Posted on 03/14/2017 7:39:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Since Donald Trump's election, some leftists have been trotting out analyses showing that many states that voted for Trump are also states where federal spending plays a disproportionately large role in the statewide economy. In other words, many of those states that talk a lot about states rights and less federal government - it is pointed out - also receive an especially large amount of federal spending in that state.
In many cases, this claim is correct. As this mises.org analysis shows, many states within the Trump heartland are what many might call "moocher states" because the residents there - taken overall - receive more in federal spending than in is paid in federal taxes:
The second graph shows the specific amount of federal spending that goes to each state for each dollar spent:
(For more on sources, see here.)
For the charge of hypocrisy to stick against the Trump voters in these states, however, we'd have to show that the people who complain about too much federal government are the same people who receive lots of federal largesse. That's surely true some of the time — as in the case of many conservative seniors on Social Security and military personnel who live off the taxpayer dime. But, there are also surely many residents of net tex receiver states — such as Mississippi — who also are net taxpayers who do not receive a net benefit from federal spending.
Moreover, it's important to understand why some states are more prone to being net recipients of federal spending than others.
Fortunately, Antionio Cheves at American Thinker has added additional analysis to mises.org article on this topic. Chaves writes:
The most straightforward methodology for measuring “federal dependency” of states was presented by Ryan McMaken in the Mises Institute blog. Based on “federal spending per dollar paid”, business-friendly states like Texas and Utah among the net recipients of federal funds. McMaken attributes the federal budgetary shortfall in states like these to differences in urbanization and federal land ownership.
Regression analysis supports McMaken’s assertion that federal land ownership and urbanization play a large role in determining federal spending per dollar paid (Fig. 1 and 2). He rightly points out that urban economies generate more revenue than agriculture and federal monetary policies (such as low interest rates) favor urban investors at the expense of the “main street” households that predominate in rural states. Census data indicates that demographic differences (particularly differences in formal education) may also contribute to this disparity between urban and rural states.
Formal education is correlated to federal spending per dollar paid (Fig. 3 and 4). This is unsurprising because adults lacking a high school diploma or a college degree usually pay less taxes and consume more in federal nonretirement benefits like Medicare, food assistance, and unemployment. What is particularly noteworthy is how disproportionately college graduates are distributed between urban and rural states (Fig. 5). This no doubt contributes to the federal budgetary shortfall observed by McMaken in many of the less urbanized states. It is also worth noting that nine of the ten states with the lowest percent of college graduates all voted for Trump and that all of the ten states with the highest percent of graduates voted for Clinton in 2016.
See the full Chaves article here.
Not surprisingly, states with lots of millionaires and billionaires produce more tax revenue, thus moving those states in the direction of being net taxpayer states.
As with so many comparisons of this sort, there is no one way to do this analysis. But, some methods are certainly better than others. One of the most misleading and crankish methods is the one which looks at federal spending compared to state tax revenues.
This method claims that, when federal revenues are large compared to state revenues, the state is "dependent" on federal funds. This method can be contrasted with the mises.org analysis in which we compare federal spending to state GDP or to federal taxes paid in that state.
The method of comparing federal spending to state revenues has been used in often-cited analysis conducted by Wallethub and the Tax Foundation. The Wallethub analysis was used by The Atlantic to make the point that Texans are a bunch of moochers compared to the Californians. Although, as our own analysis shows, Texas ranks slightly better than California in this regard.
Economist Dan Mitchell has attacked this method, and zeroes in on the Tax Foundation's method, using their map:
Mitchell notes:
[I]t’s also important to remember that the map is showing the relationship between state revenue and federal transfers. So if a state has a very high tax burden (take a wild guess), then federal aid will represent a smaller share of the total amount of money. By contrast, a very libertarian-oriented state with a very low tax burden might look like a moocher state simply because its tax collections are small relative to formulaic transfers from Uncle Sam.
Indeed, this is a reason why the state with best tax policy, South Dakota, looks like one of the top-10 moocher states in the map.
After all, if a state already receives large amounts of federal spending, shouldn't state officials respond by lowering the local tax burden — and thus the overall tax burden — of its citizens? By the rationale of the Wallethub and Tax Foundation analyses, the proper response to lots of federal spending in your state is to increase state spending, thus distorting the state's economy even more than is already being done by federal spending.
A more even-handed analysis, it would seem, would compare federal spending to the overall size of the economy and to federal tax revenues. Moreover, there are other factors which complicate the comparisons, such as the fact that California exports its poor to Texas and other low-cost states.
Who on earth can get SSDI or welfare? I’m disabled, trying to get on disability since 2004, to no avail. I’m childless, because I was responsible enough to realize I shouldn’t ask the government to pay for kids that *I* can’t afford.
So what happens?
