A lot of this is just the nature of rural states; a state like Wyoming or Alaska has lots of federal stuff (national parks, highways, post offices) and not a lot of people-- so spending is high there per capita. Of course, those states get the same two senators that New York and California-- which is a big reason this happens.

The big liberal states contain the big liberal cities-- lots of people, not a lot of senators.

Then again, retired GOP House Majority leader Dick Armey, when asked to explain why the disparity in per district spending between majority and minority districts went from something like less than ten million dollars with the Democrats in the majority to its current level of something like an astounding $500 million, said "to the victors go the spoils". Truly, in the American tradition of fair play and good sense.

The reasons this is the case:
1) farm aid - an idea supported by all the Senators from farm states Dem or Rep.
2) Military bases - usually you don't put bases on expensive land, hence none in New Jersey but a bunch in Georgia.
3) Welfare - most government programs are oriented towards helping poor people more (i.e. SS, Medicaid, etc.). More poor people in Bush states, primarily because the Bush states include the south.
4) 2 Senators from every state regardless of population.

Either you stop subsidizing farming, give up the idea of putting bases on cheap land, decide to stop helping poor people, relocate poor people to Vermont, reduce expenditures on SS and Medicaid, or amend the constitution. I'm agreeable to several of these ideas.

The idea that this is about "poor states" getting more money works somewhat but doesn't fit the fact that states with large numbers of people on welfare don't get more cash. The farm aid and military bases argument does hold true, but just illustrates the point that "rugged individualists" in such states are just welfare recipients.

The point is to achieve greater equity in helping poor folks in urban areas who are getting the short-end of budget cuts, even as the red state welfare queens live off taxes from states like New York and New Jersey that are having to cut aid for their own poor to send money to those other states.

The other problem with the "poor states" argument is that it doesn't account for spending changes made by the Republicans. The argument is essentially that Congress is spending on stuff--farm subsidies, military bases, welfare--that the Democrats would also spend on, so the fact that recipients tend to live in Republican districts is just coincidence.

But in the 1995 budget, the last passed by a Democratic Congress, both Republican- and Democrat-represented districts received an average of about $3.9 billion in federal spending. The $612 million edge that Republican districts now enjoy has arisen entirely under Republican Congresses, which shifted spending toward programs that benefit Republican districts.

Maybe a lot of this was ideological; in other words, programs that Republicans think are worthwhile just coincidentally happen to direct more funding to Republican districts. But whatever the cause, this isn't just some neutral phenomenon that would have happened whoever was in charge.

I don't know where Chad lives, but here in expensive old California, we got tons of military bases. Some of them are near expensive land, but it isn't like the military actually bought the land.

Chad,

For the record, NJ (a geographically small state) has 5 active military installations, not including the NG and ANG.

Ft. Dix
Ft. Monmouth
NAEC Lakehurst
McGuire AFB
Picatinny Arsenal

Add to that several major Coast Guard installations.

The pattern definitely fits for the South. With some notable exceptions, the region is conservative and was Bush territory in 2000. It also has the highest number of military bases per capita (56% of U.S. troops are stationed in the South), and the South's military contractors rake in a disproportionate share of federal money (around 45% of contracts).

Similarly, a disproportionate share of farm subsidies go South -- 75-80% of which go to corporate agribusiness, not family farms.

Key point here being that it's not ordinary Southern people who are "welfare queens" (although there is lots of poverty) -- it's the big corporate players taking the cash, all while funding right-wing politicians that preach "fiscal constraint."

So blaming entire states/regions isn't very helpful, but blaming the corporate looters and pointing out the political contradictions can be very useful. Thanks for posting this.

I appreciate Chris' attempt at looking at the Big Picture (like which individuals actually get the Federal largesse), and I hope that he recognizes Nathans hyperbolic/ironic use of the term welfare queen.

But it's important to recognize the basic fact: the regular people of these states are the source of the electoral votes that got Bush to the Supreme Court. And since that election (long before it as well) we've heard all about "real America" where people just don't need the Federal government, and so they vote for allegedly anti-government Republicans. But those voters are living a lie. Until they face up to the reality that their regions, their states, their communities are welfare communities, they will continue to vote on the basis of lies. As recent events have shown, public lies in a democracy can have, let's say, negative consequences.

This spending pattern seems counter-intuitive, but remember under Bush non-defense discretionary spending has SHOT UP. So despite the small-government talk of the red states and the Republicans, they really are just pork funnelers.

The local Rep congressperson ran on a platform of bringing home the pork.

pissing
dripping
wet see through bikinis
see through
wet t-shirt
wet t-shirt contest
t-shirts
wet t-shirts
t-shirt
70 t-shirts
funny t-shirts
caught
wet pants
underwear
mens underwear
men in underwear
boys underwear
mens underwear
piss
peeing
girls peeing
women peeing
pee
watersports
wet t-shirt
wet
wet pussy
wet t shirt
wet see through bikinis
wet t-shirt contest
wet panties
wet t-shirts
wet t
wet shirt
wet tshirt
wet girls
wet t shirts
wet t shirt contest
wet pants