Note: This is from an article in the Washington Post a week ago; it wasn't reported in Drudge nor in my political forum. I don't understand; this is one of those issues near 'n dear to my heart. Texas gets 88 cents back from every dollar "we" send to Washington.
I guess I should feel lucky; that's better odds than a slot machine.
(Click for a larger image)
By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The federal government's system of taxing and spending works well for people in New Mexico, Mississippi and West Virginia. Not so well for those in Minnesota, Delaware and New Jersey.
New Mexico received $3.10 in federal spending for every tax dollar the state sent to Washington in 2005 -- more than any other state -- said an Associated Press analysis. Delaware fared the worst, receiving 42 cents for every dollar sent to Washington. It was followed by Minnesota, which got 46 cents, and New Jersey, 57 cents.
In all, 30 states and the District of Columbia received more money from the government than they paid in federal taxes.
The Census Bureau report on 2005 spending documents the geographic distribution of $2.3 trillion in government spending, including salaries, grants, military pay, government contracts and Social Security payments. It excludes interest on the national debt, overseas spending and intelligence agency budgets. The AP compared the census data to IRS figures for 2005 tax collections.
The analysis shows that wealthy states pay more than poor ones, blue states subsidize red states and states with powerful politicians on key House and Senate committees fare well in federal spending.
High-income states like New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts paid more in taxes than they received, while low-income states like Mississippi, West Virginia and Alabama got a much higher return for their tax dollars. The exceptions were Alaska, Hawaii, Virginia and Maryland -- high-income states that also received high levels of government spending.
Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation, a Washington research group, said the numbers represent a redistribution of the nation's wealth.
Responding, James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said: "I think it is appropriate for people doing well to pay a higher share."
October 16, 2007
Winners & Losers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
looks like NH is in the getting back slightly more category. Bet is all medicare money, this state is getting very grey.
"Slightly" is the operative word here. Even Texas' 12% contribution isn't "too" much. I understand that many states have more medicare money sent their way solely because of demographics.
I also understand that many states have an abundance (OVER-abundance in some) of military installations.
For example, I can see why Hawaii, with its extensive naval base and air fields, would be a net gainer, but as the article said, many states are gainers because of their representation.
It might well be sour grapes on my part, I'm angry only that my rep. hasn't brought home more bacon, but I don't think so.
I have never been a fan of New Gingrich for that very reason. When he was a rep, and became Speaker, I read an article where his district was getting the most pork of any.
That's "ANY". The exact amt. has been forgotten, this was before computers and the internet caught on so I can't find that information (or didn't in a few hours of searching). Still, I remember it being something over five bucks to the good.
Sure, your congressman is supposed to fight for his constituents, but not to detriment of the rest of the country. I was glad to see Newt leave office, was extremely glad to see him announce that he wasn't announcing his candidacy.
Sheesh. That's all "we'd" need, is to have him run and gain the Republican nomination. Talk about bringing out the opp. side in droves to the polls. I can think of only one other ticket that would be that polarizing.
Might has well run:
Cheney/Voldemort
-wink-
I like your choice of running mates for Newt, fits him.
And talk about polarizing, I've always thought Hilary is going to have the same affect ifand when she occupies the top spot on the ballot on the Dem side of the ticket.
Newt was a pork whore. I got no use for pork whores. (or pork, or whores,either one-grin-)
I think you may be right about Hillary, but I also think that there'll be people hold their noses and vote for her, just as I would if Guiliani is the nominee.
(or Thompson, or Romney or McCain)
Vote Duncan Hunter!!!
Post a Comment