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

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:

• CNBC’s “States With the Most Federal Funding”
• Blaze Analysis: Personal Income Has Grown More in Conservative States Than Liberal

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.