The Federal Aid Jackpot: States That Receive The Most Federal Assistance (PHOTOS)

Think of the census as a sweepstakes worth up to $500 billion per year.

In advance of the 2010 Census, a new report by the Brookings Institution points to just how much federal aid is resting on the results. The report finds that federal dollars are channeled into states not so much on the basis of politics as on information about the size of each state's rural and poor populations -- data that's collected in the country's decennial census.

In an analysis of fiscal year 2008 funds, the study found that 31 percent of federal assistance -- $446.7 billion -- was distributed using census population and income data as a guide. Medicaid funding, for example, is allocated to states based on the size of their poor populations (and their Medicaid income limits.)

Since the government conducts the census just once every decade, the report's author, Andrew Reamer, argues, it's imperative that it's as rigorous and precise as possible:

"In general, politics does not enter in. Congress sets the formulas," says Andrew Reamer, a Brookings fellow who did the analysis. "Most states get their money based on numbers, which is why an accurate census is so important."

So which state will collect on this jackpot? Brookings analyzed federal spending in fiscal year 2008 to assess which states got the most fed dollars per capita. Check out the top ten states (with one exception; the top recipient is a city, not a state):

1 of 10

10. Mississippi

1 of 11

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

Mississippi, where the federal government channeled $5,584,088,732 -- $1,900.24 per capita -- ranked tenth in per capita spending.

Jon Corzine, Ex-MF Global CEO, Netted More Than $8 Million Before Firm's Collapse

Creative Spaces: Designing the Brand

Foreclosure Vandals Threaten Prospective Homeowners: 'Only Going To Get Worse'

CEO Pay Grew 127 Times Faster Than Worker Pay Over Last 30 Years: Study

Foreclosed Homes Destroyed By Previous Owners (VIDEO)

gadgets/slideshows/211120/slide_211120_724077_small.jpg

NBA Players Union Facing U.S. Attorney Investigation

Mississippi, where the federal government channeled $5,584,088,732 -- $1,900.24 per capita -- ranked tenth in per capita spending.

comments(221)

Total comments: 221 | Post a Comment

1 of 11

Rate This Slide

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

Reasonable Unfair

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Current Top 5 Slides

loading...

Choose your Top 5 Slides

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[TXfemmom]

02:10 PM on 04/06/2010

This Brookings thing must be skewed. I asked for information on inidividual states and how much they received back from the federal government based upon how much they sent to the Federal Coffers, and ended up having to contact my Republican Senator three times to get enough information to feel informed about it, and all the Southern States, except for TX itself, which received far less than it could because they are too stubborn to match the entire amounts which they could receive in several categories, were far ahead of all hte areas of the country, except for Alaska.

When they based the aid in comparison to what the state sent to the federal government in taxes, Alaska was the number one moocher state, in that they received back almost $2 for every dollar they sent to the Feds. Then, it was followed by the old Confederate states, and the Northeatern States and California and others received far less than they sent.

Some of the states in this may have received a little more per capita, but overall they sent much more to the government than they received in return but Brookings did not mention that.

If a state sends $7000 per capita to the FEDS which some states may do, such as in California's case, and receive $3,000 back, but that is FAR, FAR LESS THAN THEY SEND. Then, Mississippi may only send $1,500 per capita to Washington, but get back $2,800 which makes it A GRAND MOOCHER STATE.

[Eric Lorentzen]

11:21 AM on 03/13/2010

The people do not have equal representation. Look into redistricting issues.

[Eric Lorentzen]

11:19 AM on 03/13/2010

Go Debbie and mathme.

[Dunkleberger Karl]

11:46 PM on 03/12/2010

D.C. is not a state! No congressman , no Senator , no state, but notice only 3 dem controlled states?

[drbob601]

06:51 PM on 03/11/2010

D.C. is no.1?

No surprise here.

[RGKahn]

01:24 AM on 03/12/2010

Of course Washington D.C. gets federal money. They can't get state money because that are a city without a state. Under the U.S. Constitution in Article One Section Eight Paragraph 17 "17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings;"
The city and those who live there are in essence wards of the Federal Government.

[TXfemmom]

02:16 PM on 04/06/2010

I asked for information regarding some of this and Brookings has skewed their information. By far, the Southern States, Alaska, and some of the agricultural states receive FAR MORE BACK FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAN THEY SEND.

