These are the U.S. states most and least dependent on the federal government
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
These are the U.S. states most and least dependent on the federal government
Adriana Belmonte 21 hours ago
States that voted Democrat in 2016 generally rely less on federal funding than Republican states, according to a study by WalletHub .
The analysis looked at the return on taxes paid to the federal government, the share of federal jobs, and federal funding as a share of state revenue.
Thirteen out of the top 15 states found to be most dependent on the federal government voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Ten out of the 15 least dependent states voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
New Mexico is the most dependent state on the federal government, according to WalletHub. (Graphic: David Foster/Yahoo Finance)
‘No ranking like this is ever going to be perfect’
“Obviously, no ranking like this is ever going to be perfect,” Stan Veuger, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, told Yahoo Finance. “Some things you can definitely say, like where the states that have the highest per capita income or pay the most in taxes.”
But “it’s not really true across the board,” Veuger said. “Virginia is a blue state and obviously has a lot of federal contractors and a lot of federal money … It obviously relies heavily on what the federal government does.”
According to WalletHub’s analysis, Virginia receives the second-highest amount of federal contracts while ranking federal funding as a share of state revenue. And given that WalletHub weighted federal funding four times more than share of federal jobs, Virginia is one of the least-dependent states on the federal government.
‘Poor states receive more federal funding through Medicaid’
WalletHub analyst Jill Gonzalez explained that “federal funding as a percentage of state revenue was calculated as states’ intergovernmental revenue from the federal government divided by the states’ general revenue.”
Intergovernmental revenue includes funding for Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), child welfare services, and other low-income assistance programs. For TANF , Kentucky (3rd overall), Alaska (7th overall), and Delaware use the most federal dollars.
“Because the federal income tax is progressive,” Veuger said, “I think you can also generally say that poor states receive more federal funding through Medicaid, which is a huge part of states’ budgets.”
The electoral map after the 2016 election. Stripes indicate that the state flipped from 2012. (Source: The New York Times)
In the 2017 fiscal year, Montana, the eighth-most dependent state overall in WalletHub’s analysis, received the highest amount of federal dollars for Medicaid at 80%. It was followed closely by West Virginia (4th overall), Arkansas, Kentucky (3rd overall), New Mexico (1st overall), and Arizona (6th overall).
In terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, Massachusetts ranked first, followed by New York, Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. On the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is the lowest, followed by Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, and Alabama.
Veuger noted that “all the poor states are red. Mississippi and Louisiana get a lot of Medicaid money.”
Tags
Who is online
74 visitors
The electoral map after the 2016 election. Stripes indicate that the state flipped from 2012. (Source: The New York Times)
In the 2017 fiscal year, Montana, the eighth-most dependent state overall in WalletHub’s analysis, received the highest amount of federal dollars for Medicaid at 80%. It was followed closely by West Virginia (4th overall), Arkansas, Kentucky (3rd overall), New Mexico (1st overall), and Arizona (6th overall).
In terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, Massachusetts ranked first, followed by New York, Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. On the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is the lowest, followed by Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, and Alabama.
Veuger noted that “all the poor states are red. Mississippi and Louisiana get a lot of Medicaid money.”
States that voted Democrat in 2016 generally rely less on federal funding than Republican states, according to a study by WalletHub .
The analysis looked at the return on taxes paid to the federal government, the share of federal jobs, and federal funding as a share of state revenue.
Thirteen out of the top 15 states found to be most dependent on the federal government voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Ten out of the 15 least dependent states voted for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Ok, Cult 45ers. Let the spin begin!!
Democrats control the House, and thus, the pursestrings.
Maybe you would be better advised to implore your reps to stop giving money away if all you are going to do is complain about which state gets what.
Now, now, for the past three months only, if I am not mistaken.
Let me see, who was in charge prior to that time frame?
One side seems to be doing all the complaining about which state receives what amount. Feel free to do something OTHER than merely whining about it.
Seems weird that the people who advocate for a progressive tax system the hardest don't want the money disbursed based on that.
Why, the GOP of course. 'Do you think this "phenomena" JUST happened, or do you think maybe it has been going on for decades?
