You're right. I think a real analysis would be to compare the government aid that the average individual Democrat receives vs the average Republican.
As do voting tendencies. Perhaps the biggest problem with the data in this report is they identified Red states based on how they voted in just ONE election whereas it takes decades to determine state finances. To compare properly, financing should be compared to decades of voting preferences including both for President and senators, reps, and governors. "The following table shows the percentage of person-years between 1980 and 2013 for which each of the top and bottom welfare states voted Democrat at the presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial levels. Clearly, the so-called red states are far more likely overall to vote for a Republican presidential candidate than his Democratic counterpart when compared to the supposed blue states. But look at New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado. New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire have been evenly split on presidential candidates since 1980. Nevada and Colorado voted for both Bush 43 wins, and Colorado even went Republican during the 1996 Clinton landslide. At the senatorial level, how can you call North Dakota, Louisiana, and West Virginia "red states" when their voting record is overwhelmingly Democratic over the past three decades? Even South Dakota and New Mexico fail the "red state" test. West Virginia hasn't had a Republican senator since before 1960!" And... "On the other side of the aisle, New Hampshire -- supposedly a blue state -- has only elected a single Democratic senator (the currently serving Jeanne Shaheen) since 1980. Minnesota and Colorado also fail the blue state designation based on who they have put in the Senate over this timeframe. In the House of Representatives, it is absurd to characterize Mississippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, and South Dakota as red states when they have elected more Democrats than Republicans since 1980. North Dakota and West Virginia's choices for the House of Representatives are dominantly blue. Similarly, New Hampshire and Delaware have elected predominantly Republicans in the House, and somehow they are blue states? Colorado and Nevada also don't pass the blue state test, and as recently as the 111th Congress, five of Colorado's seven representatives were Republican. The gubernatorial comparison also strikes a blow to any "red state welfare" claims. There is no significant general difference in the overall red versus blue character of these states' governors. South Dakota hasn't had a Democratic governor in over 35 years, whereas Kentucky has only had one Republican governor since 1971." Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html#ixzz3VbJG0KHi How is it that California has a #6 rating for being least dependent and yet we garner 34% of the entire federal welfare budget but only account for 12% of the population? "Overall, when state and federal commitments are combined, California’s $6.67 billion is far and away the most spent by any state. New York is a distant second at $4.95 billion. No other state breaks the $2 billion mark and only six others top $1 billion. The gulf is just as wide when looking only at cash grants. California paid $3.7 billion; New York, $1.4 billion. The next highest state is Ohio at $440 million, according to federal data. And it’s not just cash grants. In the 2011 federal fiscal year, California spent more on child care alone, $151.45 million, than many states did for their entire welfare program. California also allocated $130.6 million for transportation, training and other employment-related services. Again, that was more than many states spent on their entire welfare program." Why is CA different? "We are teaching generations to become dependent on the government rather than on their own initiative,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks. “We are handing out cash we do not have" Not to mention..." • Pays out one of the highest maximum monthly cash grants to the average family on welfare, $638. • Continues aid for children even when the parents lose eligibility. • Provides benefits even to some who find a job and helps with child care and transportation while attending school or training. On the flip side, California is not the land of endless “Cadillac” benefits: • The actual average cash grant for the typical family of three is $463. • Welfare payments have been cut twice since 2009 while 18 states have provided nominal increases. • The high cost of housing eats up more of the aid than in other states with smaller grants." Sorry but CA is the absolute King and Queen of both Fed and State welfare/dependence. To see the state get such a "high" rating is a total effing joke and this is the defacto Blue state.
dont know about R vs D but the rich receive more because of the payroll tax ceiling, low cap gains tax, mortage interest deduction, etc.
