Time to Gut the Pork from Red States

[itsrobert]

Blue States have been getting hosed long enough as they were financing the poor Red States. Blue states have been paying more to the Federal Government than they were getting back. Red States have been getting back more than they were paying to the Feds. Time to gut the pork of the Red States.

[AngryAmish]

1. Time to gut the pork, period

Are you listening Alaska, Boston and West Virginia.

[1932]

4. Amen.

[Caution]

9. What are you referring to for Boston?

[AngryAmish]

12. The Big Dig

Hundreds of millions of our dollars gone, given to gangster and the damn thing is already falling down. You have soiled your own nest. You get nothing until you put those responsible in jail and have a respectable period of probation - maybe 10 years.

[Selatius]

17. Did you know Bechtel is behind the Big Dig?

Did you know they are also one of the largest "reconstruction" firms in Iraq outside of Halliburton?

[AngryAmish]

19. Again, the city fathers of Boston allowed them in

That is what I meant by soiling your own nest. Bechtel is one of the gangsters (and there are mobsters involved too). The Big Dig is on par with the NY City Hall of the Tammany Hall era.

[Selatius]

20. I heard the "city fathers" killed rent control in Boston, too

Too many poor people living in the metro area, I guess. Had to find some way to remove them out of sight.

[Ferret Annica]

66. No problem, liberating vacant buildings and setting up

fortified squats means less money spent on things like rent anyway.

[Ravenseye]

21. Just out of curiosity

What should they have done instead of the Big Dig to alleviate the traffic problems involved with the Central Artery?

Even with the Big Dig costs, Massachusetts still spends less federal money within the state than is taken in.

[AngryAmish]

22. The traffic problems were in Boston

Boston (and the metro area) should have paid for it.

[Ravenseye]

25. So the Federal Government should pay for no infrastructure?

No roads in West Virginia where they can't afford to build them themselves? No rural electrification where farmers living in the middle of nowhere can't afford to lay the power lines themselves?

[Pab Sungenis]

29. If the Federal government is going to fund infrastructure in big cities

it would be better spent building and modernizing mass transit. You want to alleviate traffic problems? Fewer cars on the streets.

[Caution]

34. Boston has one of the better systems in the country

The roads before the Big Dig were legendarily bad. The infrastructure absolutely needed to be fixed as anyone who spent any time driving in or around Boston will tell you.

[AngryAmish]

46. If so, then pay for it yourself

Local problems, local solutions. It is easy to solve your problems on my checkbook.

[Ravenseye]

60. What part don't you understand

They essentially are paying for it. They've paid out more in federal taxes than has been spent in their state for years, including the money spent on the Big Dig. If the people of Massachusettes had not paid any federal taxes and given it all to the state, they not only would have paid for it themselves, but have money left over.

They already only receive back 77 cents in spending for every dollar taxed. Would you prefer it be lower? get your hands out of THEIR checkbook.

[Ravenseye]

39. While I agree with you...

...I think the Big Dig was necessary on many levels.

Firstly the traffic really was an issue. It was so inadequate that it caused, it seemed, half the city to sit there and idle in stop and go traffic. The pollution increase from that was marked. I worked in the North End and had to walk underneath the Central Artery every day. You could SMELL the time of day from the pollution levels. So environmentally it is an improvement.

Also environmentally, but also one of civics, is putting the road underground and replacing it with eventually a ton of green space. It will open up the city once again between the waterfront north end and the market and financial districts. It really was a barrier before, and this will bring back parts of the city, revitalizing business. So commercially it's an improvement.

I could go on and on. Yes, mass transit needs to be improved, and part of the big dig involved mass transit, but Boston's system is already better than nearly any city in the country. While it could stand dto have been improved, this was a necessary step. We need to improve our country's infrastructure, and the Central Artery really needed to go.

[AngryAmish]

30. Boston couldn't afford it?

I have 2 words for you-- Ha and Ha. The comparison is not apt.

[Caution]

33. So the states should now be responsible for infrastructure?

Government isn't here to help make our lives better? MA pays federal taxes too. In fact we put a lot more into the federal tax budget than the vast majority of states while we rank in the bottom 10 of states that receive pork barrel spending yet you wish to punish the state and its citizens.

