I’ve been thinking about the polarization of America along the famous Red and Blue state lines and thought I’d do a little investigating. Specifically, politicians from Red states have consistently promoted a line of lowering taxes and keeping government out of people’s lives. This message is currently on tour with a new Tea Party campaign which will run a route from California through the Plains states and into the Deep South – basically a red state tour.
In trying to diagnose why Plains-state and Southerners are so concerned about federal taxation and government programs, it dawned on me that perhaps the difference between Red and Blue staters is in our everyday experience with governmental activity. Specifically, Blue states are more industrialized and have larger, more dense populations than Red states. As such, Blue staters see road projects, bridges, governmental agencies, public security, help for the poor, programs for the elderly, etc every day. Thus, they see the “benefit” of government programs every day. Conversely, if you live in a rural county, down a country road or across a big corn field, perhaps you don’t “see” the benefit of government spending and thus, don’t see the value of your tax dollar.
So I looked for research on which states pay the most taxes and which states receive the most federal dollars – assuming that Red states are net tax payers and Blue states are net federal funds receivers. I was dead wrong.
In fact, Red states are overwhelmingly beneficiaries of federal funds. Federal expenditures (from a Tax Foundation report - see below) are the sum of federal purchases, direct payments (social security, medicare, etc), and salaries to federal employees. In addition to state-by-state per-capita tax burden and expenditures, the report calculates the ratio of the same. For example, if your state has a ratio of 1.10 this means that for every tax dollar paid by residents, the state receives back $1.10 in federal spending.
The state with the greatest per capita federal spending and the second highest ratio of spending to taxes paid is: Alaska! With over $13,000 in annual spending per resident and a ratio of $1.87, Alaska takes the cake as the largest beneficiary of the federal government! The highest ratio state is New Mexico at $2.00 received for every dollar in taxes paid. (Perhaps this is because we keep all the UFO’s that have landed in the US in New Mexico and they are expensive to maintain??) In fact, the top 10 states that are making out in federal spending are, in order of ratio: NM, AL, WV, MS, ND, AL, VA, HI, MT and SD. By my count, that’s 8 traditionally Red states and two Blue (NM and HI)!
And who are the “losers” – ie, the “donor states”? The top ten donors are NJ, CT, NH, MI, IL, NV, MA, CA, NY and CO – or 8 Blue states and two Red (NV and CO)! In fact, the ratios for the biggest donor states are very low with New Jersey (the “biggest loser!”) at 55 cents, CT at 66 cents and NH at 67 cents. For my reading audience in NY and MA, your ratios are 79 and 77 cents respectively. And my pals in PA and VA, your ratios are $1.06 and $1.66. I think Virginia’s ratio is likely skewed because so many northern Virginians work for the government in DC and thus their salaries, etc would be in the ratio.
I did my own calculation of the average ratios for Red and Blue states but added the wrinkle of defining several states as “Purple” – meaning that they have mixed populations that sometimes swing Democratic and sometimes Republican. The purples are: LA, WV, VA, AR, MO, AZ, OH, FL, CO, NH and NV. My calculated average ratio for Red states is $1.34, for Purple $1.20 and for Blue states $1.00. The average for the entire US was $1.17 which implies that domestic expenditures exceed federal taxes received by 17% - hence a big national deficit!
There’s much more detail in the report and data to parse, but in short, the people who pay the least taxes and get the most back from the government want less taxes and less government. And, the people who pay the most taxes and get the least back from the government are willing to expand the system. So, unlike many things in life, who get the most “Green” doesn’t explain who is Red and who is Blue!
My source of info is a report issued by the Tax Foundation in 2006 (latest available). The report “Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State” can be found here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
In trying to diagnose why Plains-state and Southerners are so concerned about federal taxation and government programs, it dawned on me that perhaps the difference between Red and Blue staters is in our everyday experience with governmental activity. Specifically, Blue states are more industrialized and have larger, more dense populations than Red states. As such, Blue staters see road projects, bridges, governmental agencies, public security, help for the poor, programs for the elderly, etc every day. Thus, they see the “benefit” of government programs every day. Conversely, if you live in a rural county, down a country road or across a big corn field, perhaps you don’t “see” the benefit of government spending and thus, don’t see the value of your tax dollar.
