Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed (leftist law professors)

Tax Foundation Data ^ | September 27, 2004 | Tax Prof

[Atlas Sneezed]

The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill.

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)

2. North Dakota ($2.03)

3. New Mexico ($1.89)

4. Mississippi ($1.84)

5. Alaska ($1.82)

6. West Virginia ($1.74)

7. Montana ($1.64)

8. Alabama ($1.61)

9. South Dakota ($1.59)

10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)

2. Connecticut ($0.64)

3. New Hampshire ($0.68)

4. Nevada ($0.73)

5. Illinois ($0.77)

6. Minnesota ($0.77)

7. Colorado ($0.79)

8. Massachusetts ($0.79)

9. California ($0.81)

10. New York ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

[Atlas Sneezed]

The Tax Foundation from which the data is drawn writes:

Revised Data Show Some Candidates' States Profit from Federal Taxing and Spending, Others Foot Bill

By TF Staff

As the November elections approach, many have begun asking which congressional candidates' home states have benefited from federal taxing and spending, and which haven't.

To help provide an answer the Tax Foundation has released revised data showing which states benefit from federal taxing and spending, and which foot the bill.

The release updates the Tax Foundation's annual analysis of federal taxing and spending patterns ("Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State" by J. Scott Moody, available for download here) with the most current tax data available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The results are summarized in Table 1 below. They show that when it comes to federal taxing and spending, some states feast at the expense of others.

(link below to 50 state data) Source: Census Bureau; Tax Foundation's "State-by-State Tax Burden Allocation Model."

Winners and losers

Currently taxpayers in North Dakota benefit most from the give-and-take with Uncle Sam, receiving $2.03 for every dollar in taxes. New Jersey benefits least, receiving just 62¢ per federal tax dollar.

Other states that receive little spending per dollar of federal tax are Connecticut (64¢), New Hampshire (68¢), Nevada (73¢), Minnesota (77¢) and Illinois (77¢).

Though not comparable as a state, the District of Columbia is by far the biggest beneficiary of federal spending, receiving $6.17 for every federal tax dollar—more than nine times the national average.

What affects the rankings?

One factor affecting rankings is that federal spending on defense and other procurement dollars are often funneled to the states of powerful members of congress. Also, state governments can grab more federal grant money by manipulating their spending to comply with federal regulations.

Another factor is demography. States with more residents on Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements tend to rank high. Similarly, high spending levels in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia are explained by the predominance of federal employees.

Finally, states with higher incomes per capita—such as Connecticut—pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the income tax's progressive structure, which increases federal taxes per dollar of federal spending received in return.

[RockinRight]

So?

[Phantom Lord]

Well, the Blue States are always demanding higher and higher taxes. So they are only getting what they are asking for.

[Bikers4Bush]

Anyone care to do the math on this on a per person basis for each of the states.

[matchwood]

Ipso facto - professors are red staters.

[Atlas Sneezed]

My thoughts:

A. Poll Red states and Blue states with the question: “Would you like federal taxes and benefits to be cut to near zero, so that your state can decide how to spend its own money?” Guess who would support such a measure. Is that ignorance, or a savvy realization of the truth? Is a benefit that is not desired really “feeding at the trough?

B. Surprise! Law professors share political leanings with most university professors.

C. Not all federal spending is equal to a state "feeding at the federal trough", nor is each state uniform (one "color of the state may be doing more paying, the other more receiving). An analysis needs a pie chart showing in what programs these states are receiving their money, and a more local analysis (perhaps even down to the individual question of which party’s voters are paying the higher taxes per capita):

My speculations about the top 10 "feeders":

1. D.C. ($6.17)
Federal employees, black poverty, and Congressional self-pork (improving their own working neighborhood.) Deep blue.