[Ravenseye]

40. Apparently

The argument of some seems to be it's perfectly fine for people in states like Massachusettes to pay for the infrastructure improvements of people in West Virginia and North Dakota, but not in their own state. You're right. Even with the Big Dig, the people of Massachusettes still see more money leave their state than get spent in it. Complaining about spending on a vital infrastructure project in Massachuesttes, just because it was very expensive, seems ignorant to me.

[wicket]

49. You got that right!

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

[Ravenseye]

38. How much have the people in and around Boston put into the system?

Year after year people in Massachusettes put more into the Federal system by way of taxes than they get back as spending. They could have completely paid for it with state funds, and had more money left over, had they not put it into the Federal Coffer.

Infrastructure is a national issue, and while I don't consider bridges to nowhere important to our nation, true aspects of our infrastructure that are 50-100 years old or older, and falling apart will eventually become a national security issue.

The comparison is apt.

1) Is it acceptable for Government to pay for Infrastructure? Yes.
2) Did the people of masschusetts put MORE into the federal system than they got back via the Big Dig? Yes.
3) Did the Big Dig improve the infrastructure of Boston and the surrounding region? Yes.
3) What's the big fuckin deal?

[negativenihil]

27. don't kid yourself

the big dig has done little to help the traffic issue in boston. They took the same number of lanes and simply put them underground.

ps - i drive through the big dig twice a day to get to and from work.

[Ravenseye]

28. I've heard other opposing anecdotal evidence

though I do think that it wasn't enough. The plan for the big dig was for the traffic of 30 years ago, and by the time it was finished it was already 30 years too little. I have heard though other close friends who have to drive it daily (from the north into the city then out to the west) about how it's improved their commute 100 fold.

[Caution]

35. I've been driving in Boston since well before the Big Dig and the difference is massive

It is MUCH better than it was.

[Warpy]

37. Cripes! It would have to be!

The Central Artery was the scariest driving experience in the western hemisphere. Driving in Mexico is a breeze compared to that.

I just hope they get it fixed before that half assed mob construction manages to kill anybody else.

[Cobalt Violet]

72. I'm with you on that one.

Big difference.

[negativenihil]

26. hundreds of millions?

try about $14 billion.

I wish it were only a few hundred million at this point.

[Caution]

31. This is not a pork project. It was absolutely necessary for the region

Additionally, *I* and the citizens of MA haven't done crap, the Republican administrations have failed in oversight of the project. And while there have been a few hiccups (one tragic) and while the cost has skyrocketed over the life of the project, Boston and MA are much better for this. This is not a useless bridge to nowhere. Additionally, MA ranks 46th in pork barrel spending for 2006. So please take this complaint to the states that it actually applies to.

Here is MA rank over the last few years in pork:

2006 - 46
2005 - 39
2004 - 39
2003 - 48
2002 - 49
2001 - 46
2000 - 43

Source:
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2000Porkpercap

Additionally MA ranks near the top of the list for states that pay into the federal coffers but ranks in the bottom for what we get back, putting us in the bottom 10 of that ratio in the nation.

since 2000, MA has received back less than $0.80 for every dollar it has put into the system. By comparison, Alaska has average over $1.70 for every dollar put in.

So while you may think we are sucking up taxpayer resources you might want to get your facts straight. MA receives very little federal money, we rank 43rd in overall taxation per person (contrary to the Taxachusetts moniker), we have a $2.1 billion rainy-day fund (surplus) thanks to our fiscal responsibility. We are a nearly completely blue state, we have equality for gays and we just elected our first African-American Governor.

Rather than knock us, other states should be looking to emulate what we have accomplished here.

[AngryAmish]

47. One more time, do you deny that this project was utterly corrupt?

Do you deny that the gangsters in your town didn't make millions of dollars?

Again, you have soiled your own nest and you deserve no federal dollars for a generation. We get screwed here too (and your metric is lacking because defense dollars tend to make the local areas poorer) but we suck it up. However the folks in Boston are proven thieves and I am sick of paying for it.

[Ravenseye]

62. You've won me over

I feel the same way about New Orleans. The officials down there have proven time and again to be utterly corrupt. They even know it down there and reelect some of them.

Nah they've soiled their own nest. The people of NOLA don't deserve federal dollars for a generation either becuase the people in NOLA are proven thieves.

