It's an incomplete analysis, IMO. First, it's state by state. I think Congressional District by Congressional District makes more sense. Second, what constitutes Federal Outlays? Does it include Social Security and Medicare? Because that's money the Government holds for us and returns to us at a later date. That's not an expenditure.
I can only speculate, but I think the social security and medicare are fairly even across the board. I'd be happy to see more statistics that shed more light either way. Can you find anything? I agree congressional Districts would be useful, but you'd probably have to say something like "The average democratic congressional district has a net (gain/loss) of ..."
Social security and medicare are NOT evenly across the board. For example, there are fewer recipients of social security and medicare (per capita) in the District of Columbia, which has a young population, vs. Arizona. Second, just because a state goes "red" doesn't mean there aren't heavily "blue" districts in it, and vice-versa. Hell, Sheila Jackson Lee, one of the craziest people in Congress represents a district in Texas. Paul Ryan has represented a district in "blue" Wisconsin for 14 years.
Another article on the subject: http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-47-percent-no-income-tax-map-red-republican-states-2012-9
Again, deliniating it by state rather than district doesn't clarify anything. This latest graph is even less informative as it doesn't provide gross numbers. For example, CA is #16 at 37%, but in raw numbers they surpass Texas plus probably several others.
I miss having powerful senators like Hatfield and Packwood. Every bill major bill that would got passed would have a nice chuck of pork in it for Oregon. Was it fair? No. But it's how Washington works.
Instead of accepting "it's how Washington works", why not change it by electing people who want to limit the size, scale and scope of the Federal Government?
IMO both Hatfield and Packwood served the citizens of Oregon very well. I'm not sure where they were that involved in expanding the federal government. "Getting a large piece of the pork" applies to things like a bill for new federal courthouses where they were able to make sure Portland was the recipient of a new courthouse. Or medical research funding and facility creation that they were able to get for OHSU. Expansion and investment in state universities in the areas of computer science and engineering that led to companies like Intel coming here because we had a highly trained work force.
And while serving Oregon well, they didn't serve the rest of the country. It's the entire idea that there's a grab bag of money and you elect people to take as much as they can that's wrong with the system. How to fix it? Take away as much power and money as you can and return it to the states. Why do we need a bright, shiny Federal Courthouse? Why not just take over an old warehouse? Why can't we fund our own medical research? Should a "state" university, if it wants to fund science and engineering, fund it itself? None of the things you mentioned should be a function of the government.
Yes, our judicial system, the envy and model for the free world, should be held in old warehouses. In the entire history of our country our courthouses have been built for form, function and symbolism and you are far too smart too much of a patriot for me to have to take the time to explain why. And federal government funding in our college and university system has long been an engine for economic growth in this country. I mean if our federal government isn't involved in things like justice and education what the fuck do we even have it or want it?
It's a building. There's no more of a need to fancy it up than a police department. If you have some excess money, that may be one thing, but we're broke. Flat busted. Why spend money we don't on something that has no financial benefit? And I have every confidence our justice system would be just fine without a shiny new building. I have faith in America. As for education, the Department of Education didn't exist until 1979. How did we ever educate ourselves before that date? Scores haven't gone up and the Department of Ed exists for primarily one reason: to distribute money. They collect tax money, extract a percentage of it for employees, buildings and operating costs, and then redistribute money where they see fit. Why can't the state or local municipalities do the same thing?
First, I'm talking about a courthouse funded for in 1992. Money was being spent on needed additional courthouses. The fact that our senators were able to get one of those courthouses built here instead of Los Angles, San Fran or Seattle is a good thing. Republican or Democrat doesn't matter, courthouses were going to be built. We were able to get it built here instead. I'm not talking about the DoE. I'm talking about money spent to improve research and facilities at Universities. You're saying that the state of New Jersey should have alone footed the initial university research for the atomic bomb project? That California should have, could have, funded the university research for the military's arapnet and eventual internet? Those are just two small examples pre DoE. Do you think states have the money to properly fund modern Biomedical research? If congress, both parties, decide it's in our countries best interest to fund scientific research in certain areas and Oregon just just happens to have representatives powerful to divert, not create additional, to divert some of that funding to our home state that is a bad thing? A terrible waste of funding? I'm sorry but I don't. I am all in favor of cutting waste. Portland is so full of bullshit projects right now it's ridiculous. Wanting and getting local and federal money for bike paths, bioswales and trolleys that go no where. We actually have a mayoral candidate that feels one of the best ways to stimulate the local job market is to get more foodcarts and to get the foodcarts we have now to hire one or two more people each. Foodcarts! Foodcarts that take cash only, pay little to no taxes and pay the majority of their employees off of the books. But tax dollars have gone to setting up two of the larger locations for them in Portland. We're spending a billion dollars on a max line to Milwaukie. One...billion...dollars. Will a max line to Milwaukie attract a corporation to move here? Will a company say, hey, bike lanes are fucking cool, lets build our next factory in Portland! But the biomedical research going on at OHSU has already spawned multiple start up companies that are growing and hiring in Portland. There is a ton of BS to cut from the federal government and a ton of stuff to cut that the federal government wants to fund but cutting funds that go to universities that develop and educate people on how to develop the inventions and advancements that will power our economy for years to come is just crazy.
They are building a new Federal courthouse for $400MM in LA, when they have a perfectly good building already. I'm in commercial real estate, and $400MM for a building that size is a joke. Do you know how much unoccupied space the GSA has in its inventory? As for funding research, you and I disagree as to whether that's the proper role of the Federal Government. Again, the idea of "getting what you can" from the Federal Government is how we are $16,000,000,000,000.00 in debt with no relief in sight.
It's funny how republicans...err...excuse me, not republicans, uh, libertarians, I guess they want to be called, used basically this same excuse to defend Ryan for taking stimulus money after being opposed to it as a hey, might as well take it if it is there. Not saying you did specifically, but a few others in that thread.
I wonder if it has anything to do with this map, or these statistics. Salary by race and sex: Unemployment by race Demographics of 2008 voters TANF Recipients, 2009 Seems like one could show pretty easily, if you choose to look into things rather than believe sound bites and pretty pictures, that there's a pretty clear chain here. 1) The top 9 states in red are also the ones with the highest distribution of Hispanic and African-American people, 2) Median salaries for Hispanics and African-Americans are roughly 70% of white workers and 60% of Asian workers, 3) Unemployment is roughly double in those states for people of color than for white people, 4) African-American and Hispanic recipients of TANF made up 62% of total recipients, with whites at 31% and 7% other, 5) African-Americans were only 13% of voters and voted 95/4 for Obama in 2008, and Hispanics (9%) voted 67/31 for Obama, yet the southern states were 54/45 for McCain in 2008. With 22% of the nationwide populace concentrated in "red states", yet making up 62% of TANF recipients (and who vote a combined 80/20 Democrat), I don't think there's a basis to say that "Democratic voters are taking Republican voters' money" is wrong, nor confusion as to why a pretty picture shows "red states" taking more of the government dole than they pay in.