2. North Dakota ($2.03)
Sparsely populated, with military bases and missile silos. Having a missile silo upwind or an Air Force base in the next county is not "feeding at the public trough." Yes, locals like bases because they help the economy, but the bulk of those massive military dollars do not reach the community (see missile silos, for instance), and the bulk of the benefits are shared by the entire nation. An Air Force base is different from local poverty payments or a billion dollar transit system, when it comes to benefiting the state residents. Possibly a larger proportion of retired people than elsewhere.

3. New Mexico ($1.89)
Evenly split red-blue. Military expenditures, and Indian reservations. Those Indians aren't "Red", and it may be that the "Reds" in NM are subsidizing the "blues." Note that on the military issue, they may be putting military bases in red states as a "pork" preference", but odds are that urban (blue) states can't fit them, or don't want them, and that putting a base anywhere causes the state to become more red, which is very different that saying that red states are feeding at the public trough (unless the law profs think that military personnel are trough feeders.) County data would be much more useful here. Incidentally, when the liberals spend federal money to environmentally control forest and other federal land in a state that opposes such control, is that really “trough feeding”?

4. Mississippi ($1.84)
A red state with large areas of poor black "blue" voters. Red tax payments providing subsidies to blue? Only local or county data can tell. Plus military.

5. Alaska ($1.82)
Sparse population, military expenditures, and an oddball.

6. West Virginia ($1.74)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, the Honorable Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV)."

7. Montana ($1.64)
See ND.

8. Alabama ($1.61)
See MS

9. South Dakota ($1.59)
See ND, and consider the Honorable Thomas Daschle (D-SD)

10. Arkansas ($1.53)
See MS

Of the above, I find one or two obvious cases of political pork, and that is due to the pull of a powerful Democrat.

[BigBobber]

All this shows is that rich people vote Democrat, while middle and lower income people vote Republican. Just the opposite of what the Dims want us to believe.

[Brett66]

Yep, Blue states have higher taxes, I don't wish to join that club.

[The Mower]

Yeah, and it also shows who's smart and whose dumb in this equation and once again it's just not quite what the dims want you to believe.

[Muleteam1]

If the Blue States are paying more in taxes than they are getting back, and the Red States are getting back more than they pay, the argument that the Blue States are smarter than the Red States is somewhat negated isn't it?

Muleteam1

[DeweyCA]

Are the taxes from corporations includeed in their calculations? Their contributions would htem probably be credited to the state in which the HQ is located, like NY or CA. But many of their plants are probably located in Red states where the wages are lower. So while the taxes are taken from people in Red states, they will be credited to the Blue state in which the HQ is located. Does this make some sense? But then Delaware should be listed pretty high (in the top 20 of contributors).

[cripplecreek]

Red counties feed blue counties period.

[shawnlaw]

So you would rather be poor and pay lower taxes?

[dg62]

I would love to see this refuted. Why would blue state continually vote for higher taxes from which they supposedly don't benefit, and red states continually vote for lower taxes, less govt from which they supposedly don't benefit. Don't make sense.

[SCALEMAN]

I would like to see this broken down into types of spending:

Welfare

Medicare/Medicaid

Highways

Special Projects

National Parks

Military

[CaptainAwesome2]

the people voting for democrats arent the ones paying the money in taxes they are the ones receiving the money in government spending. you just have more rich people around the big cities that pay all the taxes.

[azhenfud]

The only thinh that tells me is the "Blue state's" Democrat gov'mt teat-suckers amass in those states and are too lazy to vote - BLUE.

But they've gotta blame someone ELSE for their big loss.

[azhenfud]

EXACTLY!!

[Travis McGee]

And also broken down by counties.

[GOP_1900AD]

DC is a no brainer. The rest of the "receiving" states have either a large number of Indian Reservations or military bases. In other words, their levels of Federal funding are anomalies driven by factors having absolutely nothing to do with non governmental economic activity or the actual needs of citizens (or lack thereof) for Federal funds. Any other analysis of this beyond what I wrote here is utterly disingenuous and deceitful.