States Most & Least Dependent on the Federal Government

by John S Kiernan

WalletHub States Most and Least Dependent on Federal GovernmentThe extent to which the average American’s tax burden would vary based on his state of residence represents a significant point of differentiation between state economies.  But it’s only once piece of the puzzle.

What if, for example, a particular state can afford not to tax its residents at high rates because it’s receiving disproportionately more funding from the federal government than states with apparently oppressive tax codes?  That would change the narrative significantly, revealing federal dependence where bold, efficient stewardship was once thought to preside.

The idea of the American freeloader burst into the public consciousness when #47percent started trending on Twitter.  And while the notion is senselessly insulting to millions of hardworking Americans, it is true that some states receive a far higher return on their federal income tax investment than others.

Just how pronounced is this disparity, and to what extent does it alter our perception of state and local tax rates around the country?  WalletHub sought to answer those questions by comparing the 50 states and the District of Columbia in terms of three key metrics:  1) Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government; 2) Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue;  and 3) Number of Federal Employees Per Capita.

More information about the significance of these data points as well as a comprehensive state-by-state rankings breakdown can be found below.

Main Findings

 

Rank(1 = least dependent) State Name Return on Taxpayer Investment(Category Rank) Funding as % of Revenue (Category Rank) Federal Employees Per Capita (Category Rank)
1 Delaware $0.50
(1)
25.37%
(7)
6.17
(10)
2 Illinois $0.56
(3)
26.23%
(8)
6.45
(11)
3 Minnesota $0.56
(2)
28.47%
(12)
5.91
(8)
4 New Jersey $0.88
(10)
27.53%
(11)
5.75
(6)
5 Connecticut $1.28
(25)
23.68%
(4)
4.91
(1)
6 Kansas $0.71
(6)
27.21%
(9)
9.19
(31)
7 California $0.94
(14)
28.82%
(13)
6.65
(13)
8 Nevada $1.15
(23)
27.48%
(10)
6.60
(12)
9 Massachusetts $0.94
(13)
29.56%
(17)
7.09
(19)
10 Colorado $0.84
(8)
29.24%
(15)
10.67
(35)
11 New Hampshire $1.07
(18)
32.06%
(21)
5.61
(4)
12 Michigan $1.08
(19)
34.12%
(25)
5.33
(3)
13 Ohio $0.66
(5)
35.87%
(36)
6.78
(15)
T-14 Utah $0.86
(9)
31.65%
(20)
12.58
(40)
T-14 Nebraska $0.57
(4)
34.92%
(31)
9.06
(28)
16 Washington $1.05
(17)
29.38%
(16)
10.73
(36)
T-17 District of Columbia $1.15
(22)
23.90%
(5)
336.63
(51)
T-17 New York $0.79
(7)
37.74%
(41)
6.06
(9)
T-17 Iowa $1.12
(21)
34.85%
(29)
5.75
(5)
20 Wisconsin $1.68
(38)
28.93%
(14)
5.08
(2)
21 Alaska $1.42
(31)
20.01%
(1)
22.68
(48)
22 Arkansas $1.1
(20)
34.52%
(28)
7.01
(17)
23 Pennsylvania $1.31
(27)
30.91%
(18)
7.87
(24)
24 North Carolina $1.34
(28)
33.91%
(24)
7.22
(20)
25 Indiana $2.01
(41)
33.20%
(23)
5.76
(7)
26 Virginia $1.75
(39)
24.81%
(6)
21.52
(47)
27 Oklahoma $0.9
(11)
36.21%
(38)
12.78
(41)
28 Oregon $1.28
(26)
36.16%
(37)
7.26
(21)
29 North Dakota $5.31
(50)
21.04%
(2)
13.70
(44
29 Hawaii $3.19
(46)
23.60%
(3)
25.32
(50)
31 Idaho $1.4
(29)
35.16%
(33)
7.96
(25)
32 Texas $1.43
(32)
35.13%
(32)
7.77
(22)
T-33 Rhode Island $1.55
(34)
34.48%
(26)
9.80
(32)
T-33 Georgia $1.05
(15)
38.86%
(44)
10.44
(34)
35 Vermont $1.41
(30)
34.86%
(30)
10.38
(33)
36 Missouri $1.05
(16)
40.83%
(47)
9.19
(30)
37 Maryland $1.61
(35)
31.29%
(19)
25.06
(49)
T-38 Wyoming $0.91
(12)
39.73%
(46)
13.17
(42)
T-38 Florida $4.57
(49)
32.65%
(22)
6.96
(16)
40 South Carolina $7.87
(51)
34.49%
(27)
7.03
(18)
41 Kentucky $2.39
(43)
35.83%
(35)
9.10
(29)
42 Arizona $1.62
(36)
39.35%
(45)
8.71
(27)
T-43 South Dakota $1.16
(24)
41.53%
(49)
13.95
(45)
T-43 West Virginia $2.22
(42)
35.46%
(34)
12.56
(39)
45 Tennessee $1.64
(37)
41.27%
(48)
7.82
(23)
T-46 Montana $1.55
(33)
38.54%
(43)
13.53
(43)
T-46 Maine $1.79
(40)
36.63%
(39)
10.92
(37)
48 Louisiana $3.35
(48)
44.26%
(50)
6.76
(14)
49 Alabama $3.28
(47)
37.02%
(40)
11.66
(38)
T-50 New Mexico $2.83
(44)
37.90%
(42)
15.22
(46)
T-50 Mississippi $3.07
(45)
45.84%
(51)
8.67
(26)

