Skip to main content

We have already discussed it at length, but you can never point out enough that it's the RED states -- the ones that vote Republican -- that take the most from the federal government, while it's the BLUE states -- those that vote Democratic -- that support their deadbeat asses.
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid (red states in bold):
  1. D.C. ($6.17)
  2. North Dakota ($2.03)
  3. New Mexico ($1.89)
  4. Mississippi ($1.84)
  5. Alaska ($1.82)
  6. West Virginia ($1.74)
  7. Montana ($1.64)
  8. Alabama ($1.61)
  9. South Dakota ($1.59)
  10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

  1. New Jersey ($0.62)
  2. Connecticut ($0.64)
  3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
  4. Nevada ($0.73)
  5. Illinois ($0.77)
  6. Minnesota ($0.77)
  7. Colorado ($0.79)
  8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
  9. California ($0.81)
  10. New York ($0.81)

Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
'nuff said.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:09 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  aoeu (4.00)
    Oregon was closer than New Mexico?  I don't think so.

    My turtles laughter
    was loud when the Yankees lost
    22 to zilch

    by TealVeal on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:06:11 PM PDT

    •  OR v NM (4.00)
      I don't think Oregon was closer either, though I do remember news orgs keeping Oregon yellow on their electoral maps along with Florida for quite some time.  Most had already called New Mexico for Gore and seemed too embarrassed to move it back into yellow.

      On a tangent, this reminds me of my favorite Election 2000 moment, when CNN was reading viewer mail, and someone had written in to voice her outrage that Oregon continued to hold all-male elections to this late date.

      After that, CNN used the term "vote by mail elections."

      Listen to the Stephanie Miller Show -- funnier than anything on Air America

      by Michael D on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:41:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was just thinking about this! (none)
    I was imagining how great it would be to challenge conservatives to be true to their small government beliefs by having their states send back any federal $ beyond what they pay.  

    Conservatism, after all, starts at home.

    •  Apparently poverty causes Red States too (none)
      Check the census numbers here.

      Of those top ten, only North Dakota, Alaska, and South Dakota aren't in the top ten for rates of poverty in 2003.

      16.8 %  D.C. ($6.17)
      9.8%  North Dakota ($2.03)
      18.1%  New Mexico ($1.89)
      16.0%  Mississippi ($1.84)
      9.6% Alaska ($1.82)
      17.4%  West Virginia ($1.74)
      15.1%  Montana ($1.64)
      15.0%  Alabama ($1.61)
      12.7%  South Dakota ($1.59)
      17.8%  Arkansas ($1.53)

      So, according to the logic of this post, we can also say that poverty causes Republicans.  

      </snark>

      This meme about what states pay and what states get back is myopic at best. The fact that those states are red has more to do with racism, poor education, voter disenfranchisement, and a weak and ineffectual Democratic voice against poverty than it does with some grand cognitive dissonance.

      •  On that note... (3.50)
        ..if you haven't yet read Tom Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas?", you ought to check it out.
      •  Wasn't clear enough (none)
        Most of those states are getting large federal outlays because of their poverty rates.  Progressives should champion that, not ridicule it.
        •  Wait a second... (none)
          I'm pretty sure that most of the states in question have low population bases and large military bases - which accounts for the high dollar values they're getting.
        •  Taxachuesetts (none)

          The right wing likes to start in on tax and spend liberals and how they don't want the great state of x to end up like Tax-achusetts.

          I don't see the harm of pointing out that the states most likely to complain about federal taxes are the ones most benefitting from them.

          I don't see anyone saying that the 'welfare states' shouldn't receive the federal funds that they do, just that they should bear this in mind when complaining about the federal government and calling for it to be drowned in the river.

          •  And who are "they"? (none)
            In Mississippi, "they" are white Republicans. It's interesting how white Republicans aren't supportive of federal outlays that help poor people. Go figure.

            The specious argument floating around on this post is that "red states" moan about taxes with one monolithic voice. That's hooey. White Republican red state conservatives--the thugs in power, and the only people with media access--are moaning about the size of government and taxes; the simplest reason is not wanting anything to do with the social responsibility of supporting "them" people. You know who they are; starts with a "B", ends with a "lack" . . .

            The only realm where this talk of tax and return rates has any accuracy--in my view--is where it isn't based in race and where farm subsidies are big. Conservative states like North Dakota, for example, deserve some grief about small-government hypocrisy (though they are one of the few states where military bases really do affect per capita federal outlays . . . Minot and Grand Forks have huge bases [nuclear warheads, B-52s, etc.] and there's only 600,000+ people in the whole state). On the other hand, they always have championed frugal government of their own; if I remember right, their state capital building--a simple, handsome art deco tower--has more useable office space inside it than any other capital in the nation.

            It's farm subsidies that ought to be fingered in all of this. Conservative rural states outside the south are shitting where they eat, and largely getting away with it.  

  •  making the wizard of rove happy I'm sure (none)
  •  that second gropu of 10 (none)
    all look blue to me this year.

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:10:24 PM PDT

    •  Good point (none)
      I've been saying for awhile that this statistic is proof of blue-state economic fundamentals in Colorado.  Very interesting that the other three states in the bottom ten that Gore didn't win are all very much in play for Kerry this year.
      •  Very possible (none)
        Could Kerry win all ten of the "feeder" states? If he can grab New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado it looks like he just might make a clean sweep.

        Bush is stuck fighting for all the welfare states.

      •  NH, CO, NV (none)
        I definitely think those three states could turn blue this year.  

        Unfortunately, the press corps following Kerry is convinced that he's going to lose based on the current polls, and possibly the general cynicism that grows in a gang like that over the course of 8 months.

        I watched Monday Night Football with the news crew at Kerry's "debate camp" in Wisconsin and they seemed to think the election was a done deal for Bush.  Although I think they care more about the Redskins and whether they have room service.  

  •  Im proud of my state (none)
    Massachusetts...who supports the rest of the slacker states (jk)

    Just for the record, DC should really become the 51st state. It is ridiculous that a metropolitan city with more people than wyoming still lacks representatives in congress.

    •  Washington, DC (4.00)
      If Washington DC was full of rich white people you can bet your last nickel that they would have gotten Congressional representation a long time ago.
    •  Give 'em back to Maryland (none)
      Unless we're about to redraw state boundaries, the right thing to do is allow DC residents to vote in MD elections.