That is a better manner in which to view assistance. All the Southern States, Alaska, and other Republican represented states, received FAR MORE BACK IN COMPARISON FOR WHAT THEY SENT TO THE FEDERAL treasury in information I requested and received via my Republican Senator Hutchison. All the Southern states, with the exception of TX, were moocher states, receiving far more than they had sent. Their total amount received per capita may not have been as large in actual totals, as some other states, but compared to what they contributed for the functioning of the Federal government, the money they received back FAR OUTDWARFTED what they had sent. Some of them received back $1.75 for every dollar they sent, and all were way ahead, meaning that they sucked the life breath and money out of the other states, while they claimed they wanted fiscal responsibility. HA. They claimed to want small government but mooched back far more than they deserved.

[KarateKid]

08:20 AM on 03/11/2010

Five of these states are RED states, filled with people who cry that they don't trust government, they want less government.

So, I think we ought to give them what they want; then watch them whine when their states, and therefore, they have to pay for things heretofore paid for by those of us in BLUE states.

[frustratedNGOperson]

12:19 AM on 03/11/2010

Of course - Tenessee, Alaska, Missippi - where those oh so independent citizens vote against government spending. I am surprised that a few other states are not in the top ten.

Hope some of these voters will wake up to their own hypocrisy soon.

[berrycooda]

12:12 AM on 03/11/2010

I'm beginning to think that we don't have too much Government.....
We have too many people...

[KarateKid]

08:21 AM on 03/11/2010

Think of how nice it would be if 100 million people left.

[littlepuffycloud]

05:29 PM on 03/11/2010

I think Alaska is big enough for them, yes?

[auntnoree]

07:44 AM on 03/14/2010

Lead by example and GO!

[Linda from Deerfield]

08:45 PM on 03/10/2010

This data is interesting as a measure of poverty assistance, but it does not tell the whole story of federal money flowing to states.

One might ask, for instance, if the many federal employees in your state were not employed there, if the contracts were not paid to the companies, if the Social Security checks were not sent to the retirees, if the Medicare payments did not go to the medical providers, etc. then how would your state's economy be impacted. Many states receive more than they send to Washington, and many receive less.

Here is the "Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005". http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

[Y3rMawm]

09:38 PM on 03/10/2010

The answer to that question; it depends on whether that tax money were allowed to remain in the hands of those who earned it, or if it still flows to DC

[mathme]

09:38 PM on 03/10/2010

Interesting table!

I'm still not sure if receiving payment for jobs and contractual work should be lumped in with the "free" money, though. I mean, trading a car or a bomber (for examples) for money isn't quite the same as just getting aid. Yeah, we could quibble about senators trying to funnel projects into their districts, but there is still a payment for something... it's, ostensibly, a 1:1 trade (ideally, of course).

[holyghostie]

08:35 PM on 03/10/2010

Gee I thought the Republican Majority Leader is against Big Government and government spending?
I wonder how Miss. made the top 10? Strange.

[mathme]

06:27 PM on 03/10/2010

Okay, based on these data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state |and| http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank22.html I calculated the discrepancy between federal tax revenue generated per capita and aid given per capita by state.

All states generate positive revenue, with a mean of $7,038 per capita, a mean aid received per capita of $1,460.

Under this new discrepancy model, the new top 10 (based on aid subtracted from revenue generated) are (All values are positive dollars going to the federal government):

1 District of Columbia[1] 31,030.63
2 Delaware 18,072.95
3 Connecticut 14,063.74
4 Minnesota 13,790.03
5 New Jersey 12,629.70
6 New York 10,450.84
7 Massachusetts 9,859.60
9 Nebraska 9,415.19
10 Rhode Island 9,313.59

[mathme]

06:29 PM on 03/10/2010

Bottom 10 (least net generated per capita):

Alabama 3,733.21
North Dakota 3,712.89
Vermont 3,635.50
South Carolina 3,319.82
Maine 2,838.66
Montana 2,803.65
Alaska 2,704.62
New Mexico 2,023.81
West Virginia 1,626.24
Mississippi 902.71

[mathme]

06:31 PM on 03/10/2010

Aww heck, I'll just see if I can post the whole thing.

