be charged higher rates if they try to buy private insurance, by virtue of their condition.  Or they can be excluded completely.   (Each obese American incurs medical costs 42% higher than those of normal weight.)     

         Figure 1:  States with higher obesity rates tend to oppose the Affordable Care Act     

     I show how Congressmen from each state voted on the Affordable Care Act on the vertical axis of Figure 1, with the state rates of obesity on the horizontal axis.   There is a statistically significant relationship.  But the relationship goes the other way:    states where more people are overweight, such as Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Texas, are more likely to oppose Obamacare.   In those parts of the country where people are slimmer, such as New England, New York and Colorado, there is strong support for health care reform.  For every one percentage point increase in obesity, support for Obamacare declines by an estimated four percentage points on average.

     Obesity is partly genetic, of course, but also is determined by habits of exercise and eating.  The states where residents get the most physical exercise are Minnesota, Utah, Oregon, Washington and Vermont; the states that get the least are Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Lousiana and Alabama.   Another data source tells us the states with bad eating habits:  the five worst-ranking are Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma.

      There are some outliers, of course.   Utah’s population appears to be physically fit (and to do well by other measures that we will be looking at later), while opposing the Affordable Care Act and voting Republican.   Mormons look exceptional in the extent to which they abide in their personal lives by the strictures of their religion.   Could this be why evangelicals tend to resent Mormons so much according to opinion polls?  

       It’s not just obesity and exercise.  The states that rank the best on an overall health index are Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Maine and Iowa.  The states where people are the least healthy overall are Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas.  The weight of the evidence is fairly clear: the states where people are most in need of help getting private insurance are the states opposing the legislation that helps them do that.    (I hope in future blogs to look at such other specific risk factors as unprotected sex, drunk driving, and smoking habits.)

      It seems that the economists’ view of the world is wrong.  People are not voting in their self interest.  What is going on here?

       I can think of two plausible explanations as to why those who stand to benefit from Obamacare should oppose it politically:   (1) lack of knowledge regarding the bill, and (2) partisanship.  

       Most people don’t know what Obama’s bill does.  Many think that it reduces personal responsibility for health care.  But the truth is the opposite.  Under the current system, hospitals are required to treat patients who show up at the emergency entrance with a heart attack - even if their condition is partly their fault, due to habits of overeating and under-exercising.  The hospitals have to pass the costs on, and the rest of us end up footing the bill.   The individual mandate is designed to fix that, by making everyone pay for the health care they get (and perhaps even encouraging them to see a doctor who will advise them to adopt a healthy life style).  Establishing personal responsibility, not socialized medicine, is the reason why conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation proposed the idea of the ndividual mandate in the first place, and why Mitt Romney enacted it in Massachusettts.   But most people still seem unaware of this.  If people do not understand their economic interests, that may explain why the voting patterns do not line up correspondingly. 

       The other, not inconsistent, explanation, is that people are voting along simple party lines.   Figure 2 shows the popular vote in the 2008 presidential election on the vertical axis, state by state.   The states where people are most likely to be overweight or obese tend to vote Republican.  Evidently the people in New England, New York, Hawaii and DC, who tend to vote Democratic, are slimmer.   A one percentage point increase in the obesity rate is estimated to raise the ratio of Republican to Democratic voters from 1.00 to 1.06 (easily enough to swing an election). The statistical confidence interval — “margin of error” – is thin enough to exclude the possibility of a zero effect.      

                 Figure 2:   States with higher obesity rates tend to vote Republican                                 

        Ideology is much less important than party affiliation.  This is the same result when one looks at which states receive more federal subsidies: despite all the rhetoric about “getting the government off our backs,” it is the red states, i.e., those where people vote Republican, that receive the most transfers from Washington.  Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia, and the Dakotas top the list.   The Democratic-leaning states are the ones paying into the federal government and subsidizing everyone else:  New England, New York, New Jersey, California.   Those who claim to be fiscally conservative are the ones who in fact tend to feed voraciously at the public trough.

[Econometric results are available in an appendix.]

           April 1 is Census Day.  Evidently Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann have been encouraging Americans to boycott the census — to refuse to fill out the whole form.   This protest follows from their small government ideology.

           I am not always sure what they, or Republicans, or Tea Party participants mean by small government.  They say they want a government that intervenes less in the economic sphere.   Perhaps they don’t like the idea that the census numbers are used, among other things, to determine the allocation of federal spending across states, because they don’t think it is the business of the government to redistribute income.  That is “socialism.”    Even “Stalinism.”

