• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Nirek On July - 27 - 2014
English: This graph shows the per-capita, infl...

English: This graph shows the per-capita, inflation-adjusted defense spending of the United States federal government from 1962 to (forecasted) 2014. It is derived from the FY2010 “President’s budget” Historical tables (Table 3.2—OUTLAYS BY FUNCTION AND SUBFUNCTION: 1962–2014), adjusted using United States Census population data and forecasts and CPI inflation data. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Have you noticed that the people who rant about the size of our government are from States that receive the most assistance from the government?

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/08/03/states-that-get-the-most-federal-money/2/

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/08/03/states-that-get-the-most-federal-money/3/

 

No state in the U.S. received more money per person from the federal government than Alaska. One contributing factor is that the state had the second-highest figure for defense spending in 2010, at $7,337.59 per capita. The federal government also allocated a great deal toward wages and salaries in Alaska — $5,709.52 per capita. This was more than any state other than Hawaii, which spent $5,805.78 per person, and twice the next-closest state within the contiguous US.” 

A red state loaded with people like Sarah Palin, hmmm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

“Virginia received more than $136 billion in federal funds in 2010. This state received more than 12% of the total Department of Defense procurement spending — the second-highest proportion in the country, behind California. The state received the highest per capita procurement funding and the third-highest per capita federal expenditures for salaries and wages. The state’s proximity to the capital is a factor in the high government expenditures. Despite receiving the second-most federal funds per capita, Virginia was very low in terms of the grant funding it received.”

 

Okay, Virginia is a purple State, meaning it is part Republican and part Democratic.

Maryland had the fifth-highest federal spending per capita from the Defense Department — the state has 11 military bases. In addition, the state received more spending per capita in nonmilitary programs than any other. The state’s proximity to the capital is likely a major factor in this. The state received more than 5% of the total U.S. procurement expenditure, and ranked second in per capita procurement spending — $4,593.79 — nearly three times the national average. Of the 50 states, Maryland has the second-lowest percentage of people living below the poverty line.”

Maryland is Democratic. But do you notice that States close to DC seem to get a lot? Hmmmm?

 “

The Hawaiian Islands have 11 military bases,contributing to the country’s highest per capita federal expenditure from the Department of Defense in 2010. Along with a large number of military personnel on the government payroll, Hawaii also had the highest federal salaries and wages. Some 77% of the salaries and wages paid are for active military personnel. The state had the 10th highest federal procurement spending per capita, at $2,017.80. Since 2006, federal expenditure on salaries and wages in Hawaii has more than doubled.”

“Hawaii surprised me being Democratic. Interesting.

New Mexico received the third-highest procurement spending per capita in the U.S. at $3,641.68. A significant component of this spending was under the category of non-defense agency spending for the Department of Energy. New Mexico received more federal funding from the Department of Energy than any other state, with an amount of $4.8 billion. This is due to the three nuclear weapons facilities located within the state. New Mexico also ranks seventh for the grant expenditures it received per capita. More than 60% of these grants were from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some 22.53% of the population was on Medicaid — the fourth highest percentage in the nation — which is funded through this department.”

NM is mostly Democratic, but the Governor is Republican.

“The federal government gave Kentucky more than $7,000 per person on direct payments, which included retirement and disability benefits, unemployment benefits and student assistance — all large programs. Medicare benefits accounted for nearly 57% of such payments. This was  partially due to the high amount of government money going toward prescription drug coverage in the state — $5.46 billion in 2010. Kentucky received almost $1.5 billion more for prescription drug coverage than California, a state with almost nine times its population.”

KY, purple.

“Alabama comes in second for the amount of spending per capita — $3,761 — on retirement and disability. The Cotton State also ranks seventh for procurement spending per capita, 78% of which was defense spending, and large parts of which also included the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. Most of this procurement spending falls under the section of Department of Defense spending. Aside from Virginia and Kentucky, Alabama is the only state on this list that is in the bottom half of states for the amount of grant spending per capita. Grant spending encompasses a vast number of federal agencies and departments within each state.”

 

Another red State.

“West Virginia is the only state in the top 10 where federal spending on defense was not a significant contributor to the total amount of money this state received. In fact, West Virginia ranked 48th for federal defense spending — $609 per capita. A large portion of federal spending in West Virginia, almost 16%, was for Medicare benefits, slightly more than the national rate of 15.6%. West Virginia ranked first in the country for the percentage of people using this benefit at nearly 20%. West Virginians also received more federal spending per capita on retirement and disability benefits — which includes Social Security payments, federal retirement and disability benefits, and veterans benefits — than any other state.”
Mostly Democratic.

