>>Dave Barry once wrote a column about persons who are 'humour impaired'. By that he meant, not those persons who did not get the joke, but rather those who didn't know it was a joke.
>>
>>He gave the example of an article he wrote talking about how the U.S. could help itself to get out of debt by selling off mostly unused states like Wyoming, or Idaho. He received a slew of letters telling him that was a terrible idea. Those are the humour impaireds he was talking about.
>
>Alan;
>
>Now that is funny! At the same time I think it is a good idea! :)
>
>Some states receive from the federal government almost twice what they pay in federal taxes. California receives 73% of what we pay. Thus we subsidize other states. We should receive 100% of what we are entitled to and for any state that cannot survive on that amount something should be done! They can become a part of Mexico! :)
>
>Tom

It's the same here in Canada. Our own province of Ontario has been in a battle with the Federal Government for years now about the amount we contribute versus what we get back. Ontario is slowly sliding down a slippery slope while the feds rack up huge reserves. On the other hand, the Provincial Government makes me a little angry when they start spouting this while at the same time doing exactly to the city of Toronto what the feds are doing to them.

I think transfer payments (in the absense of more sensible federal systems) are a good thing. Some provinces do not have much, and need help. That's what makes a country out of a disparate group of provinces. Unfortunately we have silly concepts here that mean certain resources belong to the province rather than the country. All resources, whether it be oil, water, gold, diamonds, bauxite, coal etc, should all belong to the Federal Government and the proceeds shared throughout the country. To me the idea that some provinces are wealthy and some are poor is about as stupid a way to run a country as any idiot could have devised.