            A virtue of the Tea Party movement is that many of its members are engaging in national politics for the first time.  It occurred to me that they might be able to use some help figuring out the lay of the land, and so I thought I would pursue a little research on their behalf.   (more…)

In my earlier post, I catalogued some quotes from high Bush Administration officials asserting the Laffer claim that a cut in US tax rates stimulates income so much that the Treasury ends up taking in more revenue than before. I didn’t then quote in detail the extensive statements made by the Director of Office of Management and Budget, Joshua Bolten, in July 2005.

Director Bolton’s statements are of particular interest for several reasons. First, by 2005 it had become obvious to any objective observer that (1) the record budget surplus inherited by the Bush Administration had been quickly converted into a record budget deficit, and that (2) the aggressive Bush tax cuts were a major cause of that swing (as was the sharp acceleration in federal spending, both domestic and international, relative to the 1990s). Second, while the utterings of President Bush himself can in general perhaps be dismissed as not to be taken seriously, Bolten was the professional whose job is to be responsible for the integrity of the budget process. (Indeed, he is a higher-quality civil servant than some in the Bush Administration who have been quick to “bolt on” crazy ideological propositions to what should be serious positions.)

Here is what the OMB director had to say about the Laffer proposition:

“And with all those economic gains, we are also seeing more revenues coming into the Federal Treasury. We have arrived at this point largely because of this President’s and this Congress’ pro-growth policies, especially tax relief. Those policies have strengthened the economy, which is now producing better-than-expected revenues.” — Testimony of Joshua B. Bolten, Mid Session Reivioew of the President’s FY 2006 Budget Requst, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, page 1, para. 3.

And lots more:
“The tax cuts proposed by the President and enacted by Congress are not the [budget] problem. They are, and will be, part of the solution…Had Congress not enacted the President’s three tax relief packages, moreover, the economy would be substantially weaker than it is…The most effective way to lower future deficits is to grow the economy. And the President’s tax packages have been well designed to do precisely that.”

“…all economists, I think will agree very strongly that when you reduce taxes, put more money back into the economy, that has a feedback effect in the economy that causes growth and in turn increases receipts. And being able to measure those receipts, to see how much better the government’s fiscal situation is as a result of the tax cuts would be something I’d very much like to include in the numbers….We think we’ve done the right things by making the tax cuts to restore the economy to growth, because what got us into the difficulty deficit situation in the first place is the flagging growth, flagging receipts in the economy. We think the best way back is to restore the economy to growth, and restore receipts that correspond to it…. ”

Q: “…you’ve got a substantial drop in the deficit [forecasted] in 2005…”
A: “…there are other factors involved, and one of them is the ‘03 tax cut.”

– Press Briefing by OMB Director Josh Bolton, The White House, July 15, 2003.

Following up on my preceding post, I will here document who has said what.

High officials in the Reagan Administration apparently did subscribe to the Laffer Hypothesis:
• Reagan himself: “…our kind of tax cut will so stimulate the economy that we will actually increase government revenues…” July 7, 1981 speech 1/
• His Secretary of the Treasury, Don Regan, even after events had falsified the proposition to the satisfaction of most observers, wrote of his “very strong opinion that a tax cut would produce more revenue than a tax increase.”2/
Also: “The increase in revenues should be financed not by new and higher taxes, but by lower tax rates that would produce more money for the government by stimulating higher earnings by corporations and workers…” (p.173).

Similarly, high officials during the Bush era have also have been quoted saying that tax cuts, via faster growth, lead to higher tax revenues:
• President George W. Bush : “The best way to get more revenues in the Treasury is not raise taxes, slowing down the economy, it’s cut taxes to create more economic growth. That’s how you get more money into the U.S. Treasury.” — July 24, 2003.
• OMB Director Joshua Bolten, press conference July 2003; & WSJ, Dec. 10, 2003
• Majority Leader Tom DeLay: “We, as a matter of philosophy, understand that when you cut taxes the economy grows, and revenues to the government grow.” NYT, 3/31/04.
• Treasury Secretary John Snow, Congressional testimony, Feb. 7, 2006: “Lower tax rates are good for the economy and a growing economy is good for Treasury receipts.”
• CEA Chair Ed Lazear, press conference 2/12/07, “revenues have come in…higher than we predicted…because the economy has grown at a rate higher than we predicted…[T]he tax cuts…[were] at least in part responsible for making the economy grow.”

