Red state subsidy

This is an archived article that was published on in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Gov. Mitt Romney was vilified for being the post-truth candidate because apparently truth didn't matter in his campaign. I disagree. There is indeed a glimmer of truth in his claim that the country is split between the takers and the makers. Look at the divide between the Democratic blue states (West Coast and Northeast) and the Republican red states (Mountain West, Midwest and South).

People in the blue states are healthier, wealthier and generally more well-off than those in the red states. Their colleges and universities are the world's best, generating almost all of the country's high-tech industry.

Since the red states have more poverty and a higher rate of infant mortality, teen pregnancy, obesity and natural disasters than the blue states, they receive a larger share of federal funds than they pay back in taxes; whereas, it is mostly the opposite with the blue states.

If the blue states were to form their own Enlightened States of America, such a move would benefit them, but it would be disastrous for the red states and the United States.

Romney should have avoided his divisive rhetoric and campaigned for a unified America, which is our, and the world's, best hope.

Deen Chatterjee

Salt Lake City