Guess Which States Are "Welfare Queens?"

"Those states that got more back from our government than they paid in were overwhelmingly Republican. The 10 biggest net recipients of taxpayers’ largess were, in order, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia. The 10 states that paid in the most and got back the least were New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York and Colorado.

Now, that list has surely changed since the middle of the last decade — Virginia has probably gotten richer and paid in more; Nevada has surely gotten poorer and paid in less. But today’s ranking are probably much the same, unless farming and manufacturing suddenly pay more than finance and high-tech. Even allowing for cyclical variations and political transformations, it’s patently clear that the states that drain the government also constitute the Republicans’ electoral base, while those that produce the wealth constitute the Democrats’. Far from strengthening our moral character, the red states plunge us into the slough of dependency.

If we’re really serious, then, about reducing the deficit entirely through cutbacks, the solution is clear: Cut off these slacker states."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/welfare-queen-states/2011/05/17/AFzTK45G_story.html

Alaska receives money because the federal government has to staff and fund offices to manage resources and habitat on those huge swathes of federal land. One of my friends just got a job in one of those federal offices.

It is counterintuitive that the state with the most oil resources and revenue would need public help, but...

got all their taxes for many years returned. AK made some funny decisions on how to manage their surplus.

Why would they do that? If they federal government does not want the cost they should sell it off.

Worst healths, most guns per household, lowest IQs, highest smoking rates, etc...

And they complain the most about the government that props up their very existence.

There is more federal spending in the south and west because of federally owned land and installations. The money is going to pay for bases, military personnel and maintain land. The federal government owns a majority of land in the west. Also counted in the money is payments to native Americans who are largely in the west. Do you want payments to native Americans and military personnel to be stopped because they live in the "wrong" states? Exactly what "welfare" do you wish to be cut out???

The OP is complaining about federal spending. What spending do you want cut? Federal spending is not going to "welfare".

or large bases...if what you say is true, then California would be at the top of the list.

The federal government owns the west. http://bigthink.com/ideas/21343 What "welfare" do you wish cut?

poverty on an equal to what we have here in Alaska. We are a mix of the third world and modernity. There is so much varience here you would have to come and see it. Alaska has zip infrastructure compared to the outside world, sewers, roads, etc. We have entire swathes of our state including our capital that you cannot access without a plane or a boat. 700 miles of road in a state which stretches from California to New York and is 2.5 times bigger than Texas or California. Its easy to bitch about Alaska but we are poor, enormous and have a huge military component. Our resources help us build things we need but we are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay behind the lower 48 in our basic needs being met.

is perverse; isn't it.