      George Bush is suffering chronic mendacity syndrome.

      by freelunch on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:37:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How is that democratic? (none)
        Maryland does not want DC voters decided who represents them.  DC does not want to be a part of Maryland.  Try again.  DC Statehood.
        •  Constitutional procedures (none)
          There are constitutional procedures for carving one state out of another. We would not need to amend the Constitution to allow DC residents to vote for House and Senate in MD, just as we didn't need to do so to cede the Virginia part of DC back to Virginia.

          How many state legislatures do you think would pass a DC state amendment?

          George Bush is suffering chronic mendacity syndrome.

          by freelunch on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 09:35:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (none)
      " DC should really become the 51st state."

      No, it should receive the representative rights of a state, but making it a state would be pointless.  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 gives Congress control of the seat of the federal government, ie DC.  Making DC a state would screw up the federalism system, since one state would be the personal fiefdom of Congress. I realize DC is currently the fiefdom of Congress, but DC as a state would mess up the ideas of state and national governments being seperate entities.  It could even be argued that it would grant the feds defacto access to powers reserved to state governments, since Congress would be a state government at that point.*

      It would be simpler to pass an Amendment inserting the words "and/or the District of Columbia" into all places where "states", "states", "several states", etc are used in relation to Legislative representation and election.

      * Not to mention, even if you kicked Congress out of control of DC, what exactly would the tax base be for the state of DC?  I severely doubt the feds would put up with being taxed by a a state.  It screams of abuse, since any self-respecting criminal, er, I mean politician, would insist the tax rate on the feds be ~95%, because that's free money - we know the US will get the money if it really wants to since it has a freaking army to go door to door if absolutely necessary, so the income would be a lock, and when is the last time a government turned down a chance to get free money?

      •  Don't see why this is a problem (none)
        In Canada, the Ottawa/Gatineau National Capital Region straddles Ontario and Quebec and is fully within the jurisdiction of each (Ottawa in Ontario and Gatineau in Quebec).  It doesn't cause any problems.  Federal lands that no one lives on are under the jurisdiction of the federal government usually through the National Capital Commission.  Places where people live are fully represented in Parliament and vote in provincial elections.  There are no jurisdictional conflicts between the federal and provincial levels except the thorny ones that apply throughout the country!

        I don't see why they can't simply implement that in DC.

        •  asdf (none)
          Different government systems.  Despite coming out of the English tradition, we are fairly distinct.   There is a pretty hard boundary between federal and state governments - the feds usually get to dominate, but they have hardwired restrictions on where they can meddle.  Remember the states proceeded the feds (Articles of Confederation) and weren't gonna give up power to a new overlord without wringing some concessions out of the deal.

          On top of that, 1.8.17 isn't a law, but a part of the Constitution (and the original version even, before Amendments).  Changing it would require an amendment (and a whole host of Supreme Court rulings to divy up those fed/state boundary blurrings I referred to).  Giving DC representative rights sans statehood would also require an amendment, but would probably avoid the resulting legal donnybrook.

          If Canada follows the English closer (and I have no idea, as I've never looked into Canadian governmental workings), then fiddling with the structure of government is a lot easier and can be finagled with less stress on the system.  We however, have some rather stark lines we can't cross without either a) amendments to fx the problem, b) some rather fancy rhetorical legerdemain to gloss over the problem, or c) years and years of court hearing for some judge to try to come up with a solution everyone hates equally.

          •  Straw man (none)
            No need to change the District clause.  Just shrink the District and admit New Columbia.  Your suggestion for how we would achieve statehood, cloaked in reverence to our sacred founding document, is knocking down a straw man.
      •  I must rebut (none)
        DC deserves both statehood and an apology for the last 200 years of taxation without representation.

        The Constitutional aim was to give Congress exclusive authority over "forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings", not disenfranchised people.  Nowhere in the Consitution or its Amendments does it permit the colonial status DC residents have lived under for the last 200 years.

        The intent of the District clause which you cite (and which many of us living under its yoke know all too well) was never to disenfranchise half a million people.  The framers (read Federalist No. 43) wanted MD residents to decide whether to cede land, but hinted that residents of the ceded land should vote on their own status, perhaps periodically.

        The clause says no more than 10 miles square.  That's just an upper bound.

        The "District" cited in the district clause of the Constitution should be shrunk to a 1 square mile National Capital Service Area including the Mall, the White House, and the Capitol and no residents.  It should be under exclusive authority of hte Congress under hte COnstitution.  The remaining lands making up the District of Columbia shall be New Columbia, working under the state constitution (drawn up in a Convention of 1994), state legislature (established as city council in 1977), governor (formerly mayor), etc. afforded all the rights of citizens of the states of the United States of America.

        And anybody who would deny such minimal standards of liberty to American citizens should be bitch-slapped upside the head.

        •  Washington, MD (none)
          Virginia manages to live with the District lands that were returned to it. I'm sure that Maryland could as well. Washington, MD is historically defensible and can be done without a constitutional amendment. Washington, New Columbia isn't going to happen. Other cities don't get to decide to become states, Washington shouldn't either.

          Returning the populated parts of DC to Maryland is a viable proposition. Giving DC its own state is not.

          George Bush is suffering chronic mendacity syndrome.

          by freelunch on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 09:44:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again, going back to DEMOCRACY (none)
            When Virginia took back some of its lands originally ceded to the District it did so with Virginians' approval.  If you want to let MD vote on retrocession, fine, but you'll lose that vote and be back at square one.

            Also, now that DC has been operating as a state for as long as it has, it would be foolish and wrong to break it up just because it's also a city.  

            This isn't about cities deciding to become states. This is about states in all but name being given the same rights.  We have a state legislature, state agencies, a state Constitution, state taxes, and pretty much everything else except a state bird and song ("Hail to the Redskins"?)  All we need is recognition and our tenth amendment rights.

            If you want to talk West Virginia into joining Virginia or Idaho into merging with Montana, then we can talk.  How about one big Dakota or re-forming the Louisiana Terroritory into one state?  Mass Bay Colony anyone (Mass + Maine)?  Don't bother asking hte residents if that's what they want.

            •  Then DC'll have to go without (none)
              The only politically realistic way that Washington residents are likely to get representation in the foreseeable future is through an arrangement with Maryland. If that isn't satisfactory, then they will continue to be disenfranchised.