:sarcasm:

[Caution]

63. Yes I do deny the project as "utterly corrupt"

Was there some corruption? Sure, Did the project provide good jobs to a lot of people in the region though? yes? Did the project provide much needed infrastructure to the city? yes. Shoudl the corruption of a few officials deny an entire state any federal dollars? Absolutely not.

Honestly, who the hell do you think you are to simply say "screw that state!" You think you know what happened in the big dig because of a few newspaper articles abotu it? You think you are some kind of arbiter of what is good for the people of this country?

There isn't a state in the country that you couldn't say this about some project or another. I notice that your profile says you are from Illinois where the corruption of the Democratic machine in Chicago is well known and continuing. Shall we deny all federal dollars to your state as well (and I am well aware that Illinois has gotten very few of these lately, JUST LIKE MA).

I don't want any pork barrel spending either, but when it comes to vital infrastrucutre, as a liberal i feel that it is up to the government to provide this. Do you have any idea what 20 years (a generation) of no fdereal dollars would do to any state? Buy yourself a clue and get off your high horse.

And let's talk about my metric. For every dollar paid by residents of MA, we received back $0.70. Which means that we more than paid for the Big Dig ourselves, in fact we paid for the Big Dig and we paid for that fucking bridge to nowhere. It's simple math.

[AngryAmish]

68. "Gimmie mine" is not a noble civic theme

Infrastructure, when it benefits interstate commerce, is a federal concern.


"I don't want any pork barrel spending either, but when it comes to vital infrastructure, as a liberal i feel that it is up to the government to provide this." Yes but the Big Dig, by any reasonable objective standard, was Boston's problem and should have been built by Boston. It was not and if you can't see this as exhibit A of governmental waste and theft then one has no credibility.

I'm not picking on Boston but it is so blatant that it gets one's attention.

[Cobalt Violet]

73. It wasn't just Boston's problem.

People flooding into Boston every day from the North shore and New Hampshire, the South Shore, and Metro West. People coming into the Boston via the airport from all over the place. It's hardly just Boston's problem.


Hang it up!

[mom cat]

67. Don't worry about the Bid Dig. We can use it for submarines after the oceans rise!

[Selatius]

13. Amen to that. n/t

[Warpy]

16. NM is listening

but it looks like the chief piggy, Wilson(R-COW) might have ridden a wave of robocalls masquerading as the election board and telling Democratic voters their polling places had changed back to Congress. She does bring home the military bacon, along with that old fossil, Domenici. He's retiring. Maybe next time we can get rid of her.

[twilight_sailing]

24. Domenici

is retiring? Good. I am tired of him too.

[City Lights]

32. Absolutely!

:toast:

[Lasher]

50. WV's Senator Byrd will chair the Senate Appropriations Committee

I doubt that we'll be left out in the cold, as far as federal funding is concerned.

[AngryAmish]

69. Again, why?

Trying to take other folks money is not noble.

[Lasher]

74. Why what?

Why will Senator Byrd chair the Senate Appropriations Committee? Because he has seniority. He has paid his dues by supporting the Democratic party in Congress his whole life. That's the way it works. If you don't like that, then go serve just as he has for about 30 years while you wait in line and then you might be lucky enough to get a chance to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee if Democrats happen to be in the majority at that time. It looks like Senator Durbin has made some progress in that direction on behalf of your state. Let's check up on him in a couple of decades to see how he's doing in that regard.

The allocation process is not perfect but your view is simplistic and distorted. I agree that trying to take other folks' money is not noble but you have made no convincing argument that anything like that is going on. Repeating the same fallacious assumption over and over does nothing to make it credible.

[NaturalHigh]

64. Great idea.

I wish I could nominate your post to the greatest page.

[unlawflcombatnt]

79. Exactly

Republicans keep yapping about the comparatively small amounts of money that go to social welfare ("entitlement" programs) and ignore the huge amounts going to Corporate welfare.

And the biggest addition to "entitlement" programs was the Medicare Prescription Drug giveaway, with a long-term cost 3 times as large as the anticipated Social Security deficit. And that was a Republican-sponsored bill, not by Democrats.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

EconomicPopulistCommentary

___________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[barb162]

2. Is CA blue or red? 2 Dem senators, one GOP guv

It gets plenty of pork

Is it determined by presidential election only?

