OK, so Texas gets $1.94 of federal fund for every tax dollar they pay in....

[Skidmore]

at least I'm remembering that as the stat that Tweety gave on his show last Friday when he was mixing it up with that Texas congressman--the one who seemed to think that Texans were genetically predisposed to be more patriotic than all other Americans. I think its time to give a more subtle argument to people from those low or no tax states--fore every state and local tax you don't pay, someone else bails you out at federal level. Texas is one of the states being bailed out continually. How is that fair as far as taxation goes?

Can we use this or am I off the mark?

Edited to correct dollar amount in thread title.

[midnight armadillo]

1. How about federal aid parity?

LOL, the South would shit a brick.

[Skidmore]

2. Perhaps that should be the reply to the tea bag uprising.

Federal aid parity if they want lower taxes. And spell out for them what it means in terms of reduced services and infrastructure. Now that would be hardball.

[SharonAnn]

11. Don't forget Alaska. they're the biggest welfare state.

[AZ Criminal JD]

16. Welfare to whom exactly?

Alaska received federal money because the federal government owns most of the state so the feds have to spend a lot on that land and facilities and personnel on that land. Who do you think is getting the money? It is not Alaskans. How idiotic.

[mikekohr]

29. Ownership of Federal Lands Is NOT the Driving Factor in Red States Being Net Takers

Ownership of land by the Federal Government is not the reason more federal dollars flow to some areas of the country than others, if it was Iowa, and Indiana would not be on the list of net "takers." http://www.nemw.org/data.htm#fedspend

Mississippi which ranks #1 in Federal Dollars received, only ranks 36th in Federal land ownership, Alabama ranks 41st, Georgia ranks 40th, Kansas comes in at 50th, while one of the biggest net givers in Federal taxes paid, California, is among the top ten states (ranked #7) with lands held in title by the Federal government. http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

30. Land ownership certainly is the main factor

Iowa and Indiana are on the list because of farm welfare subsidies. Judging from your profile location I would think you would know that. Who do think is getting this federal money? Again a double standard is promoted by NE states.

[mikekohr]

35. Repeating a falsehood does not make it fact

This is not Fox News

[AZ Criminal JD]

37. Exactly what is false?

Or are you referring to yourself?

[TexasObserver]

19. Yes, Sarah Palin governs the state that doles money to citizens.

She shovels in cash from the federal government and sends back two US senators and a congressperson - all three with a constituency the size of those other 434 House seats.

[AZ Criminal JD]

17. Not if the federal government would give up their land

Which is what they are spending the money on. The feds have given up their land in the NE. Why do you support a double standard?

[mikekohr]

36. Ownership of Federal Lands Is NOT the Driving Factor in Red States Being Net Takers

Ownership of land by the Federal Government is not the reason more federal dollars flow to some areas of the country than others, if it was Iowa, and Indiana would not be on the list of net "takers." http://www.nemw.org/data.htm#fedspend

Mississippi which ranks #1 in Federal Dollars received, only ranks 36th in Federal land ownership, Alabama ranks 41st, Georgia ranks 40th, Kansas comes in at 50th, while one of the biggest net givers in Federal taxes paid, California, is among the top ten states (ranked #7) with lands held in title by the Federal government. http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

38. Bullshit

Let's have the federal government own land in the western states at the same percent as in IL. Then we'll see who becomes the welfare states.

[mikekohr]

41. Explain California Using Your Logic

California ranks #7 by % of land base held by the Federal Government. It hasn't hurt them. Washington state is ranked at 11, hasn't hurt them. Oregon is ranked at #12, hasn't hurt them. New Hampshire is ranked at #13, hasn't hurt them. Michigan is ranked at #16, hasn't hurt them. Minnesota comes in at #20, hasn't hurt them, or Wisconsin who comes in at #24. All givers.


Then there is KS,AL,GA,IA,IN,KY,LA,MO,ND,NE,OK,SD,TN, all 13 are "takers," all in the BOTTOM 1/2 of states with regards to % of lands held in trust by the Federal Government. Why has the lack of Federal land ownership in these states not kept them out of the "taker" column?

source: Bureau of Land Management

mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

43. Maybe you have never heard of our military

Those states have far more bases than the others. Bases cost a lost of money. But of course that's "welfare". How sick.

[mikekohr]

45. So Now You Are Saying Military Spending Explains Why Red States Are Net "Takers"

Am I to assume you have given up claiming Federal ownership of land explains this statistic?

