Dean Lacy: Why do red states have the most moochers?
09/25/2012 12:00 AM
09/25/2012 7:28 AM
No sooner did Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney revive the moocher myth than his critics jumped in with evidence to challenge it.
The moocher myth is this: People who vote Republican are successful, responsible strivers who pay taxes and keep the U.S. government afloat, while people who vote for Democrats are irresponsible moochers living off government programs. In Romney’s phrase, they are the 47 percent “who are dependent on government, who believe they are victims.”
But research has pointed out that the states that got the most per capita in federal dollars were more likely to vote for Republicans. What explains this paradox?
Let’s start with the numbers.
Every year, about 30 states receive more in federal spending than they pay in taxes, while the other 20 states bankroll the federal government. New Mexico and Mississippi are usually the greatest net beneficiaries of spending, receiving roughly $2 in spending for every dollar paid in taxes. New Jersey and Illinois are the greatest net contributors to the federal government, receiving about 60 cents in spending for every dollar paid in taxes. States in the Northeast, Great Lakes and Pacific Coast regions generally lose money to the federal government, while Southern and Great Plains states benefit.
If we think of states as voters – and they are in presidential elections, because of the Electoral College – then the moocher myth is backward. Starting with the 2000 election, the states that have benefited the most from federal spending have voted Republican. Those that pay the most in taxes per dollar received in spending vote Democratic. This paradox occurs even controlling for a state’s per capita income, total population, racial composition, education level and defense spending.
At the county level, the moocher myth is more intriguing. The Census Bureau counts federal dollars in five broad categories: retirement and disability payments, salaries and wages, procurement contracts, grants, and other direct payments. In 2004 – the most recent year the Tax Foundation calculated the tax burden per county – the counties that received the most per person in retirement or grants had higher vote margins for Democrat John Kerry.
But the counties that received the highest per capita spending in the category “other direct payments” voted for George W. Bush. “Other direct payments” includes Medicaid, food stamps, crop subsidies, housing assistance and many other programs that people generally think of as “welfare.”
It remains a mystery why places that receive the most per person in federal spending, particularly on welfare programs, vote in presidential elections for the party that wants to cut those programs. The most likely suspects are Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
The New Deal and Great Society programs forged by Roosevelt and Johnson sent federal dollars to the South, which was largely Democratic from the 1940s through the 1960s. In the 1970s, the South switched to Republican presidential candidates but continued to elect members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who protected the flow of federal dollars to their states.
The separation of powers between the president and Congress also separates national interests represented by the president from local interests represented in Congress. Voters in net beneficiary states have the luxury of voting for presidential candidates who pledge to cut taxes and halt the expansion of government while knowing that their congressional delegations will continue to protect federal spending.
Join the Discussion
The Wichita Eagle is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.