🚀 go-pugleaf

"Conservative" states are parasites, leeching off the tax dollars of
"Democratic" states:

Givers and Takers By DANIEL H. PINK 
Published: January 30, 2004 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/30/opinion/30PINK.html?ex=1087617600&en=1b57f1b06f078f11&ei=5070

"Each year, the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit research group, crunches
numbers from the Census Bureau to produce an intriguing figure: how
much each state receives in federal spending for every dollar it pays
in federal taxes.

Using the Tax Foundation's analysis, it's possible to group the 50
states into two categories: Givers and Takers. Giver states get back
less than a dollar in spending for every dollar they contribute to
federal coffers. Taker states pocket more than a dollar for every tax
dollar they send to Washington. Thirty-three states are Takers; 16 are
Givers. (One state, Indiana, has a perfect one-to-one ratio of taxes
paid and spending received. As seat of the federal government, the
District of Columbia has no choice but to be a Taker, and is therefore
not comparable to the 50 states in this regard.)

The Democrats' electability predicament comes into focus when you
compare the map of Giver and Taker states with the well-worn electoral
map of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states. You might expect
that in the 2000 presidential election, Republicans, the party of low
taxes and limited government, would have carried the Giver states �
while Democrats, the party of wild spending and wooly bureaucracy,
would have appealed to the Taker states. But it was the reverse.
George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the
candidate of the Giver states.

Consider: 

78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states. 

76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states. 

Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25. 

Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12. 

Juxtaposing these maps provides a new perspective on the political
landscape. (Interactive moment: Color in the blue and red states �
then you'll get the full picture.) Republicans seem to have become the
new welfare party � their constituents live off tax dollars paid by
people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is
wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too.
Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the
country's fiercest critics of government, yet they're also among the
biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in
the coastal blue states � the ones who are often portrayed as
shiftless moochers � are left to carry the load.

For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a
boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet
reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution �
and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It's shrewd
politics.

And it puts the eventual Democratic presidential nominee in a bind,
should he try to rally those who believe they aren't getting a fair
shake from Washington. If the Democratic candidate won all 16 Giver
states plus the District of Columbia in November, he'd collect only
254 electoral votes, short of the majority needed to capture the White
House. The electoral votes of all the Taker states, by contrast, add
up to 273 � two more than Mr. Bush won in 2000."


This is tax dollars and federal spending between states, and does not
even begin to calculate tranfers of wealth from poor countries to rich
countries. On this point, see MIM's "Imperialism and Its Class
Structure in 1997" (full text online) as well as the writings Samir
Amin, Eduardo Galeano, and Walter Rodney.