America's fiscal union

Does this include Medicare/Medicaid (CMS) spending? Does it include military bases? Why not break it down a bit? Perhaps Florida has many (transient) CMS expenditures as the winter flocks arrive? Where are the big VA centers (how much do they cost?)?

How much gets swallowed up in the endless maw of the U. S. government, including black ops projects we have no idea what we're funding? How about bureaucratic red tape costs? How many Americans work 1/4 of the year or more to pay for some dweeb in an office in Washington, D.C.? How many more work to pay for presidential perks like Air Force One, the Secret Service, the operation of the White House and last but not least, Congressional salaries and cushy retirements?

So could we balance the budget by selling off some of our worst performing assets(states)?

Great post. That was always a very unintellectual argument by "blue staters" so this is nice to see for we that are educated.
It you take Wall Street out of NY and put it in Mississippi than you would see a swap. If you replaced the people and government of Rhode Island and swapped them with the same in Montana than the map would stay the same if not worse for Montana.

This is an interesting article since it shows that in every region and country of the world there are large parts which benefit from transfers and there are the paying countries. It contradicts the common view that Anglosaxon countries (who critize Subventions in the EU) are better in getting every part of the country and every bit of the economy selfsustaining and competitive. But the opposite is actually normal just like in the rest of the world. So-called liberal capitalistic countries subvention unefficient parts as much as countries with a stronge planning approach like Germany or China......

These comments are funny. A shorter version of the debtor-states' criticism might as well read: "I'd like to see the data parsed in such a way as to reinforce my belief system."

It seems odd to compare the sum of 20 years of taxes (1990-2009) to only one year's GDP (2009) of each state, considering that this would hide historical changes in taxes with respect to GDP (which should nevertheless correlate pretty closely). For example, I would predict states that have grown rapidly in recent years (perhaps Texas?) may have been in the red for many of the 20 years, only now providing more than they take in. Wouldn't it be better to take the 20 year average or the 20-year sum of both taxes and GDP?

Well what is the spending on? New Mexico has a tiny population, but huge National Labs and military bases. Not to mention, its a big state with a lot of miles on interstate.

A stupid and meaningless map and figures. States with lots of military per capita are net recipients. States with lots of corporate headquarters are net payers. That interstate highway through Kansas means Kansas gets a lot of federal money, but try getting your California produce in New York without it.

Interesting chart. And military and science bases are very much political earmarks that states and local communities usually want, base closure and realignment decisions have been some of the most politically contested decisions the military has had to make. While certain individual states may have different reasons for being on the giving or recieving end of the fed treasurey, the two main policies that drove location of federal spending: Rural states tend to have a disproportionate say in government spending policies (and this does not just occur in the US but pretty much every federal style country, in the US, the Senate gives small states a disproportionate say in funding matters) Also, political power plays and bargaining have tended to give politicians representing the south and the west the ability garner more spending for the constituents. The population move to the sunbelt and out west was driven first and for most by the federal government, then weather, then other factors.
Lastly this chart and the ensuing debate just shows how illogical all sides of any political debate are in the US. Having a discussion with someone recently who tends to have different political viewpoints than I do, we found it funny that people who might want to shop at Costco on politcal grounds because they pay their workers a higher wage compared to someone who defends the pay practices of Wal-mart whose employees often have to apply for government benefits in order to survive. If anything "liberal" big government types should support Walmart becuase its business model relies on government spending while "conservative" the government is evil (unless it is reading our emails, telling us what days I can buy alcohol or telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies) should support Costco because it is an example of businesses taking care of their employees whithout government support and example of market forces working.

Wouldn't that map look VASTLY different if you subtracted military spending from the totals?

If, as many of you have requested, we took spending for the military out, the ratio for states like NJ and CT would look even worse (they would be getting even less back from the government). NJ has 9 military bases. CT still has a few military installations, plus the Coast Guard academy, and some of its industry gets military contracts.