Top 5 Cities

 

Red vs. Blue States

Federal Gov Dependency

 

Correlation Analysis

 

 

Ask The Experts

< >

Jonathan Justice, State: Delaware

School of Public Policy & Administration, University of Delaware
Jonathan Justice, State: Delaware
We're a high-household-income state, and so pay high levels of income taxes per household and receive less means-tested transfer payments compared to other states. We have relatively low state taxes and very low local property taxes, which means fewer federal income tax deductions, which adds to the effect. My colleague Ed Ratledge notes that for many years it has been the case that we've received back about 70 cents on the dollar.

There might be smaller effects related to corporate taxation and location choices, and the distribution of federal facilities, but I think PIT and transfers are probably the two main things.

Sheldon D. Pollack, State: Delaware

University of Delaware
Sheldon D. Pollack, State: Delaware
The ironic thing is, Delaware is heavily dependent on tax revenue from citizens of other states. Something like 19% of the state’s revenue comes from the stock franchise tax, which mostly is paid by corporations outside of Delaware. Other taxes come from non-residents. The state gasoline tax is very low compared to Maryland, Pennsylvania, and NJ. That gets residents of other nearby states to fill up in Delaware. (The Governor has proposed a 10 cent per gallon increase, but something lower will be enacted.)

James J. Carroll, State: New Jersey

Georgian Court University
James J. Carroll, State: New Jersey
New Jersey pays more to the Federal Government and gets less back. When taxes were a smaller part of income, this pattern may have strengthened the state. Currently the high incomes are driving large employers out of the state.

Thomas Garrett, State: Mississippi

The University of Mississippi
Thomas Garrett, State: Mississippi
The results of the study are not surprising if one considers the progressive nature of the federal income tax and the growing percentage of federal expenditures allocated to health and welfare (about 30 percent of federal expenditures in 1950, now about 65 percent), which are primarily consumed by lower-income individuals. So lower-income states generate a smaller percentage of total federal income tax receipts, but because the majority of federal income tax receipts are spent on health and welfare, these lower-income states receive a disproportionately greater amount of federal expenditures since lower-income individuals are more likely than wealthier individuals to receive their health and welfare benefits from the federal government.

Similarly, for identical state income tax structures (which are mostly progressive), lower-income states will generate a smaller amount of tax revenue than higher-income states. Given the previous point, it is then also not surprising that federal funding as a percentage of state revenue is higher for lower-income states.

Ultimately, what the data in the study generally reveal (although not the whole story) is the redistribution of national income from wealthier individuals (states) to lower-income individuals (states) in the form of health and welfare benefits. If the incomes of wealthier individuals continue to grow faster than the incomes of lower-income individuals, and the federal government takes a growing role in the provision of health and welfare benefits, then in the future we can expect an even greater disparity between the states in terms of federal taxes paid and federal benefits received.

Methodology

After reviewing previously published literature on the issue of state dependency as well as the correlation between federal funding and state taxation, we concluded that the following three metrics would best elucidate each state’s true financial independence, or lack thereof, from the federal government.

