Posted on 11/18/2004 7:22:34 AM PST by 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
But liberals don't like that solution. They just like bitching.
It appears to me the Dems are pissed about the results of their own Robin-Hood domestic economic policies. Not to mention, farm subsidies and tornado/flood/disaster relief plays into the equation a lot. Not a lot of that going on in ME and MA, I bet.
As far as red vs. blue states goes, I would be interested to see crime rate statistics, charitable contribution statistics, etc. relative to red vs. blue.
Alaska has some huge Indian Reservations, plus, many Federally dependent Indians not on Reservations.
What state is "The Big Dig" in?
What is the cost to taxpayers for "The Big Dig"?
What is the effective rate of expenditure, ie., getting the dollar's worth?
Why isn't it called "The Big Pig"?
Just more folks who think chicken comes from the grocery store.
Gee, Little Tommy Daschle ran his recent campaign by promoting how much money he brought back to South Dakota and the stream of lamenting letters to the editor about his defeat decry the loss of his clout in Congress i.e. ability to get money.
These are BS stats. The stats that need to be done are how many dollars did "red" people spend in taxes and of course the same for the "blue" people, then, how many dollars did "blue" people receive in benefits... Anyone can see that what makes a blue state blue is the density of the population in urban masses (messes too)... and unless you are brain dead you know that the inner cities are masses of poor people who vote DEM.
And the funniest thing about this is how loud blue state congresspeople do moan about Bush's tax cuts.
And it was another way around for 40 years.
Payback is a bitch, what else could one say about it?
It seems to me that some congresspeople in MA will be extremely vulnerable in 2006 to a Republican campaign run on a single issue of access to purse.
Red counties feed blue counties period.
That pretty well summarizes the whole subject. lol
All this article does is confirm that the Dem urban states try to buy votes from the rural states with Federal largess.
bttt
Something has to be wrong here, heck the Big-Dig in Boston used a ton of federal cash over and above what it normally gets from the government and that project (largest construction project ever in America) alone puts MA in the top ten of recipients.
New York used this argument years ago, that they sent tax dollars to Fed and got back peanuts in return. The catch was that so many large corporations that are HQ in NY were paying taxes from NY but had little or no taxes actually generated
in NY. When the taxes were deducted for those people, NY was a winner. I suspect the same game is in play for many of the tax dollars.
If I wasn't a dumb red voter I would swear that liberals are now arguing for the justice of tax cuts.
Exactly. I think it worthy to note that there aren't a lot of corporations headquartered in the states that received the most per submitted.
So, whatever happened to that ol' lefty favorite, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Or, are they saying that it only applies when doing good with somebody ELSE's money?
Missouri has several huge military installations, two of the countries largest IRS facilities employing 10's of thousands of govt people, two of the largest defense contractors in the country that receive 10's of billions of dollars each year. It's not like the federal government is giving this money away to welfare recipients here, lol, as it does in huge urban areas like Los Angeles and New York.
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.