[AZ Criminal JD]

46. OMG

Bases and federal facilities are part of federal land. No wonder downstate IL is so backward if your posts are any indication of the people that live there.

[mikekohr]

47. Snarkiness, snideness, but no sources,

no links, no documentation. 13 posts in this thread alone and not a single bit of evidence provided to back up any statement you made. Chicago must really miss you.

Incidentally North Central Illinois is not Downstate Illinois, which only goes to prove you are not proficient in geography either.

[AZ Criminal JD]

48. To people in Chicago everything outside of Cook is downstate

But I'm sure you know that Mr. Snarky. The whole purpose of this OP was to try and smear western and rural states as being unproductive and people standing around with their hands out waiting for "federal money". That's why it was posted and that's why it continues to be posted every 2 or 3 days on DU. That's why DC is never included. "Why we're just talking about states!" There are no links ever posted to prove this just the links to "federal spending". No one defines that term. No one can show how the spending and revenue sections are defined. You haven't done it either. I am using common sense and my knowledge and experience with government spending. I'm not going through 25,500 pages of the federal budget just to prove my point. If you don't accept it fine, move on.

[mikekohr]

49. Military spending per capita ranked by state

Notes and sources. 

Table 1: Taxes for the Military and Expenditures by State 
State	Rank According to Ratio of Amount Returned per Dollar
Paid in Taxes	Amount Returned to State per Dollar Paid in
Taxes	Military Distribution by State	Taxes for Military (in
millions)	Military per capita	Taxes for Military per Capita
United States	N/A 	$0.91 	$390,876 	$431,543 	$1,288 	$1,455 
New Mexico	1 	$5.00 	$6,320 	$1,263 	$3,282 	$656 
Alaska	2 	$4.81 	$3,217 	$669 	$4,851 	$1,009 
Hawaii	3 	$3.95 	$5,015 	$1,271 	$3,939 	$998 
Virginia	4 	$3.94 	$40,799 	$10,353 	$5,394 	$1,369 
Mississippi	5 	$2.89 	$4,869 	$1,685 	$1,674 	$579 
Alabama	6 	$2.52 	$9,782 	$3,880 	$2,151 	$853 
Maine	7 	$2.18 	$2,374 	$1,087 	$1,801 	$825 
Arizona	8 	$2.16 	$12,001 	$5,549 	$2,016 	$932 
South Carolina	9 	$2.14 	$6,918 	$3,228 	$1,629 	$760 
Kentucky	10 	$1.84 	$6,678 	$3,621 	$1,600 	$868 
District of Columbia	11 	$1.78 	$6,143 	$3,460 	$10,554
	$5,944 
Maryland	12 	$1.74 	$15,464 	$8,906 	$2,767 	$1,593 
Utah	13 	$1.61 	$3,559 	$2,216 	$1,429 	$890 
North Dakota	14 	$1.39 	$776 	$557 	$1,223 	$878 
Washington	15 	$1.30 	$11,363 	$8,749 	$1,806 	$1,390 
Missouri	16 	$1.25 	$9,377 	$7,523 	$1,617 	$1,298 
Connecticut	17 	$1.09 	$9,523 	$8,774 	$2,720 	$2,506 
South Dakota	18 	$1.06 	$777 	$731 	$1,003 	$944 
Colorado	19 	$1.03 	$7,371 	$7,184 	$1,581 	$1,540 
Texas	20 	$0.97 	$31,319 	$32,218 	$1,366 	$1,405 
Montana	21 	$0.97 	$663 	$684 	$709 	$732 
Idaho	22 	$0.97 	$1,438 	$1,485 	$1,006 	$1,039 
Louisiana	23 	$0.96 	$4,693 	$4,878 	$1,041 	$1,082 
Georgia	24 	$0.94 	$11,868 	$12,565 	$1,300 	$1,376 
California	25 	$0.92 	$46,441 	$50,552 	$1,285 	$1,398 
Kansas	26 	$0.91 	$3,269 	$3,575 	$1,189 	$1,301 
Vermont	27 	$0.87 	$550 	$630 	$884 	$1,012 
Oklahoma	28 	$0.86 	$4,674 	$5,423 	$1,319 	$1,530 
Florida	29 	$0.85 	$18,598 	$21,980 	$1,047 	$1,237 
Wyoming	30 	$0.84 	$495 	$587 	$972 	$1,154 
New Hampshire	31 	$0.83 	$1,293 	$1,561 	$990 	$1,194 
North Carolina	32 	$0.82 	$9,404 	$11,512 	$1,084 	$1,327 
Indiana	33 	$0.78 	$5,633 	$7,180 	$899 	$1,146 
Massachusetts	34 	$0.77 	$9,457 	$12,244 	$1,470 	$1,903 
West Virginia	35 	$0.76 	$794 	$1,040 	$438 	$573 
Tennessee	36 	$0.72 	$5,749 	$8,000 	$965 	$1,343 
Nevada	37 	$0.72 	$2,275 	$3,178 	$943 	$1,318 
Pennsylvania	38 	$0.59 	$10,644 	$18,086 	$858 	$1,458 
Rhode Island	39 	$0.52 	$959 	$1,847 	$893 	$1,721 
Ohio	40 	$0.47 	$8,747 	$18,418 	$763 	$1,606 
Wisconsin	41 	$0.44 	$3,191 	$7,222 	$577 	$1,307 
Nebraska	42 	$0.44 	$1,351 	$3,066 	$769 	$1,744 
Iowa	43 	$0.41 	$1,355 	$3,265 	$457 	$1,101 
Arkansas	44 	$0.41 	$1,862 	$4,567 	$671 	$1,645 
New Jersey	45 	$0.39 	$7,645 	$19,400 	$878 	$2,229 
Michigan	46 	$0.39 	$5,026 	$13,029 	$498 	$1,290 
Oregon	47 	$0.35 	$1,316 	$3,750 	$362 	$1,030 
Illinois	48 	$0.30 	$6,903 	$22,668 	$541 	$1,776 
New York	49 	$0.24 	$8,930 	$37,766 	$462 	$1,955 
Delaware	50 	$0.23 	$588 	$2,516 	$698 	$2,989 
Minnesota	51 	$0.19 	$2,437 	$12,772 	$475 	$2,491 
Other	N/A 	N/A 	$9,005 	$3,171 	N/A 	N/A 