              George Bush is suffering chronic mendacity syndrome.

              by freelunch on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 02:34:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe if we become more white and Republican (none)
                Let's face it, the country doesn't want a new state with lots of angry black people.  Well fuck them.  The civil rights movement is not over.  We're going to get statehood and everyone who stands in the way or stands by and watches will have their place in history alongside the slaveholders and segregationists.
            •  huh? (none)
              "This isn't about cities deciding to become states. This is about states in all but name being given the same rights.  We have a state legislature, state agencies, a state Constitution, state taxes, and pretty much everything else except a state bird and song ("Hail to the Redskins"?)  All we need is recognition and our tenth amendment rights."

              You call it a "state legislature," but you are talking about a city council; same for all the rest of your "state" stuff.  Just because you call it something doesn't make it so.  Any logical definition of "state" includes something far greater than 9 square miles (the 10 max minus the 1 you said you would leave the feds) in area.  Sans being the capital, DC is a medium-sized city, nothing more.  NYC, LA, and Chicago have greater claims to statehood on population and square footage grounds than DC.  Even if we bow at your feet and surrender to your every point, you can't possibly expect to get statehood before NYC et al if you are even the slightest bit logically consistant.

              You also have the problem that if everything except the Magic Square Mile were ceded by the feds, it would logically go back to MD, just like the rest went to VA, not into some Fairy Happyland.  Then you run into 4.3.1, which forbids making a state out of the land of another state without the state's and Congress' approval.  10-1 MD would be loath to give up land* - few states consider it a good thing to shrink, especially after they just grew.

              * and any arguement centered around the crushing poverty in parts of DC making it an unpalatable morsel for MD begs the question exactly why should we create a state that is in such dire straights with no obvious way for it to fix itself - it would be like creating 5 new Mississippis.  I'll gladly help shore up my national capital because I feel some sense of resposibility to it as a US citizen.  As just another state, you are nothing more than another rival in the fight to secure federal dollars for improvement, and you can go fuck yourself sideways before I pony up that much money (that $6.17/$1.00 in the article) to keep you afloat. I'll happily vote to crush you economically and dance on your ashes at that point, because even after a 50 way split, that $6.17 can help my state's schools.

              •  Statehood would *reduce* fed payments to DC! (none)
                If you are tired of paying $6.41 per $1.00 sent in (the status quo), then support statehood.  You see, that money includes funds to offset our structural imbalance.  Because DC is forbidden from taxing income at its source, we cannot tax the billions of dollars earned in our city by people who benefit from the city's infrastructure.  Therefore, we have an arrangement whereby we stick the entire U.S. for (most of) the bill.  The "federal payment" is one of those DC-specific factors and it comes out of your pocket.

                Under statehood, we would have a commuter tax and the people who use the infrastructure would pay for it, and the rest of the country could keep their money (which amounts to less than what we send to Israel/Egypt/Turkey every year anyway).

                The feds would still pay for costs of maintaining the National Capital Service Area, but they would not show up as a transfer to the District as some of those costs do now.

              •  No, our city council isn't like yours (none)

                Our legislature passes both city-type laws (regulating liquor licenses, e.g.) but also state laws (state income taxes, state education programs, a state university, etc.)

                We actually do have state agencies.  They do state functions (on a city's budget).

                The only difference is that Congress has veto power over all our laws, including our budget, so if they don't want our state to have needle exchange, no needle exchange. If they want our state to repeal its gun controls, they just attach a rider to our appropriation and it's done.

                So, I repeat, we have all the responsibilities of a state and none of the rights.  

                We're not asking for Fairy Happyland, no more so than a bunch of islands in the Pacific or the westernmost corner of Canada after World War II when Alaska and Hawaii gained their membership as part of the United States.

              •  Allow me to smack down 1 more argument (none)
                The reasons behind Maryland and DC each wanting their autonomy are not all rooted in "crushing poverty".  DC has rich and poor neighborhoods just as MD has rich and poor communities.

                The statement that DC would have "no obvious way to fix itself" is based on ignorance.  In the last several years, our neighbors MD and VA have had horrible fiscal crises and budget deficits.  Since Mayor (and former CFO) Anthony Williams took over with his new CFO Nat Gandhi, we have had balanced budgets every year.  Our state legislature (with both Republicans and Democrats) is fiscally responsible and made some tough choices, including an unpopular closing of a public hospital, while investing in upgrading housing and schools for long term growth.  Now middle class families are flowing into DC in greater numbers.

  •  what would obama say? (4.00)
    we've got some charitable friends in the blue states, and some freeloading friends in the red states.

    if ron reagan dyed his hair, and i'm not sayin' he did, it was only to show his strength to the communists - hank hill

    by leif on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:14:54 PM PDT

  •  It's lovely when... (none)
    I love the exposing of hypocrites. The very people begging for smaller government and fewer handouts are the ones that recieve all the handouts.
  •  true, but not black and white (none)
    I am sure that most of this has to do with disasterous and stupid farm subsadies.

    However, I am sure that the numbers are pretty scewed considering that a dispraportionate number of rich people live and work in and around large cities.  

    1, 2, and 10 are because of NYC.  1, I may also add is because of my home city of Philadelphia.

    3 and 8 are because of Boston.  

    4 is because of Las Vegas.  

    5 is because of Chicago.  

    6 is because of the twin cities, which have a fair number of large companies originating there.  

    9 is because of LA and San Fran.  

    I am not sure about 7, but I do know that there are a fair number of trendy houses in that area.

    If we get rid of these stupid farm subsadies, I am sure that these numbers will change, but I think that the red states will still be at the top because they have a disprapotionate amount of land per person.  This causes natural overhead in spending.  The Blue states are more densly populated and have a disprapotionate amount of high income earning individuals will still be at the bottom.

    "We must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall surely hang separately." ~ Benjamin Franklin

    by charlesdog12 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:21:17 PM PDT

    •  Denver... (none)
      not to mention Lockheed Martin, The Denver Mint...

      and last and least

      Coors Brewing

      •  yeah, I was thinking ski country (none)
        I was thinking more along the lines of Vail and Aspin, where a lot of rich people have called their homes.  I forgot all about Lockhead Martin, which was talked about alot in Bowling for Columbine.

        "We must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall surely hang separately." ~ Benjamin Franklin

        by charlesdog12 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:36:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why won't anyone point out that farm subsides are (none)

      WELFARE, the same thing Bush claims he is against.

      Not only do all of bloggers at KOS need to help argue with logic against the illogical actions of Bush, but this logical arguement must be framed in a way which can appeal to the moral system of progressives as well as conservatives.

      To conservatives, Bush is a draft dodger, hes unAmerican, he's a flip flopper who doesnt know what hes for or against, hes for tax cuts yet for big government, hes for freedom but hes against privacy, hes against affirmative action but hes for the death tax, hes against the right to choose but hes for the death penalty.

