JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 26, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The way that Republican governors made a fuss last year about accepting stimulus dollars, and their continued uproar about growing deficits, it's worth another reminder that the most Republican states also get the most money from the federal government over what they put in. Here's a chart put together by a reader showing that, since 1981, some of the most conservative states have been the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending.
The 48 blue marks (the chart leaves off Hawaii and Alaska) show how much federal funding each state receives beyond what it pays in federal taxes. The seventeen states marked with the small blue dot pay more taxes than they receive in spending (see the lower-left). The thirty-one larger circles mark states that receive more spending than they pay in taxes. The size of the circle is proportional to the ratio of federal spending in to taxes out (the biggest being West Virginia, New Mexico, Louisiana, etc). The X and Y axis measure social and economic conservatism.
(To see a larger version of the chart click here.)
3 comments
There's no reason why the hypocrisy and ideological fantasies of the wacko right should be restricted to any one particular sphere. It almost goes without saying that the biggest complainers about "Big Gummint" are the ones sucking the hardest at the Federal teat. If we cut the red states off and seceded, they would descend to the level of Syria within a generation.
- roidubouloi
February 26, 2010 at 5:09pm
Hey Roid, we North Carolinians are not *that* bad. Well, most of us aren't.
- tnmats
February 26, 2010 at 10:06pm
Yes, I have seen this before buried on a web site as an obscure graph. These statistics are similar to what I remember. Why isn't this showcased? Indeed, I have thought it worth of a web site discussing it in some detail. What is the redistribution distribution profile over Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Defense, other welfare and benefit aid and Discretionary? How does California, which is nearly bankrupt, benefit by sending a dollar to the government and getting $0.78 back? Why don't Democrats make a bigger deal about getting more of their money back from the Federal government? What are the risks of elevating this discussion? At the very least Obama could argue when he puts forth his next jobs bill that the people who are blocking it are overwhelmingly hypocritical. But he already knows this, doesn't he? Why isn't it discussed? The simplest explanation I can see is that if you are poor, you do not want to give up money, therefore you do not want to pay taxes. Ultimately, most of the people will benefit from the handout though? So it would be the responsibility of the local politicians to tell their constituency not to complain and show them the benefit of Federal largesse. But that is the opposite of what happens. So what is really going on? Would the Democrats have a more difficult job using the Federal government if they did not pay off the South? What is it? Are we paying for more social justice in the South, and it would only be to our detriment to emphasize this? I really want to know.
- keepin_on
February 27, 2010 at 8:29am