billshrink.com — For the fiscal year 2009, some states got a larger slice of available government money than others. Here is a state-by-state breakdown of which states got the most government money per capita and which states received the least.
Jan 10, 2010 View in Crawl 4
paulyoung1980Jan 10, 2010
What about health care, education, infrastructure??? They all get sacrificed
mark5hsJan 10, 2010
Kudos to Texas for having more people than New York, while spending less and having much less financial trouble.
bassmastrJan 10, 2010
I'm guessing our pissy little country gives aid in one way or another to yours... I guess the map thumbnail was too hard for you to understand?I think someone has a case of "country envy."
seltaeb4Jan 11, 2010
Especially considering how much wealth and innovation California generates for the nation and the world.If California were its own nation, we'd be the 7th largest economy on Earth.
webegoodJan 11, 2010
Let see, we take billions and billions of dollars of timber, oil, and other resources from their land and give a tiny percentage back to them. Yeah, pretty ridiculous.
92fsinoxJan 11, 2010
I was surprised to see Massachusetts so low on the Total State Spending chart.
greatbigjerkJan 11, 2010
@WeBeGood: It hasn't been their land for hundreds of years. They shouldn't get paid simply because their ancestors got the shaft. If that was the right thing to do, why aren't black people getting compensation for slavery?
fedup239Apr 12, 2011
They do... it's called welfare.
inajeepJan 11, 2010
Perhaps the trick is thinking for yourself.
scabnabbitJan 12, 2010
That's being pretty absolutist. If a state's infrastructure in some way fails, surrounding states will feel it and it will (and does) damage the nation as a whole.Equating such as a form of extremist socialism is utterly ignorant.
photojustinJan 13, 2010
You couldn't be more right. There is probably a pretty significant correlation between complaining about taxes, and the amount of positive tax flow a state gets.Additionally, the more rural an area, the more it depends upon help from the Federal government for things like roads, mail delivery, electricity, phone etc. A lot of rural cities would be economically and socially isolated from the rest of the country without one of those fast, efficient Federal highways nearby. Without a federal rural electrification program 60 years ago, many areas would probably have been in the dark for another 30-40 years. Federal rules required telephone companies to provide service to all areas, not just the easy-to-serve urban and suburban areas. Farm subsidies help drive many rural economies to this day. Obama has introduced plans to improve access to high speed internet to all areas, much like we did with electricity and telephone. When you live in rural areas, provision of goods and services are less efficient: It takes more road and phone and power line to reach the same number of customers. Postal service in rural areas is a money loser compared to higher density urban and suburban areas.Yes these are the bulk of the people who feel the government is engaging in tyranny because, heaven forbid, we spend money in other areas.