      Not only is Bush a logical fallacy but if you reframe it into the conservative frame even they can see hes logically insane. The loose cannon approach is something which applies to Bush no matter what party you support.

      Progressives need the arguement framed for them as well, in that Bush wants to fight the war on terror without actually paying for it, Bush wants to win the war on terror by attacking Saddam instead of Bin Laden, Bush is an immoral leader, a weak leader who doesnt even believe within himself that we can win the war on terror.

      In these two examples you can use logical arguements to point out weaknesses in Bush, but somehow people allow Bush to seem invincible because people refuse to properly word an arguement. That seems to be the only thing republicans do that democrats wont do, they create new words, they then label Kerry and Kerry doesnt even try to label Bush a loose cannon.

      What would you prefer? A flip flopper or a loose cannon?

    •  Urban vs. Rural Poor (none)

      These numbers demonstrate that the rural poor - in the red states - receive an absurdly disproportionate share of the public dole. At first glance, the numbers appear to be explained by the fact that the Top 10 in federal assistance are all very poor states, so why the criticism of public funds being used to address poverty.  

      But that ignores population density.  

      The poor, largely rural states gain a disproportionate share of the money - not because they are poor - but because they are rural (farm subsidies play a big role).

      The urban poor are the ones who get screwed from this disparity.  Per person, the federal government spends a woefully inadequate amount in predominantly urban areas.  It also happens to be WHERE MOST AMERICANS LIVE, for all the talk about "real" Americans living in the heartland.

      Urban areas are the big losers when Repubicans are in power because they consistently lose elections in the cities.

      It's not a coincidence.

      •  the numbers (none)
        I think that you are right.  However, I still think that the numbers are a little scewed because of population density and density of wealth in the blue states.

        "We must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall surely hang separately." ~ Benjamin Franklin

        by charlesdog12 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 05:45:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Poor vs. poor (none)
        The urban poor are the ones who get screwed from this disparity.  Per person, the federal government spends a woefully inadequate amount in predominantly urban areas.  It also happens to be WHERE MOST AMERICANS LIVE, for all the talk about "real" Americans living in the heartland.

        So let's move those stubborn rural poor off their land and into the cities, so we can have more urban poor!  

        Seriously, this is going in circles.  The problem is not where people live.  It's the fact that wealth is growing ever more concentrated in the hands of a few, while the poor -- rural and urban -- suffer.

        And "most Americans" live in urban settings?  I'd beg to differ.  What about the suburbs?

        There are 19,189,902 of us and 213 of them.

        by NYCO on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 05:47:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  semantics (none)
          "And "most Americans" live in urban settings?  I'd beg to differ.  What about the suburbs?"

          "Suburb" is a word middle-class white people use to refer to the parts of the urban areas they live in so they don't have to admit they live in the same city as "those people".  Having lived most of my life in a rural backwater, I can safely say suburbs are the parts of a city that are in denial.  Just because they create polite legal fictions to delude themselves that they don't share a city-space with blacks doesn't make surbanites any less a part of the urban masses.

          •  more like this (none)
            Suburbanites are just upper middle class people who like to suck on the tit of the cities.  See, they work there, they go out there, but they don't live their.  They, on the other hand, suck the infostructure from the cities dry.

            The suburbs are not a part of the city.  See they want it both ways.  They don't want to support the cities, but they want to live off the cities.  The suburbs are a whole other world though.  Conchehoken, which is a Philly suburb is actually doing heir own thing.  Too bad that a lot of those big ass office buildings that they made are still empty.

            "We must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall surely hang separately." ~ Benjamin Franklin

            by charlesdog12 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 10:40:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh, they live there (none)
              Just because they claim it is a different town and can point to lines on a map doesn't mean jack.  If you can hoist a dead cat and chunk it into three or more people's property from your own*, you live in an urban area, regardles of what the powers that be declare as the limits of the city (pigs, lipstick, and all that jazz).

              *Both houses I grew up in were far enough from the nearest neighbor I could go out on the porch, fire my dad's rifle, and have exactly zero worries of the bullet even landing on their property.

              •  where did u grw up (none)
                I am just interested.  You of sourse, do not have to answer?  Where did u grow up, and are u living in a city now?

                "We must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall surely hang separately." ~ Benjamin Franklin

                by charlesdog12 on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 06:15:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  asdf (none)
                  I grew up about 3 miles outside the town of Sopchoppy, Florida, in a little psuedo-community* called Mount Bezar (elev. 51').  In other words, I'm a cracker hick from the backwoods of N FL.

                  Right now, I live in Tallahassee FL, ie I moved ~30 miles NNE; if Tallahassee counts as a city, then I live in a city (by my dead cat standard, I live in a city, but your standards may vary).  Hopefully, when my wife graduates with her PhD, we will be moving to greener (more populated) pastures.

                  * I say pseudo-community because it's ~50 households of rednecks and/or ex-hippies scattered over several tens of square miles of woods.  We all live(d) in "Mount Bezar" even though it has no community services, or even a recognized legal prescence; it's just a bunch of woods with a bunch of us living (for me lived) in it.

    •  subsidies (none)
      so, farm subsidies aren't evil and bad in all cases.  Farming is a damn hard business--these days it's just about impossibly hard for family farmers getting squished by corporate farming.  Farming subsidies used to help family farms keep their heads above water.  Unfortunately, farm subsidies have been re-jiggered by the Republicans so that they funnel more money into large agribusiness corporations as opposed to helping small farms keep afloat.  The left shouldn't rail against farm subsidies the way that the right does against every other government program.  We need to send out the message to small farmers in red states that we want to fix the subsidy system to help out the little guy, not use it as a giveaway to help some big company run them out of business.
      •  they are just screwed up (none)
        See, there is a rare day when Republicans are right.  When they talk about how the Government just screws things up, they are almost always wrong.  Then, you get into farm subsudies, and then they have a point (although they are fine with these bloated beurocracies because the money goes to their pork troth).

        I don't know how we can really fix the Farm Subsudies.  Giving them to family farms would help.  Changing the WTO so that we don't screw over 3rd world countries is another thing that we can do.  We can also get rid of the whole pay people not to grow shit subsadies.

        I know for a fact that the subsadies are fucked.  I, on the other hand, don't really know how to fix them.

        "We must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall surely hang separately." ~ Benjamin Franklin

        by charlesdog12 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 10:33:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can't we use this? (none)
    The Kerry campaign should be all over New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado, pointing out that, even with a Republican president and Congress, they are receiving far less than their fair share. The Reps are ripping them off. We should be trumpetting this because all 3 of those states are winnable for us.