Funny that the source of info, i.e. WalletHub is a credit reporting agency. I don't see how that can be considered a reliable source of info on what states are most and least dependent on the federal government? Sounds like people are really reaching here...
You don't like the truth of the piece so you have to try to discredit the source.
[delete]
...since January 2019. This study was done for the 2017 fiscal year.
When the right wing controlled both senate and the house they did nothing but bitch and when they had all three branches the bitching increase with that piece of garbage that use illegally elected and that's all they continue to do
I already acknowledged that fact.
Do you think this JUST happened in the last few years or something?
Whoa there pardner, just making sure you were paying attention.
You may want to reword that so that it makes some sense.
This is off topic Don. Please start your own thread with this.
Wow Don! Got a publisher for that work of fiction you just posted?
Removed for context
I saw this earlier, Irony at its best one might say.
It is so ironic - all these people who are Trump supporters aren't even smart enough to realize they voted for someone who is screwing them over. That's why he likes them to be uneducated and hooked on opioids and meth. That way, they're too drugged out and illiterate to realize that coal is dying even faster under Trump, and his disdain for people with brains and skills trickles down so they think it's bad to want to better themselves.
Well, according the graphic, Kansas is the state that is least dependent upon the Federal government. The five least dependent states (from the graphic) are Kansas, Delaware, New Jersey, Utah, and Illinois.
So, why does California, New York, and Texas have so much representation and control over Congress? Why do these states have so many electoral delegates?
Maybe the country should be paying more attention to Kansas than California or New York since both are bigger freeloaders than Kansas.
California and New York - freeloaders?
California and New York are much bigger freeloaders than Kansas. In fact, according to the graphic, California is a bigger freeloader than 15 other states. New York is a bigger freeloader than 19 other states. From the graphic it appears that California is subsidizing New York.
California and New York, combined, control 84 electoral delegates. The five states least dependent on the Federal government, combined, control 52 electoral delegates. So, why do the bigger freeloaders have so much more influence over Federal spending?
California and New York are much bigger freeloaders than Minnesota. Apparently Minnesota is doing something right and Minnesota is definitely a blue state. So, why don't Democrats pay more attention to Minnesota than to California or New York?
Actually the resident dependence score for Minnesota is 34th most dependent where CA is ranked 43rd and NY is ranked 45th.
About 6 pct of California's population are undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for Federal benefits, like Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. There are about the same number of undocumented immigrants living in California as the entire population of Kansas.
California has the largest population of undocumented immigrants. No doubt the large number of ineligible residents will lower the state's resident dependence on Federal funds. That is a clever way to skew the rankings. And the sad thing is that the number of ineligible undocumented residents in California provides the same number of House seats for California as the entire population of Kansas does for Kansas.
Do you have proof of your assertions? Otherwise, move along.
So your argument is that CA residents are less dependent than Kansas and Minnesota because we have 6 million undocumented immigrants living here? Wait, how does that compute? We have 10 time the population plus supposedly another 6 million undocumented residents AND the highest cost of living in the nation, but still have less dependent residents than Kansas or Minnesota, that's somehow a "clever way" to "skew" the rankings? And when did legislative seat apportionment come into the discussion? That's not at all what we were talking about.
[deleted]
Circular logic at it's finest
Undocumented Immigrants in California
"Nearly a quarter of the nation’s undocumented immigrants reside in California, where they constitute more than 6% of the state’s population. Nationally, the undocumented population has stabilized at approximately 11 million, following a slight decline after 2007."
Fact Sheet: Immigrants and Public Benefits
"Are undocumented immigrants eligible for federal public benefit programs? Generally no. Undocumented immigrants, including DACA holders, are ineligible to receive most federal public benefits, including means-tested benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, sometimes referred to as food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and are prohibited from purchasing unsubsidized health coverage on ACA exchanges."
The Impact of Non-Citizens on Congressional Apportionment (this is an old article so the numbers are out of date but the impact is the same)
"Immigration has a significant effect on the distribution of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives for three reasons. First, seats are apportioned based on each state's total population relative to the rest of the country, including illegal aliens and other non-citizens. This, of course, is the issue at the center of Congresswomen Miller's proposal. Second, congress has chosen to allow in a large number of legal immigrants and to tolerate wide spread illegal immigration. After the 2000 Census, the average congressional district had roughly 650,000 people. Thus, the more than 18 million non-citizens in the 2000 Census were equal to nearly 29 congressional seats. The third reason is that non-citizens are not evenly distributed throughout the country. In 2000, half of all non-citizens lived in just three states and almost 70 percent live in just six states. States with a large non-citizen population will gain at the expense of states comprised mostly of citizens."
