[2ndDivisionVet]

The Post does realize that most of that is tax revenue from the citizens and businesses in the various states, right? It's not from some magic tree or unicorn scat or some such.

[skeeter]

Whats up with red states sucking up so much revenue?

[Zeneta]

The States need to STOP accepting these funds.

This money comes with Big Government strings attached.

Just say NO !!!

Many people would like to “CUT OFF” the money to the Feds, I suggest we, the States, drown them in their own money.

The Feds and all their agencies are rewarded for giving out more and more money. I say NO.

Their budgets will necessarily decline if they are unable to place this money.

In turn, the Federal Government will begin to run a surplus and may/should begin to address the massive debt we have.

Once again, ALL this MONEY comes with conditions that are set by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.

The States should flip Washington the bird and tell them to pound sand.

[ForYourChildren]

Hello, we’re from the government and we are here to help.

Just say no.

Remember, the first one is FREE!

[nascarnation]

What a great deal for the states.

Residents send tax money to DC, they take a 20% cut to administer it, and IF YOU BEHAVE THE WAY WE TELL YOU TO, we’ll send 80% back.

For reference Vegas only takes about 5% in the vig....

[elengr]

Too bad the feral government is able to directly tax the citizenry. You know taking money to DC just to return (some) of it is going to lead to corruption, graft, and ever more feral government control of everyone’s lives.

It would be much better to repeal the 16th Amendment, keep the money in the states, and have the states keep the feral government on a short financial leach by having the feds funded directly from the states via a single lump sum per annum from each state. And except for those federal functions strictly enumerated in the Constitution, the state payments should be on a discretionary basis, individually per state.

[smokingfrog]

---

Today, the number of federal aid programs for the states is more than triple the number just 25 years ago. Federal aid spending is expected to be $561 billion in fiscal 2013, of which $286 billion are health grants and $275 billion are non-health grants. Aid programs range from the giant $267 billion Medicaid to hundreds of more obscure programs, such as a $15 million grant for “Nursing Workforce Diversity,” a $116 million grant for “Boating Safety Financial Assistance,” and a $125 million grant for “Healthy Marriages.”

[UnwashedPeasant]

Misleading statistics.

That map is “Federal Aid as a Percentage of State General Revenue.”

It is designed so that states with bloated governments and high state taxes appear to take less federal aid.

[txrefugee]

Texas, Florida, Arizona and NM do pretty well, considering they are forced by the Supreme Court ruling of the ‘80s to support all the undesirables from Mexico. It’s the least the federal government can do since they don’t have the expense of patrolling the border or deporting illegals.

[kvanbrunt2]

i don’t think these percentages mean anything. If the state budget is bloated then the amount the feds provider for it will be smaller. If the state trims there expenses then the federal portion would look higher. compare texas and california

[ansel12]

Without knowing the details and breakdowns of federal involvement and presence in each state, this doesn’t tell us what we really want to know.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article BBell. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

Please keep the following in mind when reading this post. Low-information state lawmakers long ago unsurprisingly overlooked the federal government’s constitutionally limited power to tax and spend as evidenced not only by the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A), but also by the following excerpt from a Supreme Court case opinion.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

In other words, the feds are prohibited from laying taxes for spending that cannot be justified under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

So a bunch of taxpayer dollars which corrupt Congress has never had the constitutional authority to appropriate in the first place are being thrown at the states, the main purpose of such funding likely to win votes for corrupt, Constitution-ignoring federal lawmakers.

Note that Founding States had originally given state lawmakers unique control of the federal Senate. This is because one purpose of the Senate was undoubtedly to kill House appropriations bills which not only stole 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also arguably robbed state revenues associated with those powers as evidenced by the clarification above of Congress's limited power to lay taxes.

Again, 17A is glaring evidence that voters and state lawmakers had long ago forgotten about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, especially Congress’s limited power to lay taxes.

[Carry me back]

Va is 47th awesome !

[The Truth Will Make You Free]

My first reaction is that this is TOTALLY FLAWED. Percentage of federal revenue would increase for less costly or poorer states that have smaller budgets.

Federal revenue per person, percentage of state contributions, or compared to the cost of living in that state, would be more valid indicators.