    Composing The News While The Media Is Decomposing - www.NewsCorpse.com

    by KingOneEye on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:21:35 PM PDT

    •  hm (none)
      Wouldn't this be kind of divisive?

      Those red states, after all, have people living in them, not just statistics.

      Should someone who wants to be president rag on red states just because they're not likely to get him electoral votes?

      I don't know.  This is a useful statistic to know, but why anyone would want to pointedly denigrate individual states (and, by extension, their citizens) as "feeding at the trough" is beyond me.  This isn't very constructive - or, it seems to me, particularly useful in a general election.

      There are 19,189,902 of us and 213 of them.

      by NYCO on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:25:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We wouldn't be denigrating anyone (none)
        Don't bring this up in states that are getting over-compensated. Just go into the under-compensated states and point out how poorly they are doing in the Fed Funds lottery, and that in a Kerry administration they would do better. Why should they vote to re-elect an admin that has neglected them?

        Composing The News While The Media Is Decomposing - www.NewsCorpse.com

        by KingOneEye on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:30:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Frame it properly (none)

        This as well as all facts such as these should be used to attack Bush in the one area in which he is most vunlerable, his CHARACTER is weak.

        What we need to do is analyze Bush's character point by point, point out every character weakness he has. Forget about the issues, Bush is not attacking Kerry on the issues.

        This election is going to be a decision on character, Kerry must look like the stable moral option, Bush must look like the loose cannon. If you let Bush continue to frame the debate, and label Kerry a flip floppy while Kerry doesnt label Bush anything back, or attack Bush's character back, Bush is going to win simply because people are too afraid to attack Bush directly.

        People are afraid to Bushbash, people are afraid to actually SAY what they truly think about Bush. This is fine, if you don't want to attack Bush well Bush will attack you until the label flip floppy sticks, Mr.Rove will paint his own picture of you and you'll look like a monster, then he will hold this picture right in front of the voting booth and make sure people see it right before the election.

        Do we want Mr.Rove to just walk right over Kerry or what?

    •  This makes the case against leeching (none)

      This meaning, that while the rest of us are willing to pay our taxes to fight the war on terror, certain politicians and individuals want to SHIFT war onto the backs of others.

      George Lakoff or someone good with linguistics could reframe this into a killer advertisement which could in itself influence the results of the Kerry debate and remove Bush's ability to call for tax relief in the future. Bush is using tax relief to donate money to red states of his choosing. He is stealing your money to give it to places he chooses, is stealing right? No its WRONG.

      Its also WRONG to betray the trust of millions of Americans, millions of Iraqis, millions of people who willingly paid their taxes because they knew we were at war.

  •  I'm surprised at Massachusetts... (none)
    ...considering The Big Dig was supposed to cost 44565365 bazillion dollars.
  •  NYC (none)
    NYC gets screwed twice as that it sends way more on the state level than it gets back.
    •  Thanks (none)
      Thanks for illustrating my point about "red states at the trough."  What follows is not just a response to what you said, but to the whole gist of the original post.

      You know, I'm tired of this.  It's not like may New York City residents are even halfway aware of where the rest of their state is, much less what kind of challenges we have up here.  I wonder if this is true for "blue staters" at large.  (By the way, Bush closing the gap on Kerry in New York is no illusion -- and has a lot to do with this sort of Easy-Bake Oven dismissal of people you don't even know and don't want to know.)

      The reason why there is such fear and loathing in the whole country is because people just don't care about each other and like to point fingers for political gain - which is exactly why things are the way they are in New York, as in America at large.   Look at New York's dysfunctional government if you want to know where this is all ultimately going.

      Nothing good comes from this thinking.  How about thinking constructively about why the government we have isn't creatively helping all of our citizens -  rather than pointing fingers in derogatory terms toward whole groups of people and wondering about how it can be used for electoral gain?

      Kerry hasn't yet established trust with swing voters.  Do you really think this kind of "blue state/red state" rhetoric is going to help?  If I were a swing voter reading Kos tonight, I'd be disgusted.

      Rant mode off.

      There are 19,189,902 of us and 213 of them.

      by NYCO on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:58:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, our top priority (none)
        is to avoid using anything for political gain. Think how much more good we can do when Democrats have been out of power for even longer.
        •  Gain (none)
          Well, if I was a swing voter and I heard Democrats talking like this, I wouldn't feel comfortable with them in power.

          This is just thinly disguised sectionalism and "other"-baiting which ignores the facts (which, as chrississippi pointed out, involve actual poverty).

          But then again, I suppose the red states "deserve" to be poor because they tend to be more conservative in their views, and vote Republican.  ??  That seems to me to be the subtle mindset.

          I'm sorry.  I live in a state where sectional baiting still informs absolutely everything politically - and I do blame Democrats for it, my own party, because they have the most power and they do stupid, short-sighted things with the power that they wield, and everyone suffers.  

          The problem with Democrats is that they don't know how to act like the leaders they should be, even when they are down.   Making crude appeals to sectional prejudices with red and blue crayons is not what leaders do.

          There are 19,189,902 of us and 213 of them.

          by NYCO on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 05:41:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. (none)
        The last thing we need is to further this perceived "cultural divide" between the red state regions of the country and the blue state regions--and sound just like so-called "urban elites" while doing so. Kerry is trying to play as the uniter, which I truly think he can be compared to Bush--and a uniter is exactly what we need in times like these when our country is in crisis.

        Kerry is trying to tell us that all of us Americans--red state and blue--are in this together, and we all must be allowed to come together and work out the problems our country faces, with a President that will listen to all valid points of view and not just the ones that agree with him. That is the feel I'm getting from his and Edwards' campaigning. And there are indeed some very reasonable people even in the red states, that are starting to listen--the last thing we need to do is insult them by implying they're a bunch of freeloaders, as these are some very proud and hard-working people.

        I have mentioned this argument to people who use the "Taxachusetts" meme, or generally insult the east and west coast states as wasteful spenders--just to put that issue in some perspective. But that should be the extent of it--and Kerry needn't touch it, and really wouldn't want to, given that he's trying to unite a coalition against a presidency that is failing all of us, in red states and blue.

        See the glory of the royal scam

        by Alioth on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 06:45:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  RE: New Mexico (none)
    While we take $1.89 for each $1.00 we pay in taxes, we do contribute greatly to the federal coffers with oil/gas royalties on public lands. Not sure of the rest of those slacker states can say that!

    Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -- James Bovard

    by awnm on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:33:24 PM PDT

    •  NM and Native People (none)
      I was just wondering if maybe the reason New Mexico is so far up there is that they receive a large amount of federal Native American aid.  That kind of makes the list even more skewed since neither party really has much choice in aiding that community.

      "Loyalty to country: always. Loyalty to government: when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

      by quackard on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 06:42:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry so long to reply! (none)
        It may be that the pueblos and reservations get some of that aid, but most of them around here have casinos and might not "qualify" for it anymore. I really don't know how that works. What we do have are some poorer towns that used to be supported by farming and agriculture. Not so much of that these days with the drought.

        New Mexico is a study in the haves and have-nots. Wealthy cities like Santa Fe offset some very poor towns. It would be interesting to see where the federal money goes.

        Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. -- James Bovard

        by awnm on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:17:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Mr.Kos, please make this into a banner ad (none)

    If we can frame this properly, you or someone working for this site can make a banner ad on this.

    It can be used to prove that tax relief is just a scheme. It also basically says that tax reduction only equals to tax shifting, or to be blunt it allows red states to leech off blue states.

    I've said it before in by previous comments but we need to reframe this into a right and wrong moral arguement and everyone knows its wrong for anyone republic or democrat to try and leech off the tax system.

  •  To paraphrase Bartlett on the West Wing... (none)
    ...can we have our money back?
  •  West Virginia a RED state? (4.00)
    Yes, WV voted for Bush in 2000, but WV traditionally goes Democratic and has more registered Ds than Rs.

    Doesn't the list make sense?  The top ten are generally poorer states, while the bottom ten  are generally richer states.  So yeah, the poorer states get more money from the feds.

    "Deadbeat asses?"  Why not call us girly-men while you're at it?

    •  It's the List of Hypocrites! (none)
      "So yeah, the poorer states get more money from the feds."

      I have no gripe against that part.

      My problem is that most of 'em rail like crazy against 'big government' at the same time as they're the ones making out like bandits.

      Take Alaska, for instance.  They don't even have to have state taxes; they've got the North Slope oil revenue, and they send each Alaskan a check at the end of the year from that revenue.  Why on God's not-so-green tundra are we sending them any money??

      Mississippi, Alabama, Montana: you can't get elected in those states without being a big-government hater.  Dakotas aren't all that big on Washington, either.  Fine, I say: you hate big government, then stop taking handouts from it.  Or, if you want to keep getting more than what you're giving, at least admit government isn't so bad, OK?  You don't have to say it's perfect; just elect people who admit that there's reason for the Feds to do something besides going to war, and vote that way in Congress.

      From my POV, that isn't asking a whole hell of a lot.

      And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear: "A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East." --K

      by RT on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:59:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And (none)
        You'll notice that most of those states (7 out of the 10) have at least Democratic Senator as well.

        In defense of WV, you would be hard pressed to find anyone here complaining about big government. Most West Viriginians like gov't. It is just that stupid gun issue that gets in the way... and now gay marriage too....geesh!

        •  Right... (none)
          ...the impression I get is that West Virginians are solidly Democratic when it comes to economic issues, but conservative when it comes to social issues - guns, abortion, gay anything.

          I guess the tone of the post just rubbed me the wrong way.  I don't think it's accurate to call WV a red state or to characterize so-called red states as deadbeats who are feeding at the trough.

    •  Georgia (none)
      also has more registered dems than repubs, takes out $1.01 for every $1.00 put in, and according to the polling compilation at http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/georgia.html,   Bush has been dropping steadily and Kerry rising.

      This morning, before the polls today, they had Georgia listed as Barely Bush...now its strong for Bush, but I'd say it's still possible to get Kerry those 15 electoral votes. Or so I hope.

      I'm not a Democrat. I just vote like one.

      by common veil on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:29:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ain't gonna happen. (none)
        Put it out of your mind.  I live in the infamous Cobb County, Georgia (the county that sent Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich to congress) and I assure you that this is a bright-red state.   In my travels around the state,  I see nothing but "W" and B-C '04 signs/stickers - there's one street near my home where Kerry signs dominate, but I suspect it's because the same guy owns all the houses and rents them out.    

        In any case, Kerry is better off putting resources into a state that matters, like Florida or Ohio.  My guess for GA: Shrub by 15.

        •  Cobb Co != Georgia (none)
          I don't think Cobb Co., though, is any indication of how the rest of the state will vote. Gwinnett (where I live) for instance, is strong in the R column, but is gaining in the D column. DeKalb is largely D. And we're just talking metro Atlanta area. My parents live in a rural southern county that, by their estimation, is leaning toward Kerry.

          Frankly, I'm sick of the Democratic Party writing off Georgia. Maybe if they'd spend a little more time and effort here, the state wouldn't be quite so red as it is, or as everyone seems to think it is.

          "Flip-flopping is a Conservative insult meaning 'thinks about the issues.'"

          by Bob in Atlanta on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 08:07:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bright Red Georgia (none)
            My assessment is based not only on what I see in my neighborhood in Cobb, but in my travels around the state.  And yes, Kerry will win Dekalb, and also Clarke, possibly Chatham, and possibly Fulton, but that's about it.  Outside of Atlanta, Athens and Savannah, the fundy crowd has made Georgia a solid bloc of Bush support - my guess is, outside of Metro Atlanta (I define Metro Atlanta as the counties directly bordering Fulton, excluding Carroll), Bush will get better than 75% of the vote.

            The bottom line is that as long as the Repugnicans continue to pander to the fundamentalist mobs, the Democrats don't have a chance in rural Georgia.    The one thing that might change this is the influx of Hispanics.  As the recent wave of Hispanic immigrants naturalize as citizens and gain voting rights, we may see a change in the political dynamic - but that won't be for quite a few years.

  •  Is it because... (none)
    The Red States fight for more money for their states in contracts and Pork?!?
    What I want to see is the amount of WELFARE (non-corporate) that goes to each state....

    When the rest of the world decides to take care of the bully, I hope I'm not in Columbine.

    by georgeNOTw on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 04:50:10 PM PDT

  •  meme needed: red welfare states? (none)
    Here in WA, we've got an intra-state red/blue divide right down the middle of the state.  Eastern WA derides "tax and spend" liberals from Seattle while happily taking the tax dollars exported from the western side of the state.  I've stopped dead a few rants from conservative Eastern WA friends by reminding them that they come from "The Welfare State of Eastern Washington."  Could we do something similar with the national divide?  Republican Welfare States?  Bush Welfare States?  I don't particularly like pushing more negatives onto "welfare," but it's a frame that hits conservatives really hard.  Any ideas?
  •  Oh, the joy (none)
    of reveling in the potentially-helpful talking points that are, in reality, too obscure or complex to penetrate the public consciousness.

