Counterintuitive

The states that voted Republican pay the least in taxes and receive the most money from the federal government. The states that voted Democrat paid more and received less. Here's a handy chart from the anti-tax Tax Foundation.

“During fiscal 2003, taxpayers in New Mexico benefited the most from the give-and-take with Uncle Sam,” said Moody. New Mexico received $1.99 in federal outlays for every $1.00 the state’s taxpayers sent to Uncle Sam. Other big winners were Alaska ($1.89), Mississippi ($1.83), and West Virginia ($1.82).
...
Combining the third highest tax burden per capita with the ninth lowest federal spending, New Jersey had the lowest federal spending-to-tax ratio (57¢). Other states that had low federal spending-to-tax ratios in FY 2003 are New Hampshire (64¢), Connecticut (65¢), Minnesota (70¢), Nevada (70¢), and Illinois (73¢).

Assuming New Mexico, where President Bush is ahead, falls Republican, Nevada is the only Red State that breaks the pattern.

So, here's an idea: What say Blue Staters go ahead and give the Red States what they want: Lower taxes and less government? Blue States could keep more of their money, and the Red Staters could pay for their own damned catfish disease research.

Comments

[Jim Gerkin]

It only stands to reason that places like NY or CA would pay more in taxes because of all the rich people who live their. Look at the per capita income as compared to the rich states. Also, look at population. New Mexico has a lot less people than CA or NY so their tax base is much less. I'd be willing to trade some of the federal money for some of the electoral votes since the largest part of CA (by land mass) voted for the President anyway.
BTW DC voted overwhelmingly for Kerry and they receive more than NM, AL, and MS added together.