http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Publications/What-Cam... 

14 "Red" states below Break even point (1.00)
disproves that military spending explains the
"Taker" status of Red states

[AZ Criminal JD]

50. It wasn't meant to "prove" it by that factor alone

There are many factors involved in federal land spending -- the military is one of them. National parks and forests are another. And there are many others. The OP is attempting to smear by saying rural and western states are getting "welfare" as in food stamps, etc from the feds. Well if that is true then post THAT link. Let's see how many people are getting true federal welfare aid -- and please include DC in that.

[mikekohr]

51. Now we are getting to the truth of the matter

The reasons to explain the phenomenon of Red states being net "Takers" from the Federal Treasury are many and varied. Social welfare which only accounts for about 1% of the Federal budget is NOT the answer. Demographics explains some of it. Military spending explains some of it (see Blue State of Hawaii and Red State of Mississippi). Agricultural subsidies explains some of it. Lower per capita income in "Red Taker" states explains some of it. More progressive economic policies in "Blue Giver" states explains some of it. "Pork Barrel Spending" and the fact a small state has as many Senators as a big state explains some of it. The Seniority system in the Senate magnifies the previous point (look at Ted Stevens (R) AL or Robert Byrd (D) WV, both big "taker states).

It is the hypocrisy of many of the political leaders in the "Red Taker," states that spur this backlash. Especially those Red, Taker State Republican Senators that whine about the tax code and get all misty eyed talking about rugged individualism and wax indignant about welfare queens in the cities while their own states and constituents are beneficiaries of the very system they condemn.

[AZ Criminal JD]

53. I agree with about 90% of your post.

But as I said before the purpose of these posts by the OP and others who post the same stats over and over again is to paint a picture of "blue" states that are keeping this country together and "red" states that are parasites. That is a lie but the OP wants to slander and smear no matter what the facts are.

[mikekohr]

54. Common Ground

Keep hope alive

[TexasObserver]

20. As with corporate welfare, the biggest whiners are the biggest recipients.

Red states get back more than they give. It's as simple as that. They're takers.

[vadawg]

25. if you do that at a state level, then whats to stop it at a county level or district

i am sure that the wealthier counties would love to get more money back, though it would probuably destroy a lot of urban centers.

[stray cat]

3. TX gets back $0.94 for every dollar they spend - it is a barely donor state

unlike most dem states who really are donor states. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/matthews-hits-back-whining-about-texas-being-donor

[Skidmore]

6. I may have misunderstood what he was saying.

He has the tendency to talk fast and over other people.

