Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Business

Red State, Blue State: Which States Have Received the Most Federal Funds Since 2000?

Oct. 24, 2012 1:00pm Becket Adams

State personal income in the past six quarters has increased mostly in “red” states and states run by Republican governors, TheBlaze reported earlier this month.

However, after TheBlaze noted this trend, a few readers argued that this was because “red” states typically receive the lion’s share of federal funding.

Do they really?

In a word: No. In fact, since 2000, solid “blue” states have received far more in federal funding than solid “red” states, a Blaze analysis finds.

But first, let’s define the what we mean by “red” state, “blue” state, “purple” state, etc.:

Red: Republican presidential candidates have won this state in every election since 1996

Pink: Republican presidential candidates have won this state three times since 1996

Purple: This state has been won twice by a Republican presidential candidate and twice by a Democrat presidential candidate since 1996

Light Blue: Democrat presidential candidates have won this state three times since 1996

Blue: Democrat presidential candidates have won this state in every election since 1996

A quick word on our use of 1996: Because most pre-’96 electoral maps involve different color schemes, we felt it would be best to start with President Clinton’s second run for office, the year the “red” state/”blue” state map configuration we’re all familiar with became standardized (although it would take another four years for it to become a widely used election year tool).

Now it should be pointed out that federal funds go toward a vast array of issues, including military, infrastructure, and disaster relief. Moreover, a state’s population plays a large role in the total amount received. But the argument isn’t about which states are “more deserving” of federal aid. The argument is that “red” states receive more funds than anyone else.

That being said, here is a breakdown of all 50 states and the District of Columbia by electoral map color and federal funding since 2000, according to USA.gov:

As you can clearly see, there’s a difference in the distribution of federal funds among the states. In fact, if you combine “strong GOP” with “likely GOP,” the amount is still less than then amount “strong Dem” states have received in the last 12 years.

Now some argue that certain states spend their federal funds differently, giving more back to the “pie” than others, and that this somehow changes everything.

Again, that’s not the argument. The original argument claims “red” states receive more federal funds than anyone else, leading to things like an uptick in income growth. But as the above clearly indicates, “red” states simply don’t get more in fed funds.

Now we’re sure you’re want to know which states have received the most since the turn of the new millennium. We’re glad you asked. It just so happens that we have a list prepared for you.

Here are the top ten states that have received the most federal funding since 2000, their estimated populations in 2011 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the amount of federal spending per capita in 2011 (the population estimate divided by total federal spending in FY2011), and their electoral map color (based on the last four election cycles):

OHIO: $828.2B

Color: Purple
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 11,544,951
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $5,907
Voting History:

1996: Clinton
2000: Bush
2004: Bush
2008: Obama

NEW JERSEY: $888.6B

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 8,821,155
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $11,132
Voting History:

1996: Clinton
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama

ILLINOIS: $888.7B

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 12,869,257
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $5,781
Voting History:

1996: Clinton
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama

LOUISIANA: $994.5B

Color: Pink
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 4,574,836
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $30,099
Voting History:

1996: Clinton
2000: Bush
2004: Bush
2008: McCain

VIRGINIA: $1.054T

Color: Pink
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 8,096,604
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $14,537
Voting History:

1996: Dole
2000: Bush
2004: Bush
2008: Obama

PENNSYLVANIA: $1.105T

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 12,742,886
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $7,573
Voting History:

1996: Clinton
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama

NEW YORK: $1.714T

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 19,465,197
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $7,973
Voting History:

1996: Clinton
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama

TEXAS: $2.387T

Color: Red
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 25,674,681
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $11,451
Voting History:

1996: Dole
2000: Bush
2004: Bush
2008: McCain

CALIFORNIA: $2.928T

Color: Blue
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 37,691,912
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $7,269
Voting History:

1996: Clinton
2000: Gore
2004: Kerry
2008: Obama

FLORIDA: $3.853T

Color: Purple
Population Estimates (as of July 1, 2011): 19,057,542
Federal spending per capita in 2011: $30,319
Voting History:

1996: Clinton
2000: Bush
2004: Bush
2008: Obama

Final Thought: Now that we have that sorted out, would anyone like to guess why state income has increased primarily in “red” states and in states with Republican governors?

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

–

RELATED:

All article photos courtesy the AP. Front page photo courtesy shutterstock.com.

This story has been updated.