  1. Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government – Weight: 1
    (Federal Funding in $ / Federal Income Taxes in $) This metric illustrates how many dollars in federal funding state taxpayers receive for every one dollar in federal income taxes they pay. We have excluded from the Federal Funding the Loans/Guarantees component because it does not represent permanent transfers from the Federal Government to a state.
  2. Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue – Weight: 1
    (Federal Funding in $ / State Revenue in $) * 100 This metric shows how much of a state’s annual revenue, and theoretically its spending, is provided by the federal government.  Without this money, revenue would have to be found elsewhere – perhaps via tax hikes – or else key state services would suffer.
  3. Number of Federal Employees Per Capita – Weight:  0.5
    (No. Federal Workers / No. State Residents) This metric speaks to the federal government’s role as a nationwide employer, indicating the percentage of a state’s workforce that owes its very livelihood to Washington.

The following metrics were included in the report for context only.  They represent subsets of federal funding and are reflected in the first two metrics.

  • Federal Contracts / IRS Collections:  The federal government has more invested in states with a high ratio between federal contracting dollars and federal income taxes.
  • Grants / IRS Collections:  States awarded large grants from the federal government are either unable or unwilling to pay for certain services and/or infrastructure, necessitating that the FEDs do it for them.
  • Direct Payments / IRS Collections:  This reflects the return on taxpayer investment in terms of federal entitlement payouts.
  • Federal Insurance / IRS Collections:  Federally-guaranteed insurance programs (e.g. Deposit Insurance, Pension Insurance and Flood Insurance) help citizens recover from potentially catastrophic financial events.   A state with an especially high ratio of federal aid to federal tax payments is reaping relatively more benefit than it is paying for.
  • Red vs. Blue States: States as designated as being red or blue based on how they voted in the 2012 presidential election.

 

Sources:  Data in this report is courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service, the Census Bureau, Transparency.gov, US Department of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless noted otherwise, the statistics underlying this report are from 2012.

Author
User
John Kiernan is Senior Writer & Editor at Evolution Finance. He graduated from the University of Maryland with a BA in Journalism, a minor in Sport Commerce & Culture,…
1361 Wallet Points
quit youre belly aching! its time to be grown ups now.. if you don't believe it, look it up and correct it! here is a reliable tool for you to use. please if youre going to have an argument have not just a source but a reliable source.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Dec 9, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
This is a very poor cartographic product.
1. Greater dependency should be shown with a darker hue not a lighter one.

2. The accompanying table lists the heading as "Federal Employees Per Capita". That would mean the number of Federal employees for every resident of the state. A value of 1 would mean every resident is a Federal Employee. Every state has a value higher than 1 so that would mean there are more Federal Employees than read more
Oct 25, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Some of these are... true but not really. The Western states are chopped up between federal agencies with the rest parceled out to citizens or counties, state ownership. NM is roughly 50% owned by the fed government, Add to that, with the gov's huge labs in NM, the fed government is one of, if not the, largest employers in the state. Families follow to the research stations so kids go to state public schools. So, read more
Sep 11, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
There's one phrase that's really infuriating me... "federal income tax investment". How is paying taxes to the federal government an investment? Also... states' rights on tax laws. Comment away.
Aug 22, 2014  •  Reply (1)  •  Flag
as I see it, taxes are an investment into the country and government has a vital role in the relative strength of our economy and standard of living. Federal taxes subsidize our businesses, fund basic research, provide income to individuals who, for whatever reason, cannot be self supporting, supplement low wages for American workers (food stamp use by fulltime workers), funding for infrastructure projects, jobs funded by federal contracts and grants. For better or worse, read more
Aug 31, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
It's hard to believe people are still dredging up, let alone paying attention to, this idiotic propaganda.

First, STATES don't pay taxes to the federal government, individuals and businesses do. Delaware is the state that's least "dependent" because 60% of the Fortune 500 are incorporated in Delaware, but that's not where the revenue is generated. A couple of billion dollars in federal tax revenues sent in from New Jersey come from Exxon/Mobil, but it's not just read more
Jul 16, 2014  •  Reply (4)  •  Flag
LITTLE JUMPY THERE PATRIOT?
WHY DON'T YOU WORRY ABOUT THE KOCH BROS VS THIS?

YOU ARE A 'RED' ...RIGHT? A REDCOAT?
OK..SO GO KNOCK 'EM OFF. DO YOUR JOB AS AN AMERICAN
Jul 17, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
"This metric illustrates how many dollars in federal funding state taxpayers receive for every one dollar in federal income taxes they pay..."
COME ON NOW PATRIOT.