[stray cat]

7. I had to go back and verify it myself. I just remembered TX had nothing to complain about

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Tweety said Texas was a small net-loser

He said Texas gets back $0.94 or $0.97 (memory) for each federal tax dollar.

New Jersey was lowest at about $0.64

[Mudoria]

5. I could have sworn Chris said 88 cents.. I could be wrong tho

[soccermomforobama]

14. I know that Keith said Texas gets 88 cents.

[DFW]

52. I have heard 88 cents from other sources as well

The Federal government has to run on more than fumes. I don't see how any state can take back
more than it pays in, and 88% is an enormous percentage, especially for a state that has no
state income tax (or maybe because of that). We do have a state sales tax, however. It doesn't
cover enough (our education sucks), but with a state the size of ours, it helps a little, anyway.

[TexasObserver]

8. Key point by Tweety: Top ten DONOR states all voted for OBAMA in 2008.

Texas is a DONOR state, but only slightly.

[AZ Criminal JD]

10. Top blue by percent was DC

DC receives about 10$ for every dollar they put in.

[mikekohr]

13. DC is the Seat of The Federal Government

Of course it's number one. But then they don't get a vote in the Senate and are not a state, so they don't count in this list of net takers/giver states.

mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

15. Which demonstrates why these stats are meaningless

The federal government owns most of the land in the western states so the federal government spends a great deal of money on maintenance, facilities and personnel for that land. It is not going to the people of the states as "welfare" as some on DU have attempted to smear.

[mikekohr]

21. Ownership of Federal Lands Is NOT the Driving Factor in Red States Being Net Takers

Ownership of land by the Federal Government is not the reason more federal dollars flow to some areas of the country than others, if it was Iowa, and Indiana would not be on the list of net "takers." http://www.nemw.org/data.htm#fedspend

Mississippi which ranks #1 in Federal Dollars received, only ranks 36th in Federal land ownership, Alabama ranks 41st, Georgia ranks 40th, Kansas comes in at 50th, while one of the biggest net givers in Federal taxes paid, California, is among the top ten states (ranked #7) with lands held in title by the Federal government. http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

31. You are wrong, see post above.

BTW how are those farm welfare payments in Illinois? Can you possibly get anymore?

[mikekohr]

33. Illinois is a microcosm of the nation

I live in a north-central, rural agricultural area of the state. I attend many town hall style meetings with our local state Representative Frank Mautino. Invariably at these meetings someone will stand up a rail against Cook County reaping the benefits from the state treasury and advocating forming "our" own state free of Chicago pols.

Frank who heads up one of the finance committees always cautions about "being careful what we wish for." Representative Mautino is well aware that the Chicago area tax base is what carries much of the state budget. It gets a big chunk of the state spending but puts in a bigger chunk of the revenue. I'm quite grateful for that fact.

And so it is for the nation. The more industrialized, the more populous, regions of the nation, have historically been the engines that filled the Federal coffers. Rural states, like my rural county in Illinois on the state level (federal agricultural subsidy's notwithstanding), are generally net takers.

Those are unpleasant facts for many to face. Many people locally don't appreciate our status within the state. I suspect others have trouble facing the truth on the national level.

Accept facts for what they are. In spite of the natural tendency to harbor resentment to our more prosperous neighbors we all need to be aware that collectively we have put together a system that for all its flaws is the envy of the world community.

And for those of us on the receiving end I want to tell the rest of the state and nation that there are those of us that are grateful. Like Representative Mautino said, "Be careful what you wish for." But even more important "Know what it is you wish for."


mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

39. I used to live in Chicago

It is not a "microcosm" of the nation. Thank God. There is no one in Chicago who thinks anyone downstate has any intelligence. I now see why.

[mikekohr]

42. Not one person?

Exaggeration and smugness are never in style.

[TexasObserver]

18. Ah, you're using reason. Don't expect that to work.

As you note, of course it gets a high expenditure ratio. It's where the federal government is based, and except for the people who work there but don't live there, it's poor.

More importantly, however, the poster missed the obvious: IT'S NOT A STATE!

As I noted, the top ten DONOR states - that is the top ten in terms of money paid in over money returned - are all blue states.