Most leading Republican economists who served as chief economic advisers to Presidents Reagan and Bush during their tax cutting frenzies, however, do not subscribe to the Laffer Hypothesis, and did not compromise their beliefs while in office. Three examples:

• Martin Feldstein: “I objected therefore to those supply-siders like Arthur Laffer who argued that a 30 percent across-the-board tax cut would also be self-financing because of the resulting increase in incentives to work.”3/
• Glenn Hubbard: “Although the economy grows in response to tax reductions… it is unlikely to grow so much that lost tax revenue is completely recovered by the higher level of economic activity.”4/
• Greg Mankiw: “Subsequent history failed to confirm Laffer’s conjecture that lower tax rates would raise tax revenue. When Reagan cut taxes after he was elected, the result was less tax revenue, not more.” 5/

1/ Feldstein, American Economic Policy in the 1980s (U. Chicago Press) 1994, p.21.
2/ Regan, For the Record (St. Martin’s Press: New York) 1988, (p.214).
3/ American Economic Policy in the 1980s ( U. Chicago Press) 1994, p.24 .
4/ Economic Report of the President (Government Printing Office) 2003, p.57-58.
5/ Principles of Economics (Dryden) 1998, p. 166.

I thought it would be useful to get all this into the record, since some observers have claimed that Reagan and Bush never subscribed to the Laffer hypothesis, while others have inaccurately accused Feldstein, Hubbard and Mankiw of selling out on this score.

Floyd Norris notes in the New York Times (Feb. 9, 2008, p.B3),“George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector.”    It is another bit of confirmation of the truth behind a comment that “Joe S.” posted in response to my blog entry of February 6 (“Reagan and Stalin”): “What, pray tell, does the Republican Party have to do with conservatism?”  

The liberal and conservative labels are no longer useful.   It’s not that shorthand political labels are never useful; they are, even though individuals resist pigeonholing. 

And it’s not just that these particular words have long since lost their original meanings.   Linguistically, “liberalism” of course was supposed to refer to a philosophy of leaving individuals free from interference by government and other entrenched institutions, while “conservatism” was supposed to mean valuing continuity and stability.   But it is a commonplace that Americans use the word “liberal” to mean the opposite of what it meant in the 19^th century (which is now often called “neoliberal,” for some reason).  

Supporters and detractors alike still considered George W. Bush a conservative, despite the original meaning of the word, when he launched radical departures from longstanding American principles  in the spheres of foreign policy and domestic policy.   The White House has asserted maximal political powers for the executive, and has used these powers to enact virtually unprecedented levels of interventionist policies, ranging from Iraq to domestic citizens’ right to privacy.   

But people still seem to think that the Bush Administration also stands for conservatism in the economic sphere as well.   Or some think that President Bush may no longer stand for economic conservatism, but that other Republican politicians do.   I would contend that, not just George W. Bush, but also Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and (to a lesser extent) George H.W. Bush, all — in sharp distinction from their conservative rhetoric – in practice have been interventionist.  They have all wandered, far from the principles of good neoclassical economics, and far from from the principles of small government and laissez faire.  How far?   Farther than did, for example, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.  

The criteria are:
(1) Growth in the size of the government, as measured by employment and spending.
(2) Lack of fiscal discipline, as measured by budget deficits.
(3) Lack of commitment to price stability, as measured by pressure on the Fed for easier monetary policy when politically advantageous.
(4) Departures from free trade.
(5) Use of government powers to protect and subsidize favored special interests (such as the oil and gas sector, among many others).   

Documentation that Republican presidents have since 1971 indulged in these five departures from “conservatism” to a greater extent than Democratic presidents can be found in some writings of mine, listed below.   The name I would give to this set of economic policies, as well as to the parallel abuses of executive power in the areas of foreign policy and domestic policy, is neither “liberal” nor “conservative” but, rather, “illiberal.”

Original:     “Republican and Democratic Presidents Have Switched Economic Policies,” in Milken Institute Review, vol. 5, no.1, 1st Quarter, 2003, pp.18-25.

Shortest:    “Trading Places” , Financial Times, Sept. 13, 2002.

Most recent: “Responding to Crises,” for 24^th Annual Monetary Conference, Cato Institute.   Cato Journal vol. 27, no. 2, Spring/Summer, 2007, pp 165-1708.