Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004

Godwynn

Godwynn

March to the Sea
Joined
May 17, 2003
Messages
20,509
Tax Foundation

I also added what party the state voted for in the 2004 presidential election.

  1. Washington D.C. ($6.64) (D)*
  2. New Mexico ($2.00) (R)
  3. Alaska ($1.87) (R)
  4. West Virginia ($1.83) (R)
  5. Mississippi ($1.77) (R)
  6. North Dakota ($1.73) (R)
  7. Alabama ($1.71) (R)
  8. Virginia ($1.66) (R)
  9. Hawaii ($1.60) (D)
  10. Montana ($1.58) (R)
  11. South Dakota ($1.49) (R)
  12. Oklahoma ($1.48) (R)
  13. Arkansas ($1.47) (R)
  14. Louisiana ($1.45) (R)
  15. Kentucky ($1.45) (R)
  16. Maryland ($1.44) (R)
  17. Maine ($1.40) (D)
  18. South Carolina ($1.38) (R)
  19. Tennessee ($1.30) (R)
  20. Arizona ($1.30) (R)
  21. Missouri ($1.29) (R)
  22. Idaho ($1.28) (R)
  23. Utah ($1.14) (R)
  24. Kansas ($1.12) (R)
  25. Vermont ($1.12) (D)
  26. Iowa ($1.11) (R)
  27. Wyoming ($1.11) (R)
  28. North Carolina ($1.10) (R)
  29. Nebraska ($1.07) (R)
  30. Pennsylvania ($1.06) (D)
  31. Florida ($1.02) (R)
  32. Rhode Island ($1.02) (D)
  33. Ohio ($1.01) (R)
  34. Indiana ($0.97) (R)
  35. Oregon ($0.97) (D)
  36. Georgia ($0.96) (R)
  37. Texas ($0.94) (R)
  38. Washington ($0.88) (D)
  39. Michigan ($0.85) (D)
  40. Wisconsin ($0.82) (D)
  41. Delaware ($0.79) (D)
  42. Colorado ($0.79) (R)
  43. New York ($0.79) (D)
  44. California ($0.79) (D)
  45. Massachusetts ($0.77) (D)
  46. Nevada ($0.73) (R)
  47. Illinois ($0.73) (D)
  48. Minnesota ($0.69) (D)
  49. New Hampshire ($0.67) (D)
  50. Connecticut ($0.66) (D)
  51. New Jersey ($0.55) (D)

*Washington D.C. was placed at the bottom of the list as n/a for state ranking, but deserves to be #1.

Should the fiscally conservative Republicans refuse? Should the Democrats be happy to give to the less fortunate?
 
So the Democratic leaning states get jack squat?
 
In an idealic world, I'd like to think the state's affiliation isn't a factor in determining where the federal government's money goes. Rather, what matters is how much the state needs to stay afloat or whether how many 'government funded projects' are in each state.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind New Jersey getting more money for schools and what not, but I suppose New Mexico and West Virgina need it more than we do....
 
downtown said:
Remember, some of those R states have D congressional delegations.
Click to expand...

For example W. Virginia (4th on the list) has Senator Robert Byrd, king of pork.
 
CivGeneral said:
So the Democratic leaning states get jack squat?
Click to expand...

Well since progressive thinking = economic prosperity, they can probably stand on their own feet.
 
The big problem with this list is that about a half dozen states that would otherwise be much lower in the list are now found at the top due to the rebuilding after 2005's Hurricane Katrina, other hurricanes, and other natural disasters. These states also happen to have R's next to their names. Take away all of that spending and the list would look very different.

Also, you must consider that federal spending per capita is likely to look very different. The richest of the rich live in states with D's next to their names and also pay the highest taxes, but the reality is that the federal spending per capita average per states is not too dramatically different, across the board, and in fact the list would probably be shuffled pretty good. Alaska would be at the very tippy top.
 
John HSOG said:
The big problem with this list is that about a half dozen states that would otherwise be much lower in the list are now found at the top due to the rebuilding after 2005's Hurricane Katrina, other hurricanes, and other natural disasters. These states also happen to have R's next to their names. Take away all of that spending and the list would look very different.