————————————-

Did you know you can get the top stories from TheBlaze delivered to your inbox? Sign up here for our FireWire newsletter.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (50)

panshovel
Posted on May 23, 2013 at 12:35pm
Nice way to manipulate stats. Try taking a look at the line, ” Federal spending per capita in 2011″. You will see that the red states take more federal money per person.
Louisiana spends 30k per person, Texas 11K, Virginia 16K and the socialist states of Illinois and Ohio spends < 6k.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Twitchy
Posted on December 2, 2012 at 1:26am
@nappelnappel,
Exactly.
It would also have been more honest to rank the states by per capita federal spending, instead of total federal spending.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nappelnappel
Posted on November 12, 2012 at 1:18pm
The entire premise of this article is incorrect. The argument has always been about which states get back more in federal aid than they pay in taxes, and which pay more in taxes than they get back in federal aid. If you look at the numbers in this way, you’ll find a very different result. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
term limits for congress
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 3:08pm
Is this where I sign-up for my Obamaphone?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
toomuchgovt
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 6:34am
How is LA #7 w/ 30,000 per capita? less money but more per capita. Now I want to see where the money goes. I know in NY it all goes to welfare, we also have very high state, local and school taxes. Cuomo put a cap and only 4 county broke the cap, I live in one.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- hidden_lion
  Posted on October 25, 2012 at 8:13pm
  lower population raises the per capita…likely due to katrina aid.
  
  Report this comment
crystlgib1
Posted on October 25, 2012 at 12:38am
I’ve always wondered how these numbers are calculated. Do they include things like NASA and defense spending? Arguably that spending benefits all citizens, but bases are located predominately in southern states. Are we including border and port security? My point being, what money is spent on is as important just as the amount spent per capita.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kmltmpx6
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 9:44pm
and Hurricane relief is figured into this isn’t it? Florida, La and Texas have all been hit by a severe hurricane in the last 12 years. Do other states have that much disaster relief?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bekhiet
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 8:25pm
Thanks for the money O, but Texas won’t be giving you any electoral votes.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
noslave
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 7:31pm
just like the most states ,with the most leeches, on welfare,food stamps,etc. are mostly if not predominately,blue/democratic going broke states,that should be the m.o. of the democratic party,feed the dogs,other peoples money?? they’ll keep you in office??

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Stone Cold Truth
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 6:20pm
One things for sure: Republican controlled states seem to manage their money better.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Individualism
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 6:25pm
  wouldn’t it be nice if Federal Republicans were like state republicans in that manner but there not.
  
  Report this comment
- jhontomsen
  Posted on December 6, 2012 at 8:25pm
  this is patently untrue… 17 states pay more in federal taxes than they receive back.. 16 of those voted for Obama… It’s the republican states which are the takers…
  
  Report this comment
colt1860
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 5:17pm
This money goes all to super ultra Leftist liberal cities. Calipornia, Murdaland, and Illinoise are big states and have lots of rural land and country sides but the dumbocrats in their few major cities ruin it for everyone else.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nickoftime
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 5:03pm
Let’s compare these numbers to the amount of Federal tax revenue each state generated from 2000-2011

California 3.2 Trillion
Net 300 Surplus

New York 2.4 Trillion
Net 680 Surplus

Texas 2.2 Trillion
Net 200 Deficit

Illinois 1.4 Trillion
Net 540 Surplus

Florida 1.3 Trillion
Net 2.5 Trillion deficit

So it looks like the top blue states all give more to the feds than they get back, and the top red states take more from the feds than they pay in taxes.

New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are also all in the top 10 of federal tax revenue generation for the past decade. It seems fair they would get the most back in federal spending.

Also, calling states “purple” when the state government is firmly controlled by one side or the other is misleading in this context.

Numbers are from http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- EPLogos
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 6:06pm
  Excellent analysis, well argued. Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
- girlnurse
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 7:01pm
  Im a little confused with your numbers. So are you saying California has a 300? surplus???
  300 million, billion, trillion? After all is said and done we have a surplus? Thats not what I read in other places…I thought California was broke? We have had several cities go bankrupt recently and thats not over yet….How can we have a surplus when we can’t even pay our pensions?
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 7:36pm
  @GirlNurse
  The OP wasn’t discussing state budgets. The poster was describing the amount of money a state gives to the federal government thru taxes vs the amount that state receives in federal funds.
  
  Report this comment
- girlnurse
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 7:58pm
  Gotcha thx
  
  Report this comment
- CommonSenseNotCommon
  Posted on October 31, 2012 at 4:18pm
  It is difficult to find anyone who is capable of research and analysis rather than parroting what they hear from others who want any excuse to spew their vitriol. Thank you!
  
  Report this comment
- Winedude
  Posted on November 1, 2012 at 12:26pm
  I don’t comment on stories here unless they make no sense at all and this is one of them. There is no mention, until your comment, of how much more some states send to the Feds vs. how much they get back. Thank you very much for bringing up this very important and often ignored point.
  
  Report this comment
tugdiver
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 4:16pm
figures!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
forthepeople
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 2:47pm
AMERICA’s spending problem in a nutshell , 10 of them to start.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JRook
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 3:00pm
  Another example of a analysis which by its superficiality and lack of context is worthless, other than to reinforce a desire to infer something which is most likely not true. Without at least a summary of what the spending was fort, for example Katrina aid to LA. the figures indicate nothing even remotely close to political favoritism. Just another great excerpt in the never ending desire to feed the angry mob.
  