[featherman]

5. Pretty sure the blue West Coast states (CA, OR, WA) all have a negative

cash flow of taxes to Washington versus returning government largess. There is a chart on all this somewhere and for the most part the red states are the ones with a positive flow.

[Ravenseye]

8. I think they're refering to this map

Blue states tend to get less spending in their state per how much they're taxed. For instance, for every tax dollar taken in New York, only 79 cents are actually spent there. In California it's also 79 cents.

Meanwhile in red states, it tends to be the reverse. In Mississippi they spend 1.77 for every dollar they're taxed. Alaska is the worst at 1.87 spent for every dollar. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part Red states get a heck of a lot more for their tax dollar, subsidized by blue states.

[lcordero2]

23. Maybe Lamont should have drove home the

GODDAMN 66 cents!!!

[Blue_In_AK]

41. I think you can pretty much count on Alaska getting less pork....

which is just fine with me. Nobody I know here asked for those stupid bridges. In Alaska's defense though, we do have infrastructure issues here that other states don't have to deal with that make normal projects extra expensive. This state is one-fifth the size of the rest of the U.S. but has a road system about the size of Rhode Island's. Thus, rural projects are a logistical nightmare.

But speaking for myself personally, I'm not unhappy at all to see Ted Stevens and Don Young put on a short leash, and with the current makeup of the Senate, Lisa Murkowski should feel more free to indulge her "inner Democrat." She is much more centrist than the other two.

[Ravenseye]

43. Yeah it's about being reasonable

Alaska roads per mile are always going to cost more than say Arizona's. Hell you can build a road in arizona and it'll be in at least decent shape for 10-20 years, or heck....depending on traffic in rural areas maybe a century. Alaskan roads thanks to the freeze and unfreeze probably could use to be redone nearly every year in places. Or at least heavily patched. Same for many other northern areas where the ground freeze causes the roads to buckle every winter.

A billion dollars for 2 bridges to nowhere though....yikes...Don Young is good at his job, and that job is Pork.

[Blue_In_AK]

44. We gave him a run for his money though this time.

I'm so proud of Diane Benson for pulling 40 percent, given that she was so outspent. It just goes to show that even here in Alaska many people will choose integrity over pork. And it also goes to show that there are a lot more progressives in this state than people give us credit for. It gives me hope.

[Kerrytravelers]

11. Well, we have a rethug gov and Insur. Comm.

But the Lt. Governor, AG, Sec of State, Treasure and Controller and Dems. Both Houses are very Democratic. We go Democratic on Presidential elections. We defeat Props like Parental Notification.

I know some like to think because we have a rethug gov and red areas that we are a red state. I, however, beg to differ.

[Shakespeare]

57. Uh, that would be WRONG. California pays out far more in federal taxes...

...than it gets back. Every year. LOTS more. California has been supporting wastelands like Oklahoma and Wyoming for decades now.

[YOY]

3. Oh yeah, great idea...

Cut out their funding. Make 'em even redder. That'll win the hearts of the red states... :eyes:

Cutting pork alltogether is a good idea, or better yet making some serious initiatives to better the infrastructure nationwide and to actually unify and not divide.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

6. Go look at the road system in WVA and report back, OK?

Oh, and tell some of the poorest people in the US that have been exploited by their GOP "representatives" that you'll be taking their "pork" back.

People who look at the new majority as a whoopin' stick are starting to piss me off.

[mmonk]

7. Most states are a combination.

My state has more democrats in the House, two republican senators, a democratic governor, a majority democratic legislature.

[blondeatlast]

10. I say we go kosher, period. nt

[Lars39]

14. We have a Democratic governor in TN,

despite the state being considered red.

[sutz12]

15. Sure, cut pork, but do it everywhere...

The thing is, most blue states are more affluent than red states to begin with. Therefore, their ratio of taxes paid to federal bennies received will always be lower than the average red state, no matter what party is in power.

We still need federal funding and assistance in infrastructure, education, Medicare, etc. We do need fair distribution of those funds.

The pork we need to erase are the pet projects for some representative to get a bridge or a community center named after himself or something.

Finally, if this election was about nothing other than revenge, we'll lose it again in '08.

[RedStateShame]

18. How about the pork from ALL states? Hell, if we're in a war, we should all act like it.

That is what we've been touting, right? That we're in this together???