So I looked for research on which states pay the most taxes and which states receive the most federal dollars – assuming that Red states are net tax payers and Blue states are net federal funds receivers. I was dead wrong.
In fact, Red states are overwhelmingly beneficiaries of federal funds. Federal expenditures (from a Tax Foundation report - see below) are the sum of federal purchases, direct payments (social security, medicare, etc), and salaries to federal employees. In addition to state-by-state per-capita tax burden and expenditures, the report calculates the ratio of the same. For example, if your state has a ratio of 1.10 this means that for every tax dollar paid by residents, the state receives back $1.10 in federal spending.
The state with the greatest per capita federal spending and the second highest ratio of spending to taxes paid is: Alaska! With over $13,000 in annual spending per resident and a ratio of $1.87, Alaska takes the cake as the largest beneficiary of the federal government! The highest ratio state is New Mexico at $2.00 received for every dollar in taxes paid. (Perhaps this is because we keep all the UFO’s that have landed in the US in New Mexico and they are expensive to maintain??) In fact, the top 10 states that are making out in federal spending are, in order of ratio: NM, AL, WV, MS, ND, AL, VA, HI, MT and SD. By my count, that’s 8 traditionally Red states and two Blue (NM and HI)!
And who are the “losers” – ie, the “donor states”? The top ten donors are NJ, CT, NH, MI, IL, NV, MA, CA, NY and CO – or 8 Blue states and two Red (NV and CO)! In fact, the ratios for the biggest donor states are very low with New Jersey (the “biggest loser!”) at 55 cents, CT at 66 cents and NH at 67 cents. For my reading audience in NY and MA, your ratios are 79 and 77 cents respectively. And my pals in PA and VA, your ratios are $1.06 and $1.66. I think Virginia’s ratio is likely skewed because so many northern Virginians work for the government in DC and thus their salaries, etc would be in the ratio.
I did my own calculation of the average ratios for Red and Blue states but added the wrinkle of defining several states as “Purple” – meaning that they have mixed populations that sometimes swing Democratic and sometimes Republican. The purples are: LA, WV, VA, AR, MO, AZ, OH, FL, CO, NH and NV. My calculated average ratio for Red states is $1.34, for Purple $1.20 and for Blue states $1.00. The average for the entire US was $1.17 which implies that domestic expenditures exceed federal taxes received by 17% - hence a big national deficit!
There’s much more detail in the report and data to parse, but in short, the people who pay the least taxes and get the most back from the government want less taxes and less government. And, the people who pay the most taxes and get the least back from the government are willing to expand the system. So, unlike many things in life, who get the most “Green” doesn’t explain who is Red and who is Blue!
My source of info is a report issued by the Tax Foundation in 2006 (latest available). The report “Federal Tax Burdens and Expenditures by State” can be found here: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf
8 comments:
If you throw in the health care issue, where do the reds, blues and purples stand on the public option vs some other method of providing health care to those who cannot afford insurance?
All Republican MoCs to date, as far as I know, are against Reform and strongly against a public option. In addition, there are 53 "Blue Dog" Democrats who are almost entirely from red and Purple states. Blue Dogs have generally been against a public option. I personally like Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) suggestion (and mine too) of a trigger. Make reform, give the market a chance to deal with it and if it doesn't work, trigger a Public option. This apporach allows conservatives to "prove" that the market will work it out and if it doesn't the liberals get their turn.
I think there is a strong correlation between people’s attitudes towards government and population density. I don’t have the time to do the research, but I believe that red state areas have lower population densities than blue state areas. That leads to the question of how or why population density influences political views?