Thanks to Bill Clinton, if you’re between 18 and 65 years old, you can only get help if you (irresponsibly) have kids you can’t afford! Those of us who weren’t trying to be career breeders are out of luck! Yet the “refugees” and illegals get all manner of assistance.
As for disability? Get real. It’s nearly impossible to get. I know a Trump supporter who’s legally blind, which should automatically qualify her for disability. They turned her down, saying that she could get a job folding laundry.
I’m not kidding.
I was a caregiver for someone who was legally blind, and I can assure you, that person couldn’t even cross the room by herself, let alone travel to a place of employment and fold clothes. Medically speaking, you’re better off being totally blind than legally blind (i.e., nearly-blind), because low vision causes all sorts of issues with balance, chronic vertigo, etc. For anyone to say that such a person can hold down a job, when the law itself says that this person should be automatically qualified for disability...well, let’s just say there’s a special place in Hell for anyone that horrible.
Every one of these disability judges and their “employment experts” should be expunged. They’re heartless, evil people who delight in denying disabled Americans the help they desperately need.
Yet able-bodied people from other countries can come here, drop anchor babies every year, and the benefits flow to them like a tidal wave.
This country could save a fortune if we’d cut off benefits to the career breeders, and instead give them to disabled people who deserve help.
Looks as though Texas is a bigger moocher than is California.
Social security recipients are considered moochers?
LOLOLOL
As far as I could tell, a good time was had by all.
{;^)~
Oh, go ahead and include the wookie anyway. It really bothers me that AZ is such a *moocher* state PLUS we have juan mcPain and jeff the flake. (Well, at least the weather’s nice now...sigh)
bmk
Bookmark
He just lost me right there.
As one of those "moocher" conservative seniors on Social Security, the government collected SS tax from me every year, under penalty of law. I hated paying it and felt that I could do much better if I invested it on my own, but was not allowed to. OTOH the government promised me a return for my taxes, and I am not a moocher when I take that return.
And using the words "moocher" for military personnel who put their life on the line for minimal pay is just downright despicable. I have a few former Marine friends who will straighten him out right away if he cares to come out here and show his face.
I think I believe some of it (the claim). But it is hollow and not without purpose IMO.
It’s no secret that federal spending in traditional Republican states has been on the increase; I believe Democrats supporting out of sense to entice Democrat leaning souls to move there and Republicans supporting it because I never saw a Republican that wouldn’t take a damned government dollar.
I noticed this in Georgia, particularly. Former areas like Cobb and Gwinnett Counties turning bluer - moving in more government-assisted ‘citizens’ by the tens/hundreds of thousands it seemed at the time.
I’m pretty sure funding for Interstate Highways come into play, Texas has more Interstate Highways than any other state. Texas is number one in farm subsidies, plus we have numerous Military installations and NASA. This doesn’t take into consideration the number of Federal employee’s on the longest border with Mexico of any other. VA medical facilities and out clinic’s should come into play and we have over 100.
To rely on the amount of federal money spent in a state and not designate where or to who it goes to is rather misleading. If it’s based on a percentage of general revenue it hide many of the details.
I might add that Texas is either number one or two of those states paying in the most in federal taxes.
bfl
The “career breeders” are an essential part of another scam: public education and the unions involved in it. That is why we allow “unaccompanied minors” into our country, and those who breed with multiple wives (Muslims) as well.
Yes, a big problem (and a driver behind the push to increase the minimum wage) is that in many places, workers end up in the same neighborhoods, using the same schools for their children, as welfare sows and their broods. The only difference is that one lies around swelling to 500 lbs. while the other comes home tired each day...
Blacks make up 13% of the overall population by the percentage is much higher in the Southern states. And the Southern states have something most other states do not: rural blacks.
Large parts of Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina have rural blacks were there simply are no jobs. While over the past century and a half many have moved to places where the jobs where: Chicago, Gary, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc., the rest have stayed in the same place their slave ancestors were when the Civil War ended.
No offense to them, but those rich cotton lands didn’t have and still do not have much industry. Share-cropping went away 50 years ago or more with the advent of completely mechanized farming.
Most of these folks are on assistance of some kind. The largest percentage are in Mississippi, which is why Mississippi is the greatest so-called moocher state.
| Rank | US States With The Largest Relative African American Populations | Alone Or In Combination With Other Races, Per 2010 US Census |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | District of Columbia | 50.7% African American |
| 2 | Mississippi | 37.3% African American |
| 3 | Louisiana | 32.4% African American |
| 4 | Georgia | 31.4% African American |
| 5 | Maryland | 30.1% African American |
| 6 | South Carolina | 28.5% African American |
| 7 | Alabama | 26.4% African American |
| 8 | North Carolina | 21.6% African American |
| 9 | Delaware | 21.0% African American |
| 10 | Virginia | 19.9% African American |
Social security recipients are considered moochers?
good point
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