ARE YOU A SPY?.
Jul 17, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Ah, but see the job of a journalist on your average website is not to create a logically valid argument about economics or public policy, it's to get eyeballs. You get eyeballs by being provocative and taking a side. That's what turned Fox into an empire, and why (almost) everyone else started copying them. It is, in fact, stodgy reports created by actual economists, which I happen to be, that no one pays attention to. read more
Jul 17, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@brianhughesma: It clearly states "taxpayer investment".

"(Federal Funding in $ / Federal Income Taxes in $) This metric illustrates how many dollars in federal funding state taxpayers receive for every one dollar in federal income taxes they pay".

Thus, taxpayers in MS, for example, get $3.07 back in federal funding for every $1.00 that they pay in federal income taxes. Taxpayers in the least dependent states contribute more federal income taxes than they take in federal tax read more
Nov 17, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
This "report" is polar opposite of near to all legitimate studies. Let us take one state for example, Illinois...In other reports that are not skewed by the liberal "thought" process, or conservative for that matter is ranked in the 40's...But, one of the top four states for social havens will always be loved in "reports" made by the libs.
Jul 16, 2014  •  Reply (2)  •  Flag
@michaelh1: I'd be interested in seeing all of these ligitimate studies. Or how about just one. So far in looking through Google using keywords "states dependent on federal government" I don't see any which show a polar opposite. As far as I can tell you simply don't like the analysis and subsequent ranking so you're making up *facts*. From that I can deduce you are probably a member of the tea party .

FYI, Illinois is read more
Oct 8, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@michaelh1: lol, it's always the fault of liberals or some liberal conspiracy, eh? I suppose it's also not true that the 9 poorest states in the nation are Conservative states? All those conservatives were lying about their incomes during the census, thus conservative states really have the highest median incomes, not the lowest? Lol. Taking "personal responsibility" is not something conservatives do.

The taxfoundation (dot) org has this same information, for many years gone by. read more
Nov 17, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
I presume that federal expenditures include social security retirement checks and federal employee/military retirement checks and if this is correct then the entire analysis is bogus. Retirees are free to live wherever they wish and often flee high cost blue states. Military and other federal installations are another source of bias/error.
Jun 6, 2014  •  Reply (1)  •  Flag
@archer_gravely: "Retirees are free to live wherever they wish and often flee high cost blue states."

You're the opposite of correct. Since they make less money than while they were working and access to jobs in their career don't factor in they tend to move to lower cost warmer weather states from higher cost states that have more job opportunities. (So New York to Florida is a common one)
Oct 24, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Does any one else find this article tough to follow?

What is the reasoning behind this statement? "What if, for example, a particular state can afford not to tax its residents at high rates because it’s receiving disproportionately more funding from the federal government than states with apparently oppressive tax codes? ".

Is the author trying to saying taxing more would cause fed money to dry up? Probably not. Or are trying to say the read more
May 17, 2014  •  Reply (1)  •  Flag
@Dross61: ""What if, for example, a particular state can afford not to tax its residents at high rates because it’s receiving disproportionately more funding from the federal government than states with apparently oppressive tax codes? "