If you remove things like military spending for one set, you'll have to remove them for all. And you are still going to see massive transfer payments from certain states to others - mostly to states who are complaining bitterly about Federal spending while depending on it, and often demonizing the very states that are providing the money on which they depend.

They use the money they receive to keep state and local taxes low or, in many cases, make sure there is no state income tax. The states that are providing the money they receive don't have this luxury. They also use the money to provide incentives to business to relocate. Personally, I'd like to see the Federal government take them at their word for a few years and send back what they pay in. Let them figure out how to fund the rest of it.

If we really want this country run like a business then we need to eliminate the under-performing states. They can be absorbed by their better run neighbors or, better yet, ejected from the union to become third world tax havens and sex-tourism destinations for us real 'mericans.

I would just like to point out that OF COURSE Delaware contributes much more. 63% of the Fortune 500 companies are registered there. Economics in and of itself needs to be completely overhauled to account for socio-political-power externalities that are considered ancillary.

@Realities

Solely because of freedom of competition - for government largesse.

They interpret macroeconomics from the perspective of microeconomics. That is, the USA is to them the USA Corp. They think the macroecnoomic benefit is the aggregate of microeocnomic benefits, not knowing such a belief results in fallacy of composition.

As for the USA Corp., another form of superpower also used to take itself as a single corporation: The Soviet Union.

The Soviets failed due to the same form of fallacy of composition on macroeconomics and microeconomics, apart from the difference between private possession and public possession.

@Audi Man:

I totally agree with your comment. Funny how the Rethuglican states receive the greatest amount of government largesse and still have the audacity to complain about "big government"...

New York is the state that contributes the most (in absolute terms)
and is also the most reviled by conservative states who partake of
Federal largesse. It goes to show that giving does not make others
appreciate you. Since those taht are most vocal about Federal deficits are states receiving plenty of tax dollars cutting should begin with them.

To all the people who are saying "oh this state shouldn't be so red for xyz reason": Yes, it should. The point is to show which states are paying into our federal government, and which are getting paid.

Of course there are reasons WHY this is true - NM with its bases, florida with its retirees, Iowan farm subsidies, disaster aid, stimulus funding, corporate head offices, whatever. It's obvious what your agenda is when you seek to disqualify some source of federal money as "OK" while holding up others as "the true source of our deficit".

If you want to go into more detail - such as what states would a defense cut hit, what states would a SS cut hit, what states would an increase in corporate tax hit etc - then such a breakdown would be required. But if you want to know what economies are being propped up by federal redistribution, then excluding certain types of redistribution surely isn't the way to go.

for folks trying to rationalize the hyprocisy, remember in the 19th century the south was quite keen on gaining seniority in the legislative bodies, knowing winning the presidency would prove difficult.

Hence that tradition of excellence in securing federal funding, in many ways because they had to, like for roads, but were also quite solicitious of military bases and what not. Probably that migrated over to the Republicans, as segregationists, more conservative folks decided to leave the Democrats in the 1970s/1980s.

Look at Rick Perry, who was once a Democrat, and drew hard off the federal funds to keep the state of Texas' finances at bay (especially with grabbing stimulus money from Obama).

My mom's from the south, and I studied down there. I know the supposed "conservative line" which is "we want limited governement"...but when you point out of the federal money, they say "we have a lot of poor people down here" (direct quote), or "we need the money" (paraphrase).

I bet you could cut it the figures any way you want but the south and west will probably still come out ahead as consumers of federal dollars vs constributions in tax receipts. The area, the state of the populations (several are really at the bottom of the development indices) and political culture that I don't believe has departed with the shift to Republicans in the past 30 years, or the rise of the TEA party (which didn't seem to mind deficits the prior 8 years under Bush).

balor123,

with regards to this point: "I would like to see how this map changes after you factor in the money paid to residents of states through mortgage defaults,"

I think it does. The time horizon includes 2008 and 2009. Now this covers 19 years so some smoothing out is probably.