I came across a great tool for understanding deficits. It ends up that Illinois can boast that there are 8 states who have worse deficits when you measure the deficit per capita. Click on the 'values' button below the graph and it will sort in order of deficit per capita.
1) Conneticut* - $1,171
2) California* - $1098
3) NY* - $918
4) NJ* - $806
5) Mass* - $769
6) Delware* - $638
7) Minnesota* - $613
8) Wisconsin* - $569
9) Illinois* - $543
10) Hawaii* - $529
* - Voted Democrat in the 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections.
Don't tell Illinois democrats that we have room to increase spending. I don't want to give them the wrong idea.
4 states are not showing a deficit. They voted R, R, R in the 2000, 2004, 2008 election.
Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana, Alaska. (in order of suplus per capita)
9 of the 10 states with least deficit (including those 4) all voted R, R, R. Only exception was Indiana awarding Obama the election by 1.03%.
Wouldn't it make more sense for rural states like Wyoming to cost the taxpayer more? Aren't you supposed to get more bang for your buck with infill development?
Wouldn't it make more sense for rural states like Wyoming to cost the taxpayer more?
Indeed they do cost the federal taxpayer more. In each of the four states you listed, federal spending exceeded federal taxes collected. Following is the federal spending per dollar of federal taxes collected:
Wyoming $1.11
North Dakota $ 1.68
Montana $1.47
Alaska $1.84
Illinois was $0.75
and yet Democrats continue to advocate for more federal spending as opposed to state spending - huh.
Anon: Indeed they do cost the federal taxpayer more. In each of the four states you listed, federal spending exceeded federal taxes collected.
RSW: and yet Democrats continue to advocate for more federal spending as opposed to state spending - huh.
and yet more, the Republicans are the ones living in a welfare state, getting money of the backs of the Democratic ones, but the ones actually benefiting from this are the ones yelling ZOMG! SOCIALISM!!!!
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
Cut them off Arvid. Call Dick Durbin and tell him to stop federal spending that unfairly sends all that money from blue states to those evil Republicans in big sky country.
Idiot. Cali, CT, MN, MA, HI, and NY all had GOP Govs up until 2006 and extending until currently in CT, CA, and MN. Hell even WI, IL, and NJ had GOP execs past up to or past 2002. But don't tell the Republicans they can "cut their way out of this," might give them the idea they know how to actually run a government. And how fast you forget that the federal gov. was controlled by the GOP until last Jan....whoops.
Those are also 4 of the 7 least-populated states. I wonder if that has something to do with it, too.
"Those are also 4 of the 7 least-populated states. I wonder if that has something to do with it, too."
So the most economical model is to have fewer people more spread out rather than more people concentrated?
There is no deficit story here B for Business. Lately both the Democrats and the Republicans are working towards the exact same goals, to get more of the public's money for their district voters so they can stay in office to collect their government checks and PAC contributions. It is a sad situation when the only story here is some politicians are just better at it than others regardless of their party affiliations.
On December 2nd, 2009 at 07:13 PM, Narc said:
Those are also 4 of the 7 least-populated states. I wonder if that has something to do with it, too.
It probably has to do more with oil and natural gas in terms of the state economy. However, having no huge, corrupt, welfare-dependent, sanctuary city megalopoli like Chicago, LA, San Fran, NYC, and Minneapolis probably doesn't hurt either.
Political reminder--Montana a Republican state has a Democratic governor whose running mate for Lt Governor was a Republican. Maybe these folks are just "cut from a different cloth."
Pattsi Petrie
"Political reminder--Montana a Republican state has a Democratic governor whose running mate for Lt Governor was a Republican. Maybe these folks are just "cut from a different cloth.""
The non southern version of a Blue Dog? A democrat but not completely commie? : )
Maybe these folks are just "cut from a different cloth." Not really, they are just politicians with different views but working together as 'public servants'.
How much of the federal money has to do with the large amounts of federal land in those states?
Anon 7:37pm... Exactly what I was thinking.
Plus I would hazzard a guess that the rural states spending per capita on federal highways is a lot of it too. For as much as that accounts for it, I for one, am ok with that.