[Carry_Okie]

While the trend cited is indeed positive, blue states in general (such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and California) contribute far more in net Federal revenues than do the red states listed above (such as Wyoming and South Dakota), many of which are net Federal recipients.

[Paleo Conservative]

While the trend cited is indeed positive, blue states in general (such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and California) contribute far more in net Federal revenues than do the red states listed above (such as Wyoming and South Dakota), many of which are net Federal recipients.

That needs to broken down between domestic and military spending. I don't think you'd want the ICBM bases in North Dakota located near the highly populated urban areas like the northeast which has lots of blue states.

[VeniVidiVici]

While the trend cited is indeed positive, blue states in general (such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and California) contribute far more in net Federal revenues than do the red states listed above

I think that was the main point of the article.

Suckers ;-)

[bobjam]

That arguement has been made by liberals many times. They speak of “donor states” and “recipient states” and brag that blue states are subsidizing red states. The devil, of course, is in the details.

First of all, consider two of the federal government’s biggest expeditures: social security and medicare. Those who receive these benefits are not evenly distributed around the country but are concentrated in places such as Florida, Texas and Arizona. These senior citizens often retired to warmer and cheaper climates from blue states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It is not logical to count these expenditures against a donor/recipient tally.

Second, consider transportation dollars. It is true that Washington is spending more money on new roads in growing cities such as Phoenix, Charlotte and Jacksonville. This work comes only after decades of heavy concentration on highway construction in blue states. These red states are actually finally getting their fair share.

Third, military installations are more likely to be found in red states. This has occurred for a number of reasons including favorable attitudes towards the armed forces and the fact that many of these bases were established in cheap open areas. The development grew up around them (Cocoa Beach). Only a leftist who thinks of the military as a government entitlement rather than the institution that defends us would count defense spending in a donor/recipeint tally.

Fourth, red states have more kids. Education spending goes where the kids are. If blue states want a bigger share, then stop having abortions.

[Jigajog]

I don’t believe that. Individuals in high tax states can deduct that portion paid to the state against that due the Fed.

[Kuksool]

****blue states in general (such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and California) contribute far more in net Federal revenues than do the red states listed above (such as Wyoming and South Dakota), many of which are net Federal recipients.****

Your post explains why conservative states like North Dakota is happy to send Rodents to Congress.

[avacado]

"While the trend cited is indeed positive, blue states in general (such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and California) contribute far more in net Federal revenues than do the red states listed above (such as Wyoming and South Dakota), many of which are net Federal recipients."

Are you talking about corporate taxes when you say "contribute far more in net Federal revenues?"