Page 4 RAIN January/February 1985 ~=-~- .. - -=---.. -. --~--=-~~........---'""'."""""~-~~==~= '~t~?~;~~~,~~:~"~MJi~~~~~,, Military Spending Drains Rural Economies by J. David Colfax Although rural Americans have not been heavily involved in recent efforts to reduce military spending, an analysis of recent federal taxation patterns reveals that they bear a disproportionate share of the growing military tax burden. In 1983 nearly eighty percent of what are 'defined as "heavily rural" Congressional Districts lost tax'dollars in the balance of payments to Washington. And because these lost tax dollars are spent in nonrural districts, primarily to finance military projects, rural America is being drained of tax dollars that are needed for local programs and services. Moreover, the situation has been worsening dramatically since 1980. In 1983 America's rural congressional districts sent eight-and-a-half billion dollars more to Washington than they received back in programs and services (see Table 1). Only a few rural congressional districts benefitted from cu~rent federal spending, primarily because they contained large military installations. The three largest net gain rural congressional districts contain Fort Hood ("the free world's largest training base"), the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and the Seymour-Johnson Air Force . Base, resp~ctively. In contrast, a half dozen rural congressional districts each lost over $400 million to Washington in 1983. Where do these rural tax dollars go? Most .are spent in TABLE 1 Net Losses and Gains, Federal Tax Dollars, 1983 (millions of dollars) All (65) Rural Congressional Districts -$8,493,697 Net Loss RCDs (51) 78.5% Net Gain RCDs (14) 21.5% Largest Net Loss RCDs Largest Net Gain RCDs MNlst -OR 2nd IA 5th IA 6th N134th ,, " $460.7 443.5 426.8 414.5 406.0 TX 11th MDlst NC 3rd KY 2nd NH 2nd $658.7 544.2 539.2 297.7 271.8
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz