“Maybe you can now understand why the citizens of Donor States like California and New Jersey get a little irritated when they hear a resident (like you) of a Parasitic State (like Arizona) complain about “bailing out California.”
Can the fiscal plight of CA and NJ seriously be laid at the feet of their being “donor states”? If that truly were the case, then I’d argue in favor of their shedding some of their excess obligations—perhaps by challenging the constitutional foundations of them (for example, the Medicaid formula is structured precisely to redistribute funds from “rich” states to “poor” states, but this would appear to violate the principal that taxes be levied proportionately among states etc.). But if eradicating this fiscal imbalance would only solve, say, 10% of CA’s fiscal problem, then I would say that hiding behind this excuse is not very defensible.
In light of all the horror stories we’re heard about outrageous pensions etc., my guess is that the truth may be closer to the latter than the former.
California certainly isn't going to improve its economic situation by emulating or by trying to become more like Mississippi, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky or any of the other Parasitic States that have become so dependent on the federal government and who are being bailed out on a daily basis by Donor States like California and New Jersey.
California and New Jersey are among the producer states that have been pulling the wagon in this country. States like Mississippi, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, and the other Parasitic States have been riding in the wagon. How do you expect Californians to react to criticism from inside the wagon that we're not pulling fast enough to suit the free riders?
If we're going to solve our economic problems in this country, we need to reduce dependency on the federal government. Instead of castigating the producer states, maybe we should see if we can find ways to make the residents of Parasitic States more productive and less dependent on the federal government.
Californians will benefit from a reduction in size of the federal government. We will gain from that transaction. Mississippians, Arizonans and New Mexicans are either going to have to learn to become more productive and self-sufficient or are going to have to just learn how to make do with less.
The entire idea of “donor” states and “parasitic” states is a non-starter. The federal government is responsible for the defense of the entire nation, and does not make defense decisions in ways to ensure that States get federal expenditures proportionate to the taxes that their citizens pay.
I notice, looking at the data from your source, that California, as late as 1993, had about 98 cents on every federal tax dollar sent from California, spent in California. I also know that this was a time when several military bases in California were shut down because of the encroachment problems of being next to an urban area and to somewhat anti-military attitudes on the part of some local governments (remember San Francisco?). Many of those defense dollars and jobs moved to Arizona.
Thus, because Arizona is friendly to the U.S. military, and federal defense dollars are spent here instead of California, Arizona becomes a “parasitic” state and California becomes a “donor” state.
Again, States do not pay federal taxes (they used to under the original Constitution). Citizens pay taxes, they also live in states and they move about. The idea of “donor” and “parasitic” states doesn't, and cannot, take all the complexities into effect to make sense.