-----
California has the largest population of undocumented immigrants who are ineligible for Federal benefits. That also means that the state government of California cannot use Federal funds to pay for similar state benefits. And that large population of undocumented immigrants does affect the number of House seats for California.
Sorry, the facts are not on your side.
No, facts are not on your side.
To quote something I read recently: Do you have proof of your assertions?
Yes we are! The worst of the worst. At least starting this year the rest of you won’t be subsidizing our high state and local taxes or our artificial due to nimby and regulatory outlook high real estate mortgages.
'Yes we are' what? and WTF is a nimby?
Your entire post makes no sense whatsoever, like the rest of them.
So in other words, no, you have no proof of your assertions. Move along.
You'll notice the score comes from a combined dependency rate, resident dependency and State government dependency. The less dependent the State, Virginia for example being ranked 50th most dependent State Government, but ranks close to the bottom at 13th for resident dependency. This is often because the less dependent the State Government is the fewer benefits they provide for their residents who then have to rely on federal assistance when in need. Though there are some States where both residents and the State Government are heavily dependent on the Federal government like New Mexico who are ranked #1 most dependent with a #2 resident dependency and #3 government dependency score.
With New York and California the residents are some of the least dependent ranking 43rd (CA) and 45th (NY) respectively, but then their governments are slightly more dependent (CA 29th & NY 22nd) which may explain why their residents are less dependent. Kansas ranks 41st for resident dependency, so worse than both NY or CA, but its States government is less reliant ranking 48th.
Kansas is a fiscal wasteland because of past GOP policies.
Perhaps a review of the Constitution is in order. Representation has nothing to do with how dependent a state is to federal funds.
That's correct; apportionment of House seats is strictly based on population. So, what is the point being made by the seeded article?
[delete]
You asked a question and I answered it by showing that your comment is irrelevant to the apportionment of federal funding.
All of his comments are irrelevant to this seed like Tacos.
Before rating Kansas over any other state check out the budget crises they they are in.
Since Brownback destroyed the budget and drove Kansas into the ground the Kansas legislature has increased taxes to try to bring some financial sense to the state.
After making a mess of Kansas Brownback is now the ''Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom'' for the Trump administration. Hopefully he won't do as much damage there.
What does that have to do with dependence upon the Federal government?
Pointing out that once Brownback made a mess of Kansas he's moved on to a new position that hopefully doesn't require dealing in the real world money issues...Seems relevant to me, if it doesn't to you so be it.
According to the seeded article Kansas is the state that is least dependent upon the Federal government in spite of Brownback screwing up the Kansas economy. I don't recall anyone in Congress proposing to bail out Kansas.
Should states become more dependent or less dependent on the Federal government? The seeded article seems to be chiding red states for being dependent. Does that mean Democrats want to cut Federal spending for those red states? How would Democrats flip those red states by cutting Federal spending?
You do realize that if Democrats flip all those southern states then it will be blue states that are most dependent. Will Democrats complain about California and New York subsidizing those southern states if Democrats flip the south? What's the point being made by the seeded article?
The state legislature is raising taxes to make up for the disaster called Brownback.
It would depend on the state and their ability or inability to stay a float without the feds...What do you think?
Perhaps if the dems flip the red states to blue states they will be better managed ending their never ending cycle of poverty...
There you go Nerm_L.
The southern states economies have only improved since going GOP. Their remaining poverty is due to many decades of democrat rule there combined with democrat Jim Crow laws.
I suppose going from a one horse town to a two horse town is an improvement. Now let's take a look at a Democrat State...
" The most populous U.S. state, with 39.5 million people, supplanted the U.K. as No. 5 in the world with an equivalent gross domestic product of more than $2.7 trillion, increasing $127 billion last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."