[Bake]

36. What exactly is a "red" state? I know a lot of PURPLE ones.

Seems to me you just want to hurt a lot of people, including many Democrats, in "red" states. Don't forget that this country is just about evenly divided - this election, if anything, showed that. Virginia elected a Dem Senator - by 7,200 votes out of 3 MILLION. Montana elected a Democratic Senator by what, 1,200 votes?

BAke

[QC]

51. That's too subtle for the simpleminded, unfortunately.

They tend to like binaries.

[wuushew]

65. Utah

sans Salt Lake City

[theboss]

42. Define Red State

Is WV a red state? It voted for Bush. And that's pretty much it.

[Lasher]

55. What state are you from? Let's compare.

I can't tell what state you're from because you have your profile disabled. I'm from West Virginia and we're pretty blue according to any reasonable analysis.

[loyalsister]

45. What do you mean by "pork"

The federal funds that a lot of red states bring in is matching funds for programs like medicaid.
There is also fed funding for city and county level projects.
Are health care projects pork?
Will funds for rebuilding in LA be "pork"?

[Lasher]

75. Since no one else has offered a reply, please consider this one

"Pork" is federal spending that goes to someone else's state. If you own state is the beneficiary of such spending, however, it is categorized as responsibly allocated funding.

[Lasher]

77. Here's a better answer

Inspired by your good question, I decided to do some research. This whole issue is bullpoop, to be polite. The argument often includes a reference to a list such as this one, which has been shared elsewhere in this thread, with an inference that states having a high rank are getting more federal funding than they deserve. But the source data for the list includes spending for Social Security and Medicare, which is the biggest category of domestic federal spending. And since the states' percentages of elderly population are ignored in the development of this list, the argument in the OP (blue states are being cheated and red states are getting more than their fair share) is questionable.

I offered more detail here.

[wicket]

48. Take a look at this:

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

[txindy]

52. Texas is 36th, behind Rhode Island and Oregon?

Huh.

[tammywammy]

71. During the Senate debate

Radnofsky stated that KBH wasn't bringing home the pork for Texas. Basically, if there's going to be pork, then we should get a piece of it too.

I was surprised at first, then I realized how many toll roads are going up in the DFW area and basic traffic problems, and then it made sense to me.

The only big pork project I can think of for Dallas was the Trinity Bridge. :shrug:

[Lasher]

76. Is all federal spending, such as that for military bases, included?

Does this include spending for federal government operations in northern Virginia and southern Maryland, which function as part of Washington, DC? How about federal matching funds for Medicare?

I was unable to find any answers to such questions at the website.

Edit: I just read this article at the website, which caused me to conclude that all federal spending is included. Consider this:

The scraps of pork that clutter the federal budget each year, infuriating as they are, are not large on the massive scale of total federal spending. A Nevada congressman will undoubtedly brag about that $25,000 mariachi program that Congress just funded in one of his local schools, but it will not change Nevada’s ratio of spending to taxes. Even a military base, usually considered the biggest, juiciest pork chop that a state can hope for, doesn’t change the spending-to-tax ratio more than a penny in a medium-sized state.

Spending does lean red, but the reason is demographic, not political. Most federal money is spent on retirees, especially Social Security and Medicare. And of course the elderly have been moving south and west for years. Every large blue state saw its elderly population depleted during the late 1990s. As might be expected, red Florida and Arizona took in many of the elderly, but they weren’t alone. Almost every Mountain and Southern state expanded its elderly population.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/75.html

So states having a high percentage of elderly people would receive more federal spending, in the form of Social Security and Medicare benefits. And considering that other federal spending pales in comparison as pointed out above, the list is useless as a reference in determining where all the "pork" is going. That is, unless you think Arizona's highway funding should be cut because your aunt and uncle just retired and moved there from Chicago.

Also worthy of note, and again in reference to the article, expenditures that could be reasonably categorized as "pork" do not actually comprise a large portion of total federal spending. But it would be interesting to see such a list with expenditures for Social Security and Medicare, and probably some other social programs such as Medicaid, excluded from its source data.

[buddysmellgood]

53. They are all purple states. We are all Americans. Stop the divisive bullshit.

[starroute]

54. To some extent, the imbalance is inevitable

Cities and urban areas are wealth-producing machines, the engines that make the entire economy hum. That's the way it's always been, ever since cities were first invented. The hinterlands exist to supply food and raw materials and get a trickle-down effect from the urban production of wealth.

