Upon reflection, a case might be made that the institution of the US Senate accounts for some of the differential. Certainly THE SOUTH has historically had all Democrat Senators, and it was under their rule that the red state spending patterns were established.
Some numbers maven would have to correlate the relative over/under representation with federal spending.
Or maybe high population staters are just more willing to bribe low population staters to allow blue state favorite sons to be in positions of power.
Some numbers maven would have to correlate the relative over/under representation with federal spending.
Or maybe high population staters are just more willing to bribe low population staters to allow blue state favorite sons to be in positions of power.
There are lots of explanations for the map.
First, check out Maryland and Virginia. Government employees in the suburbs of DC. Then the farm states - farm subsidies (ethanol and etc.).
Then the states that have a lot of Native Americans - with their subsidies. Not many Indians in Manhattan or the Bronx.
Then states that have large defense suppliers. The data doesn't address how this money is spread through subcontracts to all of the other states.
Then states that have large military installations. Most of them are in the red states. Then consider where most of our veterans and military retirees come from. Not generally from downtown NYC or San Francisco.
And that's just a start.
Check this one out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1275894/posts
Seems that the states that get the most federal funds are also the states that give the most to charity.