[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.

[GOP_1900AD]

Alaska has some huge Indian Reservations, plus, many Federally dependent Indians not on Reservations.

[sittnick]

Thanks for the run-down state-by-state. Excellent analysis. I might add, in the case of Alaska, it is a wise POLICY to subsidize people moving up there in order to be able to provide the infrastructure for energy and defense. The individual Alaskans are "feeding at the public trough", but only vecause most of us find it to be too cold and remote. Canada does something similar for the northern areas.

[dynoman]

Yes, blue D.C. in number one, receiving three times more federal funds revieved than number two kinda blows the whole point.

The farm states (I'm from ND) receive a ton of farm subsidies, I suspect that is part of what puts them high on the list. You wouldn't believe how many individual ND farmers receive hundreds of thousands of farm subsidies per year.

ND Farm Subsidy Top Recipients in 1995-2002

ND Farm Subsidy Top Recipients in 2002

It would look the same in any farm state.

[Aetius]

I suspect that if a truly detailed analysis were done, then it would indeed show that the blue parts of the red states account for a disproportionate amount of the non-military federal spending in the states. That is why I doubt that these liberals would carry the analysis that far, because it would indict someone other than the white Southerners they hate so much.

[Species8472]

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

You bet we are an oddball, Alaska is 1/3rd the size of the lower 49 states. We have more coastline than the rest of the U.S. as well as more navigable rivers. and a lot of federal assets. Only 3% of the land is in private hands. Though we would be well able to take care of ourselves, the blue stater's insist that we keep most of our land and resources locked up in a wilderness designation. Surprise! it takes money to manage wilderness! How else do you expect to pay for firefighting on the 6.5 million acres that burned here last fire season. The feds insist on managing fish and game on federal lands due to our refusal to grant a natural resource priority to rural natives (Alaska's constitution guarantees an equal right to fish and game for ALL Alaskans).

Bottom line - We have more than the ability to pay our own way if you let us develop our resources and land, but if you want to keep us locked up in the wilderness than the blue stater's should have to pay for their parkland.