[lugsoul]

"Professor Olson believes the aggregate map of the territory Bush won was mostly land owned by taxpayers. Gore's territory encompassed all of the dense population centers, where a larger proportion of citizens are dependent upon government support."

Here's a stat I'd like to see - how much of the aggregate map of the territory Bush won was land owned by the Federal government?

[skip2myloo]

There are stats that compare the Federal Taxes collected in a state versus the number of federal tax dollars they receive.

For example Washington, D.C. is a beneficiary state because for every federal tax dollar collected, they get back about $6.85 in federal tax dollars (that's exclusive of the money it actually takes to run the federal government).

I think Walter Williams had a recent article on this subject.

Anyhow, I would guess that if we were to depict the states in red and blue that were either beneficiary states or donor states -- they would correlate almost identically to the Bush/Gore states.

[lugsoul]

Well, that's a different issue than what I raised, but I'm willing to take that bet.

As to the issue I did raise, the commentator proposed that the land in the area won by GWB was "mostly" owned by taxpayers. And I thought that this assertion is most certainly not true in, say, Idaho. Probably not Montana, either. Or Wyoming, home state of the Veep. Or Utah. After all, in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, the majority of land is Fed land. Which some folks earn a living off of, at below-market rates. Worth a consideration when you are criticizing government largesse.

[labard1]

American farmers are not NOW dependent upon government support?