Connecticut received almost 50% more government funding per capita than the national average. In 2010, Connecticut was awarded $11.1 billion in military procurement contracts, giving the state the fourth-highest per capita federal defense expenditure — $3,351.88. The Constitution State ranked first for the amount of spending for direct payments other than retirement and disability on a per capita basis. A significant chunk of this amount — almost 60% — was spent solely on medical prescription drug coverage. At $14.1 billion, the amount of federal government expenditures on prescription drugs in Connecticut was more than any other state and over $5 billion more than Florida, the state receiving the second-most federal funds in this category. Connecticut also ranked fifth in per capita federal funding from procurement spending.”

A Democratic State.

“With the third-smallest population in the U.S., North Dakota’s federal spending per capita was understandably larger than more populous states. North Dakota ranked third in the country for receiving Direct payments other than retirement and disability. What is unusual is the large amount of money that North Dakota farmers received from the federal government — the state ranked second in agricultural assistance in the nation, behind only Texas, which has a population more than 37 times that of North Dakota.”

Red State.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

What do you make of all this? Why do some States get so much and others not so much?

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Nirek

Proud progressive Vietnam Vet against WAR! Can't stomach chickenhawks.

22 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. RSGmusic says:

    oK Fine article Nirek and all the other post i have read.

    The red states also are on the bottom half of public education in the USA K thru 12.

    One of the things i have found is that the tax the rich less philosophy leaves the red states with less revenue making them have to use more federal funding.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/02/poverty-increase-map_n_5548577.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

    Subsidies for the entire USA is about 500 billion to farms ,oil. power and coal. All these things you have to buy.
    Theses companies can surely make money with the OWN money!

    A synthesizer can create any instrument made and others that have not be created yet.

  2. Kalima says:

    Found this interesting article on the waste if defense spending at the Pentagon last week and forgot to post it. Not really that off topic to include in a comment on your your post, Nirek.

    —-

    The Pentagon’s $399 Billion Plane to Nowhere

    The next-generation F-35, the most expensive plane ever built, may be too dangerous to fly. Why is Congress keeping it alive?

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/08/pentagons_399_billion_plane_nowhere

    • Nirek says:

      Thanks Kalima, the problem with the F-35 is that they are trying to make the same plane do all the different jobs that several are doing now. It is not working. The defense department wastes so much money. Lobbyists for different “contractors” keep the spending going.

      All that money could be put to much better use.

    • Nirek says:

      Monica, thanks for the link. It makes my point even better than my findings.

      • monicaangela says:

        You were right on the money Nirek. I have been reading WalletHub for quite some time now. They do a great job of keeping up with our tax dollars, how they are spent, what they are spent for, and who receives the majority of them inside and outside the nation.

        If you are interested in this sort of thing, it might be a good idea to visit that site periodically. :)

  3. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    Interesting article and references.

    The Tax Foundation provides another way of looking at this

    This illustrates what percentage of a state’s general revenue is made up of federal aid. Mississippi relies more heavily on federal assistance than other states, with 49% of its total general revenue coming from federal aid. Close behind are Louisiana at 46.5% and Arizona at 45.7%. On the other end of the spectrum, Alaska relies on federal aid for only 24% of its general revenue, followed closely by Delaware at 25.9% and North Dakota at 26%.

    [img][/img]

    Still Texas is so certain of its ability to go it along that sotries like this keep popping up:

    Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, has filed a bill designed to move $1 billion worth of Texas-owned gold bars from the Federal Reserve in New York to a Texas Bullion Depository.

    Gov. Rick Perry quickly expressed his support for reclaiming the gold as only a Texan can: We’ll come and take it.

    “If we own it,” Perry said on a radio program last week, “I will suggest to you that that’s not someone else’s determination whether we can take possession of it back or not

    Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/24/4724519/what-if-texas-really-did-secede.html#storylink=cpy

    • Nirek says:

      Murph, your way of looking at this makes my point even better. Those who complain about BIG government are the same people who get a bigger share of federal money.

      • monicaangela says:

        That is why the citizens of this nation should give them what they want…smaller government for them, the same or bigger government for the rest of us…those who are actually paying for it. :)

  4. sillylittleme says:

    So my two cents…

    There is a serious lack of understanding of the physical movement of money in an economy. First, our government produces the actual cash to be used. If done in a responsible manner these monies would first hit main street. By, as Lewis Black would say, “building a really big fucking thing”. That money would be expended by main streeters and continue to circulate, money’s sole purpose. No use trying to get conservatives to understand this simple premise. They think that money just appears out of thin air and lands in their bank account.

