21/09/2012 06:31 BST | Updated 20/11/2012 05:12 GMT

Hey Alabama, Mitt Romney Wants Your $24 Billion Back

Hello Republican voting Alabama, Mitt Romney wants your Federal money back. And that goes for all you other States in the Union that take more from the Federal Government than you give back.

Mitt Romney says redistribution of wealth is now bad. Helping yourself, whatever that means, is now in, so good luck America.

But what does the Federal Government do for the United States anyway? Quite a lot actually. Here's a few examples: Defence, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, highway construction, agricultural subsidies, federal courts and a range of other government programmes to help support everything from teachers to firefighters. So, yeah, not much.

Out of the 50 states in the US, 19 are net contributors to the Federal Government and 31 get more back than they put in. In short, there are 19 rich states and 31 poor ones.

This is also where it gets good for Mitt Romney following his 47%, anti-redistribution tirade. Of the 31 poor states, 18 of them voted Republican at the last election. Some of the biggest winners, like Alabama or Mississippi, two gold plated Republican States, gain by over $5000 per person more than they raise in Federal taxes. That's a $19 billion Washington bail-out for Mississippi and $24 billion for Alabama.

Of the 19 rich states, 15 of them voted for Obama. Delaware (which has voted Democrat since 1992), is subsidising poor states by $12,000 per person or by $10 billion.

So, Republican states who need Federal dollars the most and who don't want any redistribution of wealth, are being funded by rich Democratic states. Oh the irony.

Following Romneyshambles logic, if he gets elected in November his first order of business should be to scrap redistribution amongst the 50 states. This would hit the Republican heartland that just voted for him the hardest. Great start, Mitt. Also, just imagine the fall-out if places like Alabama or Mississippi were told to just help themselves and do without any extra for social security, Medicare or roads? They'd be bankrupt faster than you can say Romney/Ryan. Not only that but can you imagine the social unrest? Poor states would risk looking like the beginning of one of those Sylvester Stallone films where he is one of the few survivors of a post apocalyptic world.

As for voters in places like Delaware, New York, Massachusetts and other rich states, firstly, America thanks you for your service, but secondly, I think you know who to vote for in November. I mean, just imagine the election party you could throw when Romney gives you thousands of dollars back? Election parties that you would be able to continue throw well after you were a hundred years old because, lets face it, with so much more money to spend on Medicare you would probably live forever.

This huge disparity in the wealth creation and tax receipts across the United States shows how hollow and cheap is Romney's latest posturing on redistribution. I mean if he was elected would he really go straight to Alabama and ask for his money back? Of course he wouldn't. So trying to go after Obama for supporting redistribution to deflect attention from himself is just the latest low in the continuing Republican state of denial.

As Obama said, it is the job of the President to represent everyone. But more than that, isn't it also the job of a President to help form a more perfect Union? Whether it's an individual or an entire state, there are always going to be those that earn more and those that earn less. If we accept those facts and we want to help those with less then we have to level the playing field somehow. As much you want to deny it, redistribution of wealth is always going to be part and parcel of a more perfect Union. Romney claiming otherwise is just not very Presidential.