Also, you must consider that federal spending per capita is likely to look very different. The richest of the rich live in states with D's next to their names and also pay the highest taxes, but the reality is that the federal spending per capita average per states is not too dramatically different, across the board, and in fact the list would probably be shuffled pretty good. Alaska would be at the very tippy top.
Click to expand...

This list was from 2004, before Katrina.
 
yeah, that list has stayed roughly the same over the last decade actually.
 
As a "red" state at the #6 spot, my state has voted Republican every election since FDR, but all our congressmen have been Democrat since before I was born. We also have the most roads per capita of any state, and as a farming state we receive large gov't subsidies(needed or not, that's another thread). There's so many variables a simple list like this doesn't mean much.
 
Warman17 said:
For example W. Virginia (4th on the list) has Senator Robert Byrd, king of pork.
Click to expand...

Right. It's more about who can shovel as much pork as possible and who foots the bill. Ted Stevens and Don Young and Robert Byrd are dangerous for budgets.

And Newt Gingrich had the gall to complain that Georgia was subsidizing New York......
 
Last farm bill = 6b. Conventional farm lobbies, not politicians cause this. Blaming politicians is the medical equivalent of treating a symptom. With politicians gathering millions of dollars for campaigns, we need to look beyond R and D for the causes. Overtly protectionist policy is not quantified.
 
Just farm lobbies? The highway bills are perhaps more jam-packed with pork than anything else.

But I agree that the cause is various congressman looking to stack the deck for themselves and screw the other 534 (unless, as is often the case, they just vote for all of them to have the vote for their own projects).
 
The Yankee said:
Just farm lobbies? The highway bills are perhaps more jam-packed with pork than anything else.

But I agree that the cause is various congressman looking to stack the deck for themselves and screw the other 534 (unless, as is often the case, they just vote for all of them to have the vote for their own projects).
Click to expand...

Each congressman has an incentive to take as much of the pie as he can. Remember, they do like getting reelected, and bringing home cash-intensive projects is one way of doing that.

Agreed, as always, on the agricultural subsidies and to some extent the highway funding. We could slice away ~$40 billion from the budget if we eliminated agricultural subsidies.

...As an aside, instead of having congressmen fight over the distribution of discretionary spending, it'd almost be better to have a designated "pot" of money dedicated to useless pork projects. Cap it at, say, $50 billion per year, and let the congressmen fight over bits of it. It'd at least be easier to keep track of...

Integral
 
A pork-laden highway bill and we still had the I-35W bridge collapse. :(

I don't go as far as the "kill all pork" people because that would also overlook some valuable items that may only come to light from the local representatives.

But, again, I do point to Don Young's Bridge to Nowhere (and more recently, his attempt to shove in pork about a road in Florida to help out a political ally) as the more famous examples of congressmen run amok.

And a lot of people foot that bill...as you can see in those states at the bottom of that list.
 
So how do we fix it?

End career politicianing. Term limits. One term per office. Period. If you can keep moving up, then you can make a career of it, but the number of people who spend their (and their children's) lives doing so would be greatly reduced.

That's why I give one vote point for "not-incumbant".
 
Ecofarm said:
So how do we fix it?

End career politicianing. Term limits. One term per office. Period. If you can keep moving up, then you can make a career of it, but the number of people who spend their (and their children's) lives doing so would be greatly reduced.

That's why I give one vote point for "not-incumbant".
Click to expand...

Thats a terrible idea.

Several universities have done studies on the effects of term limits, since several states and localities have them. The idea (and one that is very popular with voters), is that term limits are supposed to bring in "new blood and ideas".

The opposite is true. Politicians play musical chairs with jobs, the legislative process becomes bogged down (legislating is an actual skill you know, that takes training), and, the worst part, unelected groups, like lobbyists and party bosses, become super powerful.

If the senate is going to totally change every 4 years, but the party boss and the lobbying firm stay for 30, who do you think is going to understand the system better? Now that the term-limiting craze is nearly 20 years old, several places are dialing back those restrictions, after seeing its bad policy. 15 years ago, we were talking about amending the US constitution to create legislative term limits. Notice how thats dropped out of the conversation?
 
Since we put in term limits in the City Council, I've noticed one dynamic duo in Brooklyn trading jobs every eight years between the City Council and the State Assembly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

vicawoo
Calculations for flanking versus combat and other attrition
Replies
0
Views
2K
vicawoo
vicawoo
Top Bottom