" California's 4.9 percent increase in GDP last year was more than twice the gain for the U.S. "
" Investors also make California the best-performing state, with 462 native companies in the Russell 3000 index producing a 587 percent total return (income plus appreciation) during the past decade, 262 percent the past five years, 76 percent the past two years, and 27 percent the past year — easily surpassing the Russell 3000's total return of 371 percent, 154 percent, 59 percent, and 22 percent , respectively. In the market for state and local government debt, California also is superior, representing more than 20 percent of the No. 1 BlackRock Strategic Municipal Opportunities Fund, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."
" The average revenue of California clean energy companies is 140 percent of their domestic peers' average sales. Only five years ago, the ratio was 49 percent. Their revenue grew 33 percent last year when their counterparts throughout the U.S. reported less than half that increase."
" Shares of California's clean companies, which spend twice as much on research and development as their out-of-state peers, gained an average of 70 percent the past two years, or 23 percentage points more than the average return for the rest of the country. At the same time, California's clean companies created twice as many jobs as their counterparts elsewhere. Productivity also is unsurpassed in California, where the revenue per employee of clean companies rose 7 percent last year, while it fell 3 percent outside the state, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."
With all that California has going for it, one would think that it would be much better off financially, especially compared to other states.
TL;DR? People lie with statistics.
Every once in a while we see this story - or similar - pop up. The problem with it is always the same. Someone has taken a statistic (some states receive more federal funding than others) and tried to reach an unsupported conclusion (i.e., those states are hypocritical, freeloading moochers) based on that stat. But real life is a little more complicated than that.
For example, California looks pretty good in this story, right? They take way less Medicaid money than other states. Here's a problem with that: Many California doctors don't accept Medicaid (called Medi-Cal in California), so just because you qualify for federal aid, doesn't mean you get to use it. And if you can't use it, federal money doesn't flow into the state.
California talks big on health, but so few docs take Medi-Cal that it violates civil rights
List of U.S. states and territories by poverty rate
shows that California's federal poverty level based on household income ranks 35th in the nation. Only 16.4% of the population in poverty. Not great, but not the worst, right? But when you use the Census Bureau's Supplemental Poverty Measure, taking into account what it actually costs to live in California, the state's poverty rate is worst in the nation . 23.8%. #1 for sucking.
Contrast that with a place like Mississippi which has a flat federal poverty rate of 21.9%, which puts them at 51st! Worse than every other state, plus D.C. That sounds terrible! But the SPM for Ole Miss is only 16.1%, good for 39th. Still lots of room for improvement, but way better than California.
I take it you hate supply and demand then? Anti-Capitalism? California has a high cost of living because 40 million Americans want to live here. Besides the beautiful coastlines, the incredible weather, the huge tech industry, amazing skiing, surfing, snowboarding, sky diving, sailing, there is virtually every kind of activity or entertainment available here within just a few hours drive. With so many people wanting to live in the most beautiful places, you get a higher cost of living. And the fact is, its worth it. I would MUCH rather pay the kind of rent prices I do here five blocks from the pacific Ocean than to live even for free in the middle of a flat featureless landscape in a town with no jobs a thousand miles from the coast. So if you believe CA "sucks" because of our cost of living, then please, stay where you are and help us keep our costs down by at least one person in America not wanting to live here since we already have about 15% of the total US population in one State.
Believe what you like. I can't stop you. That has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
Work on your reading comprehension please. I said California sucked for having the highest poverty rate in the nation, not for having a high cost of living.
The only reason CA has the highest poverty rate is because of their cost of living.
You apparently don't understand how this whole poverty thing works. An assessment of any person's wealth is relative and dependent on the interplay between revenue and expenditures.
Having a high cost of living wouldn't be a problem if the people living there had sufficient income to pay for it. Nearly a quarter of the population can't pay for it. A rate worse than every other state in the country.
The reason this matters to the current seed is that California is represented as being a better managed state because it takes in less federal welfare per capita than other states. The implication is that since the state receives less money, its residents must be better off. This is not the case.
The reason for the disparity is not that California is more prosperous, but that federal welfare is allocated based on a national standard (one initially generated in the 1950s, if I'm not mistaken) that doesn't take into account the different costs of living in each state. If it did, California would receive more welfare per capita than all other states.
Hope that clears things up.
Having lived in poverty as a child, I understand far more than I want to.