    I agree that it's too divisive to use.  Not because it actually IS divisive -- but because the simplified caricature soundbite that would be covered in the press would sound divisive.

  •  Come on people... (none)
    There are so many factors at work here that using this to show that conservatives are the ones sucking more than their share of government resources is illogical.

    What would be more legit is the cost of government within each state per capita. Or some study to compare the spending of Democratic lawmakers to Repugs. Bush has blown a ton of money on education, homeland security, and prescription drug converage. With Kerry we wouldn't have all that waste.

    •  that was the best comment so far (none)
      It pains me to see so many here railing on about the hypocrisy of the right, while failing to see their own, that, presumably, we should be willing to provide a safety net for individuals, but not to states that most often vote conservatively.

      I find all of the following equally troubling: 1) that Kos would refer to these federal dollar takers as deadbeats; 2) that Republicans refer to the poor and unemployed as deadbeats; and 3) that the majority posting here would seem to be okay with the first but not the second.

      I think progressives can do far better than that.

  •  This reminds me of (none)
    the West Wing episode, "Game On" (you know, that absolutely brilliant debate between Bartlet and Gov. Ritchie).

    The bit of dialogue I'm thinking of:


    RITCHIE
    [on TV] Let the states decide. Let the communities decide on health care, on education, on lower taxes, not higher taxes. Now, he's going to throw a big word at you-- "unfunded mandate." If Washington lets the states do it, it's an unfunded mandate. But what he doesn't like is the federal government losing power. But I call it the ingenuity of the American people.

    MODERATOR
    [on TV] President Bartlet, you have 60 seconds for a question and an answer.

    BARTLET
    [on TV] Well, first of all, let's clear up a couple of things. "Unfunded mandate" is two words, not one "big word."

    They cheer backstage.

    BARTLET
    [on TV] There are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Florida didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall-to-wall. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Florida got $12.6 billion in federal money last year-- from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans, with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $50 billion, and I'm supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please?

    sigh  Love it.  Love it.  Those for states rights are in favor of it up until they have to give up the federal money.

    By the by, I'd love to see Aaron Sorkin as a speech writer for Kerry (although the Repubs would make the same 'liberal media' complaints).  The speech at the end of The American President still gives me the chills.

    (Cheers to The West Wing Database for the transcript of the episode.)  

    •  Oh, I waited to long... (none)
      I was looking for that quote, were did you get it???

      "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country." ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

      by Ralfast on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 05:38:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that is the uncutt version of the script (none)
      I have seen the American President over a dozen times, and I can tell you that that script has stuff in it that is not in the movie.  Pretty cool.

      "We must all hang together, for if we do not, we shall surely hang separately." ~ Benjamin Franklin

      by charlesdog12 on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:00:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Which reminds me of a billboard (none)
    for the Bush/Cheney campaing.

    It says, and a quote...

     "Because its your money"

    Emphasis not mine!
    Well, like the Martin Sheen said on the West Wing. "we like out money back!"

    "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country." ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

    by Ralfast on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 05:37:26 PM PDT

  •  Hey (none)
    We get the shaft in NJ.
  •  Take it further (none)
    As impressive as this chart is, I think it would be even more enlightening to see it broken down a few other ways:

    1. Instead of breaking it down by state, why not by Congressional district?   I'd be willing to bet that even within the same state, districts represented by Repugnicans are the beneficiaries of loads of federal pork-barrel spending, while Democratic-leaning districts pick up the tab.

    2. I'd also like to see a chart of where the federal money is going, by state, per electoral vote.   This chart would show things like whether my bright red home state of Georgia, with it's 15 electoral votes, is getting the same amount of money, proportionately, as the deep-blue states of Vermont and Delaware, with their 3 each.   My guess would be that Georgia gets more than 5 times the federal funding.  

    3. Lastly, let's not categorize the states as "red" or "blue" based on how they voted in the 2000 Presidential election.   Let's categorize them, for this purpose, based on which party holds a majority in that state's Congressional delegation to the 108th Congress. For example, South Dakota is considered by most to be bright red, based on their overwhelming vote for Shrub in the 2000 election.  But, they have an all Democratic congressional delegation.   I think this would be the most telling chart of all, considering that spending bills originate first in the House of Representatives.  

    Incidentally, Joe Conason talks about this very topic at length in his book, Big Lies.  
  •  As usual (none)
    the cons not only suck from the tax payer tit, but they they suck the life out of everything good in our society so they can promote their selfish narrow minded and focused agenda.
    PEACE!
    ABB&B!!!
    KERRY/EDWARDS 2004
  •  Well duh (none)
    The party that is in power is more likely to reward themselves with pork.  It's interesting to see the actual statistics, but hardly surprising.
  •  Pork but not for the average voter (none)
    As a Montanan, I can tell you that none of the pork barrel that comes to my state benefits the average voter. Like the phony tax cuts, it's always the top 1%. And I wish Max Baucus would campaign for Kerry here in this wonderful Big Sky State. 3 electoral votes can mean a lot.
    •  Most Montana Politicians would disagree (none)
      And point to our extensive federal highway system and the expenses incurred by our public lands. Even though Montana is only 29% federal public lands, the smallest percentage of any western state.

      Burns, Baucus and the rest have a lot of excuses for wanting more federal pork.

      Another Hunter Thompson Deanocrat

      by Ed in Montana on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:34:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also, Baucus was a Clark supporter (none)
      Max has remained very quiet on John Kerry.

      Another Hunter Thompson Deanocrat

      by Ed in Montana on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:50:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True, Baucus ironically supports Bush's policies (none)
        I wish that there would be more true Democrats in the Senate. I don't want to be negative but look at Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, South and North Dakota, and Wisconsin. Those battleground states have Democratic senators in addition to Montana but they're not helping Kerry out and I wish they would whereas the Repug senators for the most part are helping Bush. We have to get these guys and gals to stop pandering to Bush when it comes to legislation such as tax cuts, pre-emptive wars, abortions, gun control, etc ... while being silent and mum when it comes to their main presidential candidate. Think about it. If those Senators from all those states had actually pitched in for Gore in 2000, he would have won or at least finished with a competitive result. I voted for Mark Schweiser last time though Conrad Burns was almost defeated and I can clearly point out that if Mark Schweiser had taken Gore's position on the environment and tacked it on to the pro-hunter vote, not only would Schweiser have won but Gore would not have been soundly defeated and Montana would have been a swing state today.
  •  What are the figures (none)
    ...when the blues controlled the executive and legislative branches of American government?
  •  I am ashamed that Montana is Number 7 (none)
    On the list of states getting back more than they pay in federal taxes. I have always assumed that Montana was number two on the list, only behind the great welfare state of Alaska.

