[Sherman Logan]

Texas is a “payer state”, not a “taker state”. The Feds could not afford to lose her.

According to the data from the source below, TX gets .94 back for every dollar it sends to the feds.

That does indeed put her on the payer side, but just barely. #1 on the payer side, oddly, is NJ at .61. CA is at .78 and NY at .79.

If you look at the data there is a very obvious pattern. Red states tend to be takers, and blue states tend to be payers.

Somewhat counter-intuitive.

Data is from 2005. I couldn't find anything more recent, but I doubt the numbers have changed greatly. http://tax.d7.qorvisdev.com/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005

[fr_freak]

If you look at the data there is a very obvious pattern. Red states tend to be takers, and blue states tend to be payers.

Actually, it makes sense if you think in terms of population density. I don't know exactly what they include in the "pay" side, but if personal and corporate income taxes are included, for example, then the fed would derive far more income from heavily industrialized and populated states. California, as an example, is chock full of welfare leeches, but there are still a number of very powerful industries here (Silicon Valley-type stuff, for example) as well as a huge tax base. If CA received a million dollar grant from the feds for an interstate, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the overall amount of money flowing in and out. If North Dakota received the same amount of money, it would appear as a relatively significant amount.

[Melas]

That’s the dirty secret we never mention in conservative circles. Although your source is different than mine, and more than a decade more current, so thank you for that.

[Iron Munro]

If you look at the data there is a very obvious pattern. Red states tend to be takers, and blue states tend to be payers. Somewhat counter-intuitive.

But you know the feds lie about everything.