Updated August 1, 2013
I wrote this piece in November of 2010. After listening to New Jersey Chris Christie’s response to Rand Paul’s accusation of Christie being a “gimme, gimme, gimme” politician, implying that he was a ‘taker’ from the government I changed the title of an essay I am writing for publication to “Governor Chris Christie -Senator Rand Paul Feud Could Make Christie President“. In no uncertain terms, Christie made Kentucky Senator Rand Paul aware that it was Kentucky that was a beggar state as it receives much more from the Federal Government than it pays in while New Jersey gets back much less than it pays in. I will go into the dynamics of how Christie can ride that the hypocrisy of Red States being welfare states right into the presidency.
Note below that the only Red State that gets back less than it sends to Washington is Texas. Of course Texas’ wealth of natural resources can hide a lot of its intrinsic dysfunction.
I just sat at my computer with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich checking my emails and hate mails for the day when one came in from a dear friend and political activist. Her email got my political juices flowing for the morning, not that I needed help this morning as I was blogging all night and still on an information high.
She directed me to this blog entry at DailyKos which references this New York Daily News article. In a nutshell it illustrated that not only is Alaska a welfare state in that it receives many more Federal dollars than it pays in taxes, but it is a state that runs a budget surplus because of low population and a lot of oil and as a consequence is able to provide each citizen with a government check every year (state welfare).
It is amusing that those most concerned about the budget deficit are those most dependent on the government. Unfortunately their willful ignorance caused by their affinity for acquiescing to misinformation continue to have them support policies that will ultimately keep them in poverty or prevent their financial growth out of indentured servitude.
Here is a suggestion that will get those in the red states attention rather quickly. Politicians can balance the budget if every state that receives more from the federal government than they pay to the federal government in taxes simply get one dollar for every dollar they pay in taxes. The blue states will be more than happy to continue contributing more than they pay in taxes for the good of the entire country.
|New Hampshire||$0.71||New Jersey||$0.61|
|New Mexico||$2.03||New York||$0.79|
|North Carolina||$1.08||North Dakota||$1.68|
|Rhode Island||$1.00||South Carolina||$1.35|
Nice work and thank you. I shall keep to refer to.
I have been introduced to this concept before and think it is an interesting analysis. However, I think it would be helpful to explain how you determined red vs. blue states (based on presidential election, governor, state congress?) and what year you got this from.
Bonita Geary says
His comments at the end of the table say that the data is from 2005, the latest data available. I, too am interested in how the red states vs. blue states was determined.
Egberto Willies says
Red State/Blue state determined by who they voted for President. That is more accurate because gerrymandering does not play a role. While it is true that the comprehensive data is from 2005 there was little systemic change to that dynamic as other empirical data that is more recent follow the same path. I did not have the time to table yet but I will.
Does the money going back to the states reflect defense spending or are we talking about grants, i.e. block spending. I am assume the “going back” also includes SS payments.
The chart would have had much more impact if arranged in dollar paid vs. dollar back instead of alphabetical order. The the distribution would have been much more obvious visually.
Richard Simpkins says
“The blue states will be more than happy to continue contributing more than they pay in taxes for the good of the entire country.”
They already do that.