    Regardless of how you feel the money is expended, the government is the only entity able to do so. Our current problem is two-fold. One, that money seems to be expended willy-nilly. Hard to get legislation to change when those who love their gravy train have our tax dollars to expend on lobbyists. Two, we need to build a really big thing. And I don’t see Congress getting it together to get that done either.

    It has long been the case that red states take a higher percentage than what they put in. Do they care? No probably not. Why? Because they have no basic understanding of the purpose of money, what is sound monetary policy and they are still hoping to hit the lottery. Someone should tell them that they no longer will be able to pay the lower rate of unearned income on lottery winnings like the mill/billionaires they so admire. The Rs changed that law. And their acolytes never saw it coming…

    • Nirek says:

      SLM, all this time I thought “money was speech” and “corporations were people” with lots of money!

      Sorry , I had to get that in. Of course you are correct about money.

  5. kesmarn says:

    Nirek, it seems that there are three major areas of expense: agriculture, defense and Medicare/Medicaid programs.

    Doesn’t it seem like we have a modicum of control over two out of those three?

    Do corporate mega-farms — agri-businesses — really need our tax dollars? Especially for NOT growing crops? I can see that the original purposes of these programs might have been laudable, but they were never intended to make multi-millionaires even richer. Time to trim those back in a major way.

    And defense? Well, need we say more? This country spends almost 10 times more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. Lots of room to cut there.

    Hopefully, that would leave a lot more funding for the poor, the sick and the elderly. And I don’t think any reasonable person would begrudge them their programs.

    But then the Tea People have never been noted for being reasonable. :-(

    • Nirek says:

      Hi Kes, thanks for the reply. Yes we could and should have had a “sunset” date attached to the corporate farm subsidies. As for defense spending, we could cut it in half and still have the biggest military on this earth!

      I would use the savings to repair and replace our infrastructure which would create jobs, lots of them. Then we would have fewer poor folks to help and be able to help them with no problems.

  6. Miles Long says:

    The ignorance and irrationality of the Conservative mind are well documented scientifically and anecdotally:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/breakfast-socrates/201003/creationism-mental-illness

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/28/168022/-Conservatism-As-A-Mental-Disorder-And-A-Threat

    http://ripley8.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/27/16722961-conservatism-as-a-mental-illness

    So it’s no wonder that their perceptions are skewed toward the bizarre. That is one of the reasons I don’t coddle conservatives in conversation, or online posts; there’s no argument that will hold sway with them.

    This is why I also castigate Liberals and Progressives for trying otherwise rational tactics in combating the deprivations Conservative thinking has visited on this country since 1980.

    One cannot keep bringing a knife to a gunfight and expect to win, that’s right, I said win. Most folks on the Left believe that if they just present that “perfect” argument that somehow those on the Right will see the light and come around to a rational perspective; it ain’t happening.

    The facts about government spending in each of the states above, and the rest of the Red states receiving disproportionately more government direct aid dollars for assistance programs, simply cannot resonate with the Conservative mind.

    Facts don’t matter with the Conservative mindset. How do you argue facts and figures with someone who believes that the Flinstones is a documentary? That because we still have winter in the United States that man can’t possibly be responsible for global climate change?

    Besides, the bottom line is that statistically speaking, no Conservative is ever going to read this article, let alone pause to consider the factual considerations it presents…

    Miles “Preaching ONLY To The Choir” Long

    P.S. Before anyone posts that information like this is for discussion among those who do read it, and somehow accuses me of implying that posting such is a waste of time…move along, there’s nothing to see here. {wink}

    • EXFANOFARIANA says:

      Right there with you, Miles…..Completely agree.
      One has only to compare the intellectual level or IQ on the blue states versus the red ones.I recommend you all to watch Alessandra Pelosi’s doc she did for Bill Maher on Mississippi couple years ago.Short and spot on.

      • RSGmusic says:

        HI fine friend, EXFANOFARIANA

        Glad for the info i will look it up.

        I hope you enjoined Ghost stories.

        I like the lead song and one called ( i can see it hear )
        my time in New Orleans is presented in this project

        some of the last stuff is just me learning to play way back in the 1977 to 1984 .

    • Nirek says:

      Miles, please don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think, stop beating around the bush, (wink).
      Thanks for your input, I believe you are on to something. Conservatives are either stupid or greedy. A few are honest but they seem to be in the minority, to me.

  7. Beatlex says:

    The states that purport to be conservative in fiscal matters are poor at creating wealth of there own.Therefore they need more from the dreaded Federal government.They have successfully fooled themselves into thinking that there is no contradiction in their mindset


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features