  Report this comment
- jinkies1
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 3:46pm
  The first job of politicians should be to keep the Federal Govt from stealing my money. Once the goverment has taken it, I want my elected officials to do all they can to get it back for me and my community. That is the answer conservatives should give when asked why they applied for federal money like TARP.
  
  Report this comment
- BBlanski
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 4:01pm
  JRook did you actually read the article and then try to understand what it meant? The article is in response to Dems saying that “Red” states are doing better because the get more federal money. This article is showing that they don’t get more federal money.
  
  So why are state personal income doing better in “Red” states than Blue states?
  
  Report this comment
- antann
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 4:31pm
  Also Florida has been hit by several hurricanes, along with Texas. But another observation is The top 4 are high population states and the federal programs would reflect that in spending.
  
  Report this comment
thegreatcarnac
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 2:27pm
States that have a greater number of blacks and hispanics get more federal funds automatically. That is why some southern states get a bad rap in education etc. The more minorities the more federal aid and the lower educational scores are. For instance, in Louisiana,……if someone would just make New Orleans disappear that state would be one of the top 20 states in everything. Here in Texas…if you could just get the feds to do their job and block the border, Texas would be in the top ten places to live and get educated. The South is crippled with minorities.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JimInTexas
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:49pm
  Hear Hear
  
  Report this comment
Paradigmm
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 2:26pm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
progressiveslayer
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 2:01pm
Considering the way we’ve been ruled the last four years the entire country will be RED if BS steals this election.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 762x51
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 3:13pm
  Red with blood.
  
  Obama’s reelection means civil war.
  
  Report this comment
- CommonSenseNotCommon
  Posted on October 31, 2012 at 8:35pm
  So you murdered your parents when you didn’t get candy for supper? This is a country where not everyone gets their way all the time, but we do not whine and try to incite violence because we did not get our way.
  
  Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:47pm
Really busts up the claims from trolls here some time back. I’m sure many of you old timers remember them too.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The-Monk
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:48pm
  Hi RJJ,
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SwNXQMoNps
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:58pm
  Yeah I remember seeing some of the simpletons spewing their BS lies
  
  Report this comment
girlnurse
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:43pm
Well how come Texas (Red state) and California (Blue state) are pretty much equal??? I thought Texas really had it together???? And Texas has way less people! Wats up with that!?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- eagle2715
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:52pm
  Considering Florida and Texas constantly get hit by Hurricanes (disaster relief $), were the center of the space program, and have as big of military presence (if not bigger) as California…I’d say your vague point is, well pointless…
  
  Report this comment
- girlnurse
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:59pm
  Don’t be so defensive Eagle! I just asked the question. I try to be objective and not see everything through a Blue/Red looking glass. BOTH parties are destroying this country…this is not a team sport. If it is…BOTH teams are LOSING!
  
  Report this comment
- Polarized America
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 2:03pm
  Texas,,,,,U.S. Military Major Bases and Installations = 25 –Total Personnel 194,965
  
  California,,,,,U.S. Military Major Bases and Installations = 43 – Total Personnel 212,800
  
  it’s not just welfare spending, if thats what you were thinking.
  
  Report this comment
- girlnurse
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 2:25pm
  yeah…what else does Texas and California have in common?? Think prisons and illegals…
  
  Report this comment
Tri-ox
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:42pm
Obama/Biden campaign refuses to reimburse Springfield, IL $55,457 – city finally gives up on trying to collect –

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x2053812816/City-gives-up-on-Obama-Biden-bill

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- girlnurse
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:49pm
  Funny..the city gives up on that but my city is still aggressively trying to collect the $60 bucks they say I owed them from 5 years ago!!!! Ahhhh must be nice to be rich and not have to pay your bills!
  
  Report this comment
SCREW-WINDOWS
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:39pm
Isn’t this just welfare to the states and what happens when the Fed goes broke and the states have to live within their means.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Sy Kosys
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:20pm
Spendocrats are rather hot/cold with the cash they “disperse”. Chart basically says “If you strongly vote for us libt @rds, then i give you Clinton Cash and Obamabucks. All others need not apply”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- QuincySmith
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:47pm
  Don’t forget those rascally ‘publicans (RINOs)
  
  Report this comment
- M13
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:51pm
  Don’t forget the idiots who voted for Obama in 2008 right Quincy?
  
  Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:14pm
Show me the $$$$!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:12pm
Boy, that’s not misleading. You should look at the type as well. Military and disaster relief can skew things.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Common Sense 24
  Posted on October 24, 2012 at 1:43pm
  I hadn’t thought of disaster funds. That’s a good point.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.