It’s well-known by now the states that are most opposed to government funding — so-called “Red States” — also get the most in government funding. This is just more evidence of it: according to data released by the Pew Charitable Trusts on Monday, states that voted against Obama twice are more dependent on federal aid money.
So much so, in fact, that they account for a full 30.8 percent — or more — in some states.
Overall, an analysis of the Pew results shows that federal dollars still accounted for a full 30.8 percent of state budgets in 2014, which was higher than it had been at any point in the last 20 or so years.
So what could one reason for this possibly be? Well, the obvious reason is these states — “red states” — have a higher percentage of their population living in poverty, which is true of any crypto-feudal social arrangement.
Mississippi and Louisiana stand out on the map since both rely on the federal government for more than 40 percent of their annual budgets, while Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Georgia all rely on the federal government for more than a fifth of their budget, at 36 percent.
About 60 percent of the money goes towards funding Medicaid programs. So what are Louisiana and Mississippi doing that a state like, say, New York, which also has a large Medicaid program, isn’t?
It’s the tax base. New York has a solid tax base, and as a result, it relies less on the federal government for its share of the budget. Meanwhile, Mississippi and Louisiana have a high-poverty population, meaning that they don’t have a lot in the way of tax dollars, so they’re more dependent on that sweet, sweet federal money.
Another major source of federal grants made to the states includes things like transportation programs, public schools, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Even North Dakota, which was the least reliant on federal dollars, in part because of the booming oil industry, is in the same boat. Why? Because that booming oil industry ran empty earlier this year, up-ending that prosperity and forcing the state to be more dependent on federal dollars.
And that amount is only set to grow across the board, as money to fund the Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act begin to trickle in.
So what’s the moral here?
North Dakota offers a pretty obvious one — don’t get suckered into fads that promise everything, like fracking did. If you want energy, there’s only one place you can get it: the sun. Anything else is a cheap imitation or empty promise at this point in our development as a civilization.
But overall, this is clearly a case of biting the hand that feeds. Not that the population in the states that are worse off care about cutting off their nose to spite their face. It’s about putting an uppity black man in his place and nothing more, even if they have to destroy themselves to do it.
Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images