Donor states' are 'blue states'

[im10ashus]

The Tax Foundation released its most recent analysis of federal taxes paid by individual states, as compared to the federal revenue those same states received. The analysis asks the straightforward question: "Which States Gain Most from Federal Fiscal Operations? (.pdf)

Now, from a political and ideological perspective, "small government" types in states that tend to vote Republican are, of course, the same people who decry federal spending the most. I bet you can guess where I'm going with this.

It's not exact, but the states that did the best are also states that voted Republican in 2004. The top 10, in order, are: New Mexico, Alaska, West Virginia, Mississippi, North Dakota, Alabama, Virginia, Hawaii, Montana, and South Dakota. For those counting at home, that's nine "red" states out of 10.

As for the "donor states" that receive less than they give to the feds, the top 10 are: New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Nevada, Illinois, Delaware, Colorado, New York, and California. That's eight "blue" states out of 10.

It's a pretty interesting report, brought to my attention by Carpetbagger regular "Bubba." Take a look.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6936.html

[BOSSHOG]

1. Mississippi checking in here

Yeah, all the yahoos here are by god state's rights buckeroos. We don't need no federal gubmint in our lives. As President Bartlett asked Governor Richey(R) Florida during their presidential debate about federal tax money going to states, "can we have it back please."

[hobbit709]

2. Ever see the Bloom County strip

where Opus is trying to say with a straight face "Tell the government to keep their nose out of my business. Hurry up with my crop subsidy check."?

[Sammy Pepys]

3. They may be Red in terms of Presidential voting....

But WV has Byrd and Rockefeller (not coincidentally, Byrd is the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee...you'll also note that Ted Stevens is on Senate Approps...and Alaska is second).

Hawaii has two Dem Senators and A Dem House delegation.

Montana has a split Senate, and one Rep in the House.

Federal spending is not reflected accurately in terms of which way the Presidential voting went because it's Congress that spends the money anyway...and everty state has Dems and Reps alike pushing for funds.

[im10ashus]

4. I understand what you are saying.

But the point was that 8 of the 10 largest "donor" states are blue states. Blue states typically pay more in taxes (I know in NYC my taxes our out of this world) and thereby subsidize the poorer, or red states.

[onenote]

9. depends on how you define "blue" and "red"

If you look only at Presidential voting, you are right. But if you look at how a state's voters cast their ballots in statewide races overall (including governor and senator), its a much more mixed picture. In four of the donor states, two of the three statewide elected officials (senators and governor) are repubs. And of the "receiving" states, the split is 50/50 when you consider statewide elections.

Just another way of saying that the alleged "red/blue" dichotomy proves very little.

onenote

[Sammy Pepys]

10. Maybe....

...but federal spending is not really measured that way, and it's certainly not appropriated that way.

Look at some of the recipient states...you have some of the least populated states in the country in:
New Mexico (36 out of 50...Domenici is on Senate Approps)
Alaska (47)
West Virginia (37)
Mississippi (31 - Cochran chairs Senate Approps)
North Dakota (48 - Dorgan is on Senate Approps)
Hawaii (42 - Inouye is on Senate Approps)
Montana (44 - Burns is on Senate Approps)
South Dakota (46 - Tim Johnson is on Senate Approps)

Virginia is probably up there because so many major federal installation are located there....the Pentagon, Norfolk and Fort Belvoir obviously...but many federal agencies also have facilities there.

Alabama has a lot of military and space program stuff which probably boosts them a bit. You've also got Richard Shelby on Senate Approps.

Not saying these are perfect explanations (after all, Delaware is a "donor" state), but reasonable suggestions what they're doing on the list.

[FormerDittoHead]

11. An alternative explaination...

Your point about the hypocritical nature of the red voters who get more from the government is well taken, however....

Rather than think of it as red states being the poorer states, I tend to think of them as less populated states.

(note: 'tend' as Texas is red and the most populous)

Population is very important because of how the Senate is organized.

As it is, states with little population like Wyoming get the same political pull in the Senate as does California.

That means that, if you add everything up, each voter (and subsequently taxpayer) in less populated states get a greater proportion of power in Washington than say each individual voter does in, New York.

Pro-rata, 500,000 people in Wyoming get two Senators.

New York state, however, has 20 MILLION.

In other words, in the Senate, individual Wyoming voters get representation 40 TIMES that of individual New York State voters!

You can add the early primary states (eg: Iowa) to this list of disproportionate representation for similar reasons.

The point is that with the disproportionate political representation, they enjoy a disproportionate amount of government favors, and with so few people, they'd have no chance of paying the same amount of taxes...

[napi21]

5. Am I crazy to suggest a split between the North & the South?

I know I currently live in Ga. but I'll gladly MOVE!

I've been thinking about this for some time now. We continue to compare the US with England, Germany, Italy, France etc. but there's really no comparrison. Most of those countries are small enough to fit inside just a few of our states. Maybe it wasn't a good idea to make ONE BIG Country from all this land. Maybe it would be better to have several "smaller countries", each with their own President, and laws that THEY want! Get rid of the "Federal Government" as we know it. I'm not suggesting 50 different countries, but maybe 4 or 5. The southern states who all seem to want to be theocracies could do so. The north eastern states could oin together and rebuild a manufacturing base again.

It's a thought!

[FatDave]

8. Maybe a little...

But so am I. I've been saying this since the 2000 election. America is fundamentally divided and pretty much 50/50. I think we should just have an amicable split and be done with it. Only problem is the south would probably come kick our ass.

[napi21]

12. Why do you think the South would kick our ass?

I don't see it! The schools are better in the North, the major fiancing businesses are almost all in NY, the Southern States are the ones that take more $$ from the Fed. Gov't than they send, and if we didn't have Wash. DC Gov't to deal with, there would be a lot MORE $$ to succeed.

Oh, and I agree, it should be an amicable split. I'm sure not encouraging another civil war! I'm simply saying, if there really is a dramatic difference between the desires of the people who live in the different areas, why are we continually trying to force one to conform to the other? Sounds to me like everyone would be much happier!

[FatDave]

13. I'm saying they would invade us

For being godless liberal baby killers. And they'd likelier have the bigger military.

[napi21]

14. :O) That's why I said amicable split

The only problem I see is that they would be jealous because we were doing so much better than they were, they'd all want to relocate!

[melissinha]

6. Interesting Tx at .94

Guess the rich oil tycoons help balance out the poor people in the Colonias and inner cities huh?

Can't say I am surprised. Other intersting point is Lousisiana not in top 10 at 13, pretty close but not IT.

[FatDave]

7. Do not read if offended by the f word

These hypocrisies and more can be found on a little site called...

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/