One thing I would say about low population density areas like where I live is that there is a connectedness among everyone in the community. When events occur, you either personally know the people involved, or you know someone who does. I would estimate that there is just one degree of separation between me and at least half the non-student residents of this county. By that, I mean I either know them or I know someone who does. And there is probably only two degrees of separation between me and the rest of the county. Whenever I read a story in the paper about someone’s house burning down or about people losing their jobs or struggling to make ends meet, I am often also hearing about it from someone who knows them, goes to Church with them, went to high school with them, whose cousin is married to their sister, etc.
So why does this matter? Why does this level of personalization matter? What difference does it make that I know someone whose cousin is married to person who lost his job?
Let’s say you hear about layoffs at a company. Perhaps you hear about a person who has a disabled child and was struggling to make ends meet already when they lost their job. That kind of story has legs in the press and among the chattering classes. It can be used by those who want the government to do something, extend unemployment benefits, have a mortgage holiday program, give free health care, etc. Politicians use these types of anecdotes all the time to support policy initiatives.
If that were to occur in low population density area, I would hear about that person. But at the same time I will also hear about that person’s co-worker who also lost their job. Perhaps that person was living way beyond his means, was driving an expensive car or had a big boat but who was in hock up to their neck in order to do so.
When bad things happen in a low population density area, invariably a value judgment is placed on each person. The judgement puts the context somewhere on a continuum between “innocent victim” to “you got what’s coming to you”. Rarely are these things just “stories”. There is a context to it. You hear about the victim’s life style, their marital issues, drug or alcohol use, intelligence level, the character of their friends and families, and so forth. It’s more personal.
This translates into political views in that there is a belief that there are facts and circumstances that determine who should get help. This is where governmental programs become unpopular. A governmental program such as a mortgage bailout program would be very beneficial to a number of people, but it tends to be indiscriminate in who it helps. Poor people, who didn’t know any better, who were talked into a mortgage they couldn’t afford would be helped. But at the same time, a mortgage bailout program would also help out the guy who should have know better who was just living way beyond his means.
In low population density areas, it’s more personal, more judgmental, more about who was doing the right thing and who was doing the wrong thing. More about values and personal responsibility.
Oddly enough, a quick search using "population density states" leads me to the US Census data, which has the information we need: the average density per square mile in the entire US is 79.6, but the state with the lowest population density -- a whopping 1.1 persons per square mile -- is our number one recipient of Federal dollars, Alaska.
"My Semi Colon Story" has become must reading! Thanks Brian.
Link to US Census data on population density
Hi Brian,
I am just catching up on your Blogs this past month and what fascinating reading! I really enjoyed all the work and thought you put into your IMHO. My family is constantly at odds regarding the healthcare issues and politics in general (or should I say as usual!). Not suprisingly based on your summarized data, my brothers in the midwest, the lower population density, recipients of more of the federal $$, are against the public option. But at least they admit something needs to be done. The sisters on the east coast, are big supporters of Obama and his reform.
But politics aside, I am glad your treatment are keeping you in the fight. And literally in the fight. Your trip to Washington was very interesting. I can't imagine reducing the options for medical imagery. We have come so far in diagnosis due to this technology. Why are people so near-sighted?
And good luck to Vicki with her college investigations. [Really good luck to the parents!] The tours are very interesting to me. The different universities have different strategies for recruitment. We thought it was funny that every school had some "best library" stat. We were thinking, how could all these schools have the best library. But of course it is how you use your statistics that matters as you very well know. Some had the best library because number of volumes, most connected, largest, or whatever. And working at a university and knowing a little bit of how the state money and/or tuition is distributed gives me a different perspective. We are in the application phase for Aaron. He already has an audition at U of Michigan's music school. Kyle and I would love the trips to Ann Arbor but the out of state tuition is insane [especially when Temple is free!]
Take care of yourself!
Hugs,
Ellen
Hmmm. My dad used to call places like Montana "Welfare States" because of the extent to which they are over served by the federal fisc. It had the desired effect: it made them crazy.
I am so happy that 1) Carolyn re-sent your blog address, so I could access 2) your health is permitting you to be the active and engaged Brian we all know and love and 3) you are sharing all of your experiences with all of us...keep up the good work! Love, Kathryn
Post a Comment