[mikekohr]

22. Here Is the Major Reason We Have Disparity In The Giver/Taker Index That Breaks Along Party Lines

A Post From MajorChode

Many southern and western states have much smaller population densities, which means you have a much higher ratio of infrastructure required to the people available to pay for it. Welfare spending is really a non-issue because it only consumes about 1% of the total federal budget. So the issue of donor vs contributor states is much more complex and the numerous exceptions to the rule invalidate the argument for the most part.

However there are a few areas where there is a small amount of merit. For instance, blue states tend to have more progressive policies towards moving people out of poverty and making them productive citizens. Blue states also have more progressive policies that strengthen the wages of the middle and upper classes, so they are more affluent overall and those areas who have more affluent wage earners pay more taxes as a result. If you look at the poverty belt in the US, it pretty much stretches from eastern Nevada strait through to North Carolina and covers the reddest of the red states. In those areas the gap between the haves and have nots is widening and the people in the middle classes and especially the upper middle classes are disappearing, and so goes the tax base.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the answer in a nutshell. Conservative economic principles have NEVER worked, not on a National level (see http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/releases/053 and on a state level are producing the same under performing results.

mike kohr

[TexasObserver]

23. The answer in a nutshell is they each have TWO US senators.

The reason all those Western states with small populations get so much compared to their populations is they have Republican senators like Ted Stevens, who demand LARD and other pork as a condition for giving their votes in exchange for other matters.

The stranglehold the small population states have on the US senate is the reason they bathe in federal funds.

Denny Crane

[mikekohr]

24. And That My Friend Is A Very Astute Observation

True but not I suspect a particulary popular one. Facts are pesky things.

mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

32. Facts are pesky only if you cite them

As opposed to just making things up. Please show a breakdown of pork among "blue" and "red" states and what Senators asked for what. We will never see that posted here.

[mikekohr]

34. "Pork" spending is a small fraction of overall federal spending, but here is the list anyway

Pork Per Capita by State
15 OF TOP 25 STATES ARE RED STATES IN PER CAPITA PORK BARREL SPENDING
8 OF TOP 25 STATES ARE BLUE STATES IN PER CAPITA PORK BARREL SPENDING
2 OF TOP 25 STATES ARE SWING STATES IN PER CAPITA PORK BARREL SPENDING



(National Average: $29.60 Per Person)
2009 Rank
State
2009 Pork
Population
Pork/Capita
2008 Rank
Difference