State Discrepency
District of Columbia[1] 31,030.63
Delaware 18,072.95
Connecticut 14,063.74
Minnesota 13,790.03
New Jersey 12,629.70
New York 10,450.84
Massachusetts 9,859.60
Nebraska 9,415.19
Rhode Island 9,313.59
Illinois 9,280.40
Colorado 8,327.52
Texas 8,249.85
Maryland 8,246.88
Arkansas 8,063.48
Ohio 7,853.17
Washington 7,633.57
Pennsylvania 7,510.06
California 7,216.18
Virginia 7,106.01
North Carolina 6,999.94
Missouri 6,909.11
Kansas 6,808.20
Georgia 6,781.56
Nevada 6,739.60
Wisconsin 6,615.27
Oklahoma 6,577.72
Florida 6,376.65
Tennessee 6,286.22
New Hampshire 5,831.98
Michigan 5,666.53
Indiana 5,578.37
Wyoming 5,410.74
Iowa 4,934.10
Oregon 4,923.01
Louisiana 4,808.16
Idaho 4,660.95
Utah 4,628.43
Hawaii 4,430.64
South Dakota 4,377.27
Arizona 4,233.14
Kentucky 3,954.14
Alabama 3,733.21
North Dakota 3,712.89
Vermont 3,635.50
South Carolina 3,319.82
Maine 2,838.66
Montana 2,803.65
Alaska 2,704.62
New Mexico 2,023.81
West Virginia 1,626.24
Mississippi 902.71

[uniquindividual]

07:03 PM on 03/10/2010

There sure are alot of Red states in the bottome 50%.

[Shzron1946]

05:21 PM on 03/10/2010

Okay, I am from Michigan and what I want to know is where is the chart that shows the contribution from the top ten states? I have long heard that we here in Michigan contribute far more than we get back.

[mathme]

06:33 PM on 03/10/2010

Everyone does. Scroll up :)

[HJS2010]

04:34 PM on 03/10/2010

Got to love welfare states!

[UnknownSolider]

04:37 PM on 03/10/2010

that is not what this list is saying, its just talking about the amount of money per capita that is spent by the Federal Gov in each state...........

you are talking about Taxes as in how much does each state send to DC in relationship to how much it gets back in services from DC

[mathme]

06:40 PM on 03/10/2010

I have made that list! It's posted above

Okay, I'll stop tooting that horn. ;)

[mathme]

06:35 PM on 03/10/2010

Check out the new list above :)

[vicco]

04:15 PM on 03/10/2010

I guess what puzzles me the most is why all those states with less than a million people get to have two senators, that's an awful lot of "say" from somewhere that's as big as Nashville....California has 36 million people and it only has two senators....the whole concept is flawed which is why it's falling apart.

[dawnec1957]

04:26 PM on 03/10/2010

IMHO, California needs to be split into two states. North CA and South CA.

[vicco]

07:10 PM on 03/10/2010

They probably should just be their own country, 38 million is a whole lot of people and if they could get Oregon and Washington, maybe Nevada it'd be a pretty powerful country. I'd move there in a minute...

[Rayme]

01:59 AM on 03/12/2010

Why stop there, even Delaware has an economy bigger than most of the European countries. All the States could be separated into individual sovereign countries and be better for it without the Tax Feeder Federal Government stealing from their citizens.

[SusanL224]

04:55 PM on 03/10/2010

The reason that each state has 2 senators is so that smaller states have just as much say in a matter as larger states do, and that larger states could not control Federal policy and legislation. The Senate was designed with absolute equality of votes in mind. The House of Representatives, however, has proporational representation, whereby the larger states might have more of an impact on Federal policy and legislation.

[iridium53]

05:28 PM on 03/10/2010

That's an outstanding lesson in Civics. Thank you.

That does not change the fact that Mayors of many cities get more votes than United States Senators from states like Rhode Island, Delaware (Bidenland), Nebraska, both Dakotas, Idaho, etc.

And, that citizens from the states with bigger electoral numbers are, proportionately, less well represented than are citizens of the "little" states.

[mathme]

06:36 PM on 03/10/2010

I'm amazed at how many people don't know that any more. I just thought it was a given that people understood why the two houses are set up they way that they are.

[invirginia]

04:13 PM on 03/10/2010

So much for the idea of southern welfare states. Only three of the top ten were southern states, and not one in the top five.

[xlntcat]

05:52 PM on 03/10/2010

This isn't about welfare states. It is only stating how much money was spent per capita. It doesn't list how much the individual states contributed in ratio with said spending.

[mathme]

07:05 PM on 03/10/2010

That comparison mixes things up a little bit.