It doesn't work that way. You have states that tax their residents highly in order to cover the governmental needs and then you have taxes that don't tax their resident highly enough and require federal assistance. So for instance, California read more
Oct 24, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
The largest problem with this study is that it doesn't take into account the distribution of people older than 65 in a given state. Southern states have a higher percentage of people 65+ per capita (many of which migrated there after they retired). To truly do this analysis correctly one would have to adjust for retirees as they are not producers in the economy, but take a large portion of federal government outlays. If one read more
May 14, 2014  •  Reply (1)  •  Flag
@wheelemw: Why do retirees move to these states? Because they have low taxes and costs of living. And by that I mean the residents who live their don't pay it and the states with higher taxes help pick up the slack. So whether you look at it your way or mine, it is absolutely about red vs blue states (anti tax as lower levels vs higher tax at lower levels).
Oct 24, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
The methodology for getting at federal funds by state is flawed due to the termination of the Consolidated Federal Funds Report in 2010. Other attempts to get at this will be have to cobbled together from a variety of sources.
May 6, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Does this factor in State taxes. I just paid 43,000 to Illinois. This resulted in 17,000 less to the Feds. so shoulnt Illinois be credited in this scenario with receiving 17,000 back from the fed.
Apr 9, 2014  •  Reply (1)  •  Flag
@tippet523: Illinois in real evidence takes more from the feds than over 40 states.
Jul 16, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
That should be, they have HIGH "Federal Funding as a Percentage of Revenue."
Apr 7, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Just a note that one of the reasons many of the western states have low "Funding as % of Revenue" is that large percentages of those states are federal land - meaning there is no property tax revenue to be had,or any of the other taxes that often come from property owners and tenants. Utah, for example, is 57.4% federal land. States do receive funds known as PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) but the read more
Apr 7, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
hmmm, so is that bad? why not break it down by party affiliation then? or race?
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Wow, the more I look at this the more biased it becomes... look at where you used per capita and where you didn't. You only use per capita where it helps blue, but on things like direct spending you don't.
Federal workers don't always directly help states. HIgher tax rates for states don't help either... and how do you account for state's like texas and Florida with NO state income tax. This report is ridiculous, read more
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply (6)  •  Flag
This math is probably alittle to complex for you. You should start with something basic like food stamp use per capita. Doing that you'll see red states have a larger per capita on food stamps. Sample:
% of state population on food stamps:
TX: 14.8% -- 3,916,115 people on SNAP (pop. 26,448,193)
CA: 11.2% -- 4,295,452 people on SNAP (pop. 38,332,521)
(Note: CA has 12 million more people in population, and a higher cost of living--which makes their read more
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@maximusb1: That is actually incorrect. You got that information off MSNBC, didn't you. Those numbers are entirely made up. As an average--blue/red, red has less people in poverty and debt. Look at Detroit, damn. Almost every single entity with a very high poverty area are controlled by blue. Darn, is it really that easy to show how false your argument is? Yes, yes it is. Blue destroys the economy, true red fixes it. Blue makes read more
Jul 16, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@Michaelh1 - False. This data is directly from the FDA (you can read, correct?)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm

And is backed by other true data:
This billionaire data also parallels state data showing:
► Red states take more in Federal aid than they pay in taxes (2010 census data.)
► Blue states pay the taxes that support the red states.
► Red states have 6% fewer college graduates per capita than blue states.
► Red states have a higher % of their populations on food read more
Jul 16, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Wait a minute...did you just base your entire argument on a single sample anecdote? I'm confused why someone with such a low level of education would even be on this site. You didn't even present an argument, just a slice of red herring, a dose of hyperbole, and a string of nonsense. When you present an actual argument with concurrent data (as the study authors did) you can sit at the adult table.
Jul 17, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@michaelh1: Oh yes, of course - Proof by empty assertion. So part from believing what you wish, why do you make these claims?
Sep 20, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@patricia_loves_summers: "This data is directly from the FDA (you can read, correct?)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29snapcurrpp.htm"

False! The FDA is part of HHS and the USDA is a separate agency.

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments."

"The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), also known as the Agriculture Department, is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing read more
Dec 8, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Federal employees per capita should not be included. Federal subsidies to state industries shouldn't be included... they aren't up to the state...
You're skewing... here is a link directly to Taxes PAID to Fed vs. Monies Received from the FED, by state.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Every smart business man knows: It takes money to make money.... Sadly, the public is naive to the reality of the con-job known as CONservative ideology
Mar 27, 2014  •  Reply (4)  •  Flag
@danny_livewire: Wow, that thought promise was....out there. True matter is that true-conservative ideology built this state. How can a business, or a person, thrive in the socialist havens the blues love so much...? Lemming.
Jul 16, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@michaelh1: Michaelh cannot read 7th-grade data charts.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
Jul 16, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
The problem is actually spelled as: LEARNING. ... If you do the math, Conservative ideology fails because it doesn't account for the economy. It only accounts for individual budgeting, and completely ignores the fact that we are all connected in an economy. ... And actually, Texas used to be a Democratic state before the Civil Rights Act was signed by President Jonson (from Texas, read his writings: he knew racism would make Texans switch sides read more
Jul 18, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@danny_livewire: So, Danny, you get all your small business money from the Government?
Nothing is gotten from Private Sector sources?
Dec 8, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
From a friend of mine, after I sent him your article! I would love to know your thoughts on the following:

"Several dubious assumptions. 1. that states with high share of federal workers "depend" on government because they wouldn't be doing something else, (most likely something more productive) without those government jobs; and 2. Federal revenue would need to be made up with other sources or face declines in services. A low/ tax/ low spend state read more
Mar 27, 2014  •  Reply (2)  •  Flag
@aaronf666: That doesn't negate the fact that they ARE taking Federal money--those employee incomes are paid by Federal taxes (which the majority of comes from blue states). The GOP ideal is "lowering government spending"--which by those ideals would included fewer Federal workers. The GOP condemns Federal spending--but the GOP/red states are the biggest users' per capita of Federal aid.
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
So, in your estimation, blue states chase away businesses, jobs, Military Bases, retirees of every stripe and somehow this is the fault of the red states? Well, you are right. We can't help it if we are far smarter than dumb ass blue states.
Aug 5, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
There is no mention of what years were used in the study nor how the "Red"/"Blue" status was determined. These lacking qualities make replication difficult, which relegates this to "junk" science status, speculation at best.
Mar 27, 2014  •  Reply (5)  •  Flag
@LeoDragon: Most likely 2013/2012 data. The data correlates with food stamp use per capita. Doing that you'll see red states have a larger per capita on food stamps. Sample:
% of state population on food stamps:
TX: 14.8% -- 3,916,115 people on SNAP (pop. 26,448,193)
CA: 11.2% -- 4,295,452 people on SNAP (pop. 38,332,521)(Note: CA has 12 million more people in population, and a higher cost of living--which makes their smaller % and only 379,337 more people on read more
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@LeoDragon: And needless to say, the first map (green-red), is party-irrelevant. You can look at the map, and you generally know which starts are the red & blue states. You can tell the majority of GOP/red states are the takers (displayed by red), and the majority of blue states are makers (displayed by green)
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
statistically weak using so few years
Apr 1, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@maximusb1: "generally know" - indication this is junk science!
Apr 1, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
@maximusb1: Keep spewing your false statistics...Jeeze, this is only like the fifth thread of this I have read, and I keep seeing the same lie.
Jul 16, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
I observe that major U.S. military installations are concentrated in the red states displayed on the map. If you were to control for these installations, how different might the results be? Presumably, those states will have significant government contracting and federal employee levels.
Mar 27, 2014  •  Reply (2)  •  Flag
The simpliest Federal aid per capita mapping can be found in food stamps usage. Doing that you'll see red states have a larger per capita on food stamps. Sample:
% of state population on food stamps:
TX: 14.8% -- 3,916,115 people on SNAP (pop. 26,448,193)
CA: 11.2% -- 4,295,452 people on SNAP (pop. 38,332,521)(Note: CA has 12 million more people in population, and a higher cost of living--which makes their smaller % and only 379,337 more people on read more
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Part of the reason for concentration of military bases in red states has to do with:
1) Woodrow Wilson's desire to put Army bases in the south in WW I; and
2) Putting strategic nuclear weapons bases away from the coasts during the Cold War.
May 6, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
This is quite an interesting data analysis. I enjoyed reading about it and about your (perhaps) surprising results, but I also have several questions.

First, if possible, I'd like to try to replicate/validate these findings. Can you point me to the specific data sources you used?

Also, I have a few thoughts/questions, mostly on the methodology:

1. You state as a goal: "elucidate each state’s true financial independence, or lack thereof, from the federal government."
1.a. In metric read more
Mar 27, 2014  •  Reply (1)  •  Flag
Blue/red states are fairly well known. If you use just the last 2012 POTUS election, as the red/blue definition for SNAP (food stamp) usage, you'll find red states overall, have a higher per capita use of food stamps. However, that 2012 POTUS election as the definer--is being very generous to the GOP, as it would put Florida, which has a high per capita on food stamps into the blue--which officially it wouldn't be since it read more
Mar 28, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag
Why doesn't this surprise me? I live in Southeastern Idaho, which is as Republican as any state in the nation, but the economy in this area is heavily dependant on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). This is a nuclear testing facility, that has been located in this area for over 50 years. The INEL employs anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 employees, in an area where the largest city is Idaho Falls, with a population read more
Mar 26, 2014  •  Reply (1)  •  Flag
@Racyman57: "The federal research facility was established in 1949 as the "National Reactor Testing Station" (NRTS).[1] In 1975, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was divided into the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Idaho site was for a short time named ERDA and then subsequently renamed to the "Idaho National Engineering Laboratory" (INEL) in 1977 with the creation of the Department of Energy (DOE) under President Carter. After read more
Dec 8, 2014  •  Reply  •  Flag