    I can assure you, with four more years of Bush, our republican delegation of Burns, Baucus and Rehberg will give the first six federal welfare states a run for your money. Err, sorry, Baucus is still nominally a democrat.

    I will leave you with a few political jokes, told to a crowd of Montana environmentalists, by a Montana rancher.

    Question: What do you call a basement full of Montana ranchers?
    Answer: A whine cellar.

    Question: How does a Montana grain farmer double his income overnight?
    Answer: Put up a second mailbox.

    Question: Why do they bury Montana ranchers only six inches deep?
    Answer: So they can always get a hand out.

    A lot of folks here know about the disparity; they just want more pork.

    Another Hunter Thompson Deanocrat

    by Ed in Montana on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:03:39 PM PDT

  •  Texas (none)
    Texas actually loses about six cents on the dollar.

    I think the real question here is "which states have the largest tax base," and clearly New York and New Jersey and California are all up there.

    Stronger evidence though is the study from a few years back that showed conclusively that the Republicans had undertaken it upon themselves to redistribute wealth from Democratic districts to Republican districts:

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2069049

    So yes, the Republicans are bastards, but the state-by-state data is not the best measure of bastardy.

    "Save a country, boot the cowboy." (Apologies to Big & Rich).

    by JimTXDem on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 08:36:05 PM PDT

  •  North Dakota (none)
    I'm just guessing that North Dakota's position at #2 has to do with the prowess of its all-Democratic Congressional delegation, maybe?
  •  In defense of North Dakota (none)
    While we may be the state at the top of the receiving list, and we do vote for Republicans for president (something I hope we can change here in the future), we have an all Democrat congressional delegation.  I believe that simply saying that "These states are red, thus they get the dollars" is oversimplifying things a bit.  For the most part, the states at the top of the receiving list tend to be poor (D.C., Mississippi, West Virginia, Alabama), large and rural (North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota) or low in population (see large and rural list).  Simply put, with the amount of federal infrastructure these states have (roads, military bases, etc.) take money to keep up, and they have low populations (North Dakota is around 630,000) which are often not very rich, and thus, not paying a lot of taxes.  As such, the numbers may seem all out of whack, but the states that are "getting the shaft" still most likely receive a vast majority of the overall tax dollars spent by the federal government, due to their overall large population.  It would be great if someone could look up the actual figures for dollars received.  A small state, such as North Dakota may receive 2 bucks for every dollar we send in to Washington, but how much were we sending in in the first place?  I'd bet not a whole lot, based on our small population and overall, not very affluent population.  Just my $2.03 worth of thought.
  •  asdf (none)
    Sure some of those that complain the most about big government are from the states that get the most back.  Sure some of that money, perhaps sometimes most of that money, does not help those most in need.  Sure there are many areas in blue states that could definitely use that money.

    But it is impractical to suggest that all states get back federal dollars in the same proportion to what they pay.  How about attacking the root causes instead of labeling red states "deadbeats"?  How about supporting aid to those in need consistently instead of when they are in states that favor democrats?  How about blaming the legislatures of the state governments when they funnel federal money directly to the rich and powerful?  How about not playing the same game as the right wingers by refusing to acknowledge even a modicum of complexity or nuance?  How about reasoned, critical analysis?

  •  red states are also the old states (none)
    I don't have time to find the numbers now (maybe someone could) but the red states that are at the trough are also the geriatric states -- filled with the obese, the falling apart, the sick, the in need of social security and medicare and medicaid. For Oklahoma, for example, if you don't consider what the state gets for Social Security, Medicare etc (and this is not dispersed through the state anyway), then it's actually a donor state, getting back abouut 90 cents for every dollar it sends to DC.
  •  nuff Said? (none)
    Try looking at the DC numbers again!!

    We get the most?

    We can't tax all the federal lands or federal park lands in the District.  We can't tax or put up tollways to pay for anything.  And we have to provide an excessive amount of security without getting anything tangible for it except more gun deaths in the neighborhoods where police coverage is low.  It's infuriating to be on that list without even having any of these things taken into consideration!!

    •  DC numbers (none)
      The DC numbers include federal payments for protection when, say, the IMF and World Bank have their meetings.  The DC Metropolitan Police are not using this money protecting citizen-residents, mind you.  They're backing up the Park Police or Capitol Police, or whomever.

      Federal payments to DC include offsets to local taxes foregone because 45% of District land is nontaxable, the revenues essentially given away to foreign embassies and non-profits.

      DC is not feeding at the trough and should not be on that list of autonomous states.  DC is the trough.  It's a colony governed by the Congress with a thin veil of home rule (Home Fool) where Congress has the final say over laws and budget.

  •  Analysis (none)
    A little more analysis of these numbers.  All results are for 2002 figures.

    Mean Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid for 30 Bush States: $1.29

    Mean Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid for 20 Gore States: $1.01

    Average Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid for 30 Bush States (weighted by population): $1.16

    Average Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid for 20 Gore States (weighted by population): $0.88

    Want a balanced budget?  Solution seems simple to me.  Allow the Red States to secede.

  •  Let's not through out the baby with the bathwater (4.00)
    Daschle
    Johnson
    Conrad
    Dorgan
    Baucus
    Pryor
    Lincoln
    Bingaman
    Byrd
    Rockefeller

    Without these states, Hillary, Barbara and Diane wouldn't be able to get a table in a restaurant in DC much less have any influence in the Senate. These states are the difference between a possible Democratic majority in the Senate and a  veto-proof Rethug majority. Shooting your friends in the foot is an old Dem habit that we need to break if we are ever going to get serious about winning anything.

    •  very good point (none)
      except it only provides us a net 2 senators... one of which is endangered (Daschle)

      These states also give us

      Lott
      Cochran
      Domenici
      Sessions
      Shelby
      Stevens
      Murkowski
      Burns

      So it would be the difference between a 51-49 GOP senate and a 43-39 GOP senate...

      not even close to a veto proof majority as you imply

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site