Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2004

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

There appears to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the money they get back and whether they voted Bush, and a negative correlation with their population.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

D.C. is on the bottom of the list, but just to remove it from the rankings; it gets the most funding.  It should be dark red on your map (I think), not dark blue.

What does this correlate with, exactly?  Out of curiosity.

There appears to be a fairly strong positive correlation between the money they get back and whether they voted Bush, and a negative correlation with their population.

I suppose that is fairly logical, but the correlation seems to be more population than politics (hence Georgia, Texas, and Rhode Island), although it doesn't explain Vermont.

Is there any information on what formula they use to calculate the fundings?

The formula is based upon how much pork you can get.

Despite the fact that Democratic areas include a lot of poor people and a lot of high cost of living areas, Republican Congressional districts averaged $612 million more in spending than Democratic Congressional districts in 2000, and I'm sure it's worse now.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069049

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Like Senator Hatfield used to say about his "bringing home the beef" (he hated the term pork), Oregon never got its fair share back in taxes paid out, he was just trying to balance it out.

Looking at the list, and Oregon's place on it, it seems we (Oregonians) could use a little "bring home the beef" balance again.   

You're only 3 cents short. Well over a quarter of the country lives in a state that is at least 21 cents short.