The study ranks CA 43rd for state resident dependency to federal funds. in short, 'any person' is doing pretty good in CA comparatively.
Who implied that? The data has nothing to do with happiness or healthiness.
You must not have actually looked at the study. Almost 12.5 of the ranking was based on the number of federal employees. CA has the highest number of them. That actually hurts its ranking in this study.
Hope that clears things up.
Please get educated about how poverty rates are calculated. The ignorance hurts.
Also, respond to things I actually write and don't bring in other things to argue with me about just so you can have fun arguing. I'm not here for your entertainment.
Actually, it looks like I am more educated in the methodology of the seeded study than you are.
You could mitigate the pain of ignorance of that methodology by actually reading the linked study.
I responded and asked you a specific question about what you actually wrote and you ignored it.
Good, because if you were you'd have utterly failed.
The article is blatantly in error
CA is the largist recipient of Medicaid dollars, more than the entire populations of most of the red states listed
1/3 of all welfare and food stamp recipients are in CA
Medicaid is only a part of a part of the methodology used for the rankings in the study. It does NOT single Medicaid out by the numbers so your claim that it is blatantly in error about that data is bullshit.
No, you are blatantly in error
Bullshit.
I suppose the only reason they shit in the streets is because of the lack of public toilets.
Whats funny is the elephant in the room of the seeded article....
But hey lets ignore that because it doesn't coincide with my talking points...
Wrong. those are the FACTS. Everyone knows CA is the welfare capital of the US.
I linked the facts and all you have is an ignorant denial
As are any that dare disagree with your views. Only you can be correct...
That may be your most cogent reply to date.
That would make sense since we have more people than most red States listed combined... Were you expecting California to have 40 million Americans living here but only need the same Medicaid dollars as Montana with their whopping 1.06 million?
[delete]
No elephant in the room.
No ranking like this I'm sure is ever perfect.
[delete]
And using the same cost of living criteria as above the Jefferson region of California is a lot stronger in relation to the coastal urban areas as the red states are as illustrated above.
I'd much rather make $10,000 a month and live on the coast paying $5,000 a month rent than live in the middle of Tumbleweed, Red State America making $2000 a month but only paying $500 a month in rent. Sure, you're only paying 25% of your income in rent and many of us "coastal elites" are paying 50%, but I end up with more money at the end of the month and live in a place where I don't have to choke on dust daily and instead can go to the beach each night, breath in the coastal air and watch a beautiful sunset out over the Pacific. A lot of religious conservatives continually hope for a future in heaven, I get to enjoy mine every day right now.
Actually I live in a red area of the same state. We have much lower cost of living than your part and some less income. Adjusted for cost of living, our poverty rate is lower than yours. We have our own beauty here in God's country. https://issuu.com/scwa/docs/2019_shasta_cascade_visitors_guide/1?ff&e=2259585/68222295 https://www.visitredding.com/?asset=2492-ig-1600937379237246228_229393008
Yes, adjusted for your housing prices and incomes you pay less of your income in rent than we "coastal elites". And even though I was born and raised for the first few decades in Ohio, my mother was actually born in Redding, CA. so I know the area well. I spent many summer days in the 1980's out fishing with my grandfather on Shasta Lake (though last time I visited in the mid 1990's it looked more like a mud puddle). I also know that while with smoke and mirrors you can have someone with less money at the end of the month look like they are less poor than their twin on the coast because in a dying town, the money goes further, but I'll stick with the coast even if it costs a little more.
And if you've ever been to Venice Beach or some other beach towns you'll realize that even though there are a bunch of "beach bums", even homeless guys are out there surfing. I'll bet even though they don't have much in the pocket and couch surf to survive, they consider themselves richer than any of those who are too scared to leave their small one horse town and challenge themselves.
We're number one!
We're number one!
Wait....
California is #1 in poverty when cost of living is taken into account and the rural oriented inland counties are among its least in poverty. Yes, Jefferson could indeed support itself as a separate state!
Please source that because I don't believe you can with reliable sources
You posted the documentation that proves that to be false. Or have you forgotten?
See #5 above. That same study about the poverty rate in California adjusted for cost of living has available a breakdown of adjusted poverty rate by county.