1
Alaska
$221,222,875 RED
686,293
$322.34
1
0

2
Hawaii
$302,678,707 BLUE
1,288,198
$234.96
2
0

3
North Dakota
$142,549,091 RED
641,481
$222.22
3
0

4
District of Columbia
$109,794,850
591,833 NOT A STATE
$185.52
10
6

5
West Virginia RED
$257,635,000
1,814,468
$141.99
4
-1

6
New Mexico SWING STATE
$267,138,821
1,984,356
$134.62
8
2

7
South Dakota
$106,070,750 RED
804,194
$131.90
7
0

8
Vermont
$76,944,280
621,270 BLUE
$123.85
6
-2

9
Mississippi
$331,472,118 RED
2,938,618
$112.80
5
-4

10
Delaware
$75,966,820
873,092 BLUE
$87.01
14
4

11
Montana
$81,549,250
967,440 RED
$84.29
9
-2

12
Rhode Island
$71,463,822
1,050,788 BLUE
$68.01
13
1

13
Nevada
$165,861,473
2,600,167 RED
$63.79
15
2

14
Idaho
$86,257,139 RED
1,523,81
$56.61
20
6

15
Wyoming
$29,876,350 RED
532,668
$56.09
32
17

16
Alabama
$258,844,169
4,661,900 RED
$55.52
17
1

17
Maine
$72,664,000 BLUE
1,316,456
$55.20
41
24

18
Utah
$148,581,925 RED
2,736,424
$54.30
21
3

19
Iowa
$160,045,986 SWING STATE
3,002,555
$53.30
16
-3

20
Kentucky
$197,547,484 RED
4,269,245
$46.27
18
-2

21
New Hampshire BLUE
$58,023,487
1,315,809
$44.10
28
7

22
Kansas
$115,341,773 RED
2,802,134
$41.16
19
-3

23
Maryland BLUE
$229,944,418
5,633,597
$40.82
22
-1

24
Arkansas RED
$106,865,268
2,855,390
$37.43
11
-13

25
Connecticut BLUE
$122,956,874
3,501,252
$35.12
27
2

26
Missouri RED
$203,765,241
5,911,605
$34.47
24
-2

27
Washington BLUE
$208,227,997
6,549,224
$31.79
25
-2

28
Massachusetts BLUE
$201,374,416
6,497,967
$30.99
31
3

29
Nebraska RED
$51,158,050
1,783,432
$28.69
30
1

30
South Carolina RED
$117,740,872
4,479,800
$26.28
37
7

31
Louisiana RED
$113,389,813
4,410,796
$25.71
12
-19

32
Wisconsin BLUE
$141,754,050
5,627,967
$25.19
29
-3

33
Pennsylvania BLUE
$309,522,247
12,448,279
$24.86
35
2

34
North Carolina RED
$227,965,030
9,222,414
$24.72
39
5

35
New Jersey BLUE
8,682,661
$24.67
43
8

36
Michigan BLUE
$243,896,540
10,003,422
$24.38
46
10

37
Tennessee RED
$150,990,750
6,214,888
$24.30
33
-4

38
Virginia RED
$188,312,775
7,769,089
$24.24
23
-15

39
Minnesota BLUE
$104,168,643
5,220,393
$19.95
26
-13

40
Texas RED
$469,499,650
24,326,974
$19.30
40
0

41
Florida SWING STATE
$350,316,596
18,328,340
$19.11
42
1

42
Ohio
$218,761,612 SWING STATE
11,485,910
$19.05
48
6

43
Indiana RED
$120,190,560
6,376,792
$18.85
38
-5

44
Oklahoma RED
$68,609,290
3,642,361
$18.84
34
-10

45
Illinois BLUE
$237,714,100
12,901,563
$18.43
36
-9

46
Oregon BLUE
$68,114,425
3,790,060
$17.97
45
-1

47
Colorado BLUE
$85,312,500
4,939,456
$17.27
47
0

48
New York BLUE
$326,151,422
19,490,297
$16.73
50
2

49
California BLUE
$560,918,597
36,756,666
$15.26
49
0

50
Georgia RED
$146,688,776
9,685,744
$15.14
44
-6

51
Arizona RED
$75,249,275
6,500,180
$11.58
51
0


TOTAL*
$9,001,249,707
304,059,724
$29.60




*This figure differs from the $19.6 billion total for pork. Pork projects earmarked for multiple states or projects that cannot be attributed to a specific state are not included in the pork per capita calculations


link: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2009_porkpercap

mike kohr

[AZ Criminal JD]

40. Congratulations

You just defeated the primary argument of the poster who were agreeing with. Yes, pork is a small amount of federal spending. Federal ownership of land is the main cause of federal spending.

[mikekohr]

44. "Federal ownership of land is the main cause of federal spending. " WHAT??

Could you please provide one credible source, one link to a reputable resource, just one piece of factual evidence to back up your so far unsubstantiated myopic, single-minded opinion?

[customerserviceguy]

9. I'd sure like to know how all of this is calculated

if it includes military spending, then that just reflects the fact that so-called "donor" states are reasonably successful in keeping military bases away. Western states have more places to put military bases, anyway, and they had a LOT more when the bases were sited decades ago.

[GoesTo11]

12. that is a very insightful observation

I'll bet it's entirely true. An economist/statistician could do well to confirm your hypothesis that low-tax states get more funding.

[ejpoeta]

26. because it's them. see, i've found out from my own family that when it's you

it's different. see, when i had food stamps or got HEAP.... i wasn't a trailer trash unwed mother like all the other welfare recipients. i was different, though my family members could never really give me a decent explanation of how that was so. but i imagine that the people of texas who HATE socialism and hate any government help have made up some rational sounding reason why in their case it is neither socialism nor any of that other bad liberul stuff. i swear, i have family that seems fully capable of doing that without a second thought.

[jewishlibrl]

27. The number is $0.88, not $1.94

Keith Olbermann said this on April 15th:

"Not so much ignored as perhaps ignorance, when you consider that Texas gets back 88 cents out of every federal tax dollar it sends to Washington."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30249444/

[Thothmes]

28. What is wrong with this? Fairness has nothing to do with it

We do for states, what we do for individuals. Those States that need Federal level resources get them. Those states that not require much in Federal level resources do not get them, or get less. The Government provides direct resources (AFDC, foodstamps) to individuals that need them. Those that do not need them pay taxes to provide for those that do. Why is one system fair and the other unfair?