To the extent that our urban infrastructure is being allowed to decay while the rural areas get bridges to nowhere, that's just plain wrong and short-sighted and needs to be redressed. But even at the best, there will still be a net flow of wealth from blue states to red ones.

[Laelth]

56. I live in a red state.

Nevertheless, I agree with the OP. The current allocation of federal funds is not fair.

That said, I think my state is still a net loser because of it's relatively high population. It seems the low population states (which tend to be red) get more than they give whereas the high population states (which tend to be blue) give more than they get.

-Laelth

[NuttyFluffers]

58. as long as it turns into long term investment i'm all for this.

a lot of red states could really use an infusion into their economies. and instead of kickbacks and pork i think a real long term strategy of investment would be better.

[B Calm]

59. Bridges to no where, etc etc

[recidivist]

61. The appropriators, both parties, are a law unto themselves.

The pork racket is thoroughly bipartisan. Sure, the majority party tilts things a bit its own way, but the appropriations committees in both the House and Senate are notorious among their colleagues in both parties for across-the-board self dealing. The majority -- again, the party doesn't much matter -- cuts the minority in so that no one blows the whistle. Bob Byrd and Ted Stevens get along very, very well.

[Lasher]

78. The numbers don't support your argument

The five major categories of federal domestic spending are:

Retirement and Disability by far the largest of the five federal spending categories - includes fiscal year obligations for Social Security payments of all types, federal employee retirement and disability payments, veterans benefits, and other related federal expenditures.

Other Direct Payments includes spending (usually fiscal year obligations) for Medicare, federal unemployment insurance benefits, refunded Earned Income Tax Credits, agricultural assistance, Food Stamps, education grants, federal employee benefit premiums, rent supplements and assistance, disaster assistance, and other direct federal payments to entities and individuals (aside from retirement and disability payments).

Grants -- consists of grant payments (usually obligations incurred at the time the grant is awarded) to state and local governments and non-governmental recipients for block grants, formula grants, project grants, and cooperative agreements from all major departments and agencies of the federal government and for a wide variety of programs and purposes, including Medicaid, highways and transit, education, food and nutrition services, community development, employment and training, energy assistance, environmental protection, low-income housing operation and rehabilitation, parks, airports, and other issues.

Procurement - includes spending for the government's purchase of goods and services based on actual outlays in the case of the U.S. Postal Service and based on the value of obligations (rather than outlays) for contract expenditures in the case of the Defense Department and all other federal agencies. For contract obligations, the data generally include only the current year actions, although the obligations may include amounts from multiple years for contract actions that cover less than three years total. Most contract actions of less than $25,000 are excluded. The spending data are assigned to states based on the reported principal place of performance. If more than one location is involved, place of performance becomes the location involved in largest dollar share of a contract. In some cases, the procurement amount is assigned to the billing or home office location of the contractor. Federal procurement accounting includes spending on utilities, building leases, and other services entered into via contractual agreement. For some Defense Department contracts, the place of performance is classified information.

Salaries and Wages - includes fiscal year outlays for pay to both civilian and military employees of the federal government. The amounts are distributed to the states based on place of employment rather than place of residence. For all federal employees except uniformed personnel, geographical estimates are used to distribute salaries and wages among the states.

http://www.nemw.org/understand_fedspend.htm

The first 2 categories are not likely to contain much 'pork barrel spending'. And it is more objective to compare federal expenditures on a per capita basis than it is on federal taxes paid. If you eliminate the first 2 categories and total the remaining 3 on a per capita basis, you get the following ranking for FY 2004:

Total Per-Capita Federal Spending by State: Fiscal 2004
Excludes Retirement & Disability and Other Direct Payments categories

1 Alaska 10,138
2 Virginia 7,997
3 Maryland 7,226
4 New Mexico 6,677
5 Hawaii 5,843
6 Wyoming 5,055
7 Connecticut 4,757
8 North Dakota 4,422
9 Massachusetts 4,139
10 Maine 4,120
11 Alabama 3,996
12 Vermont 3,813
13 Arizona 3,790
14 Montana 3,744
15 South Dakota 3,661
16 Tennessee 3,636
17 Missouri 3,609
18 Washington 3,561
19 New York 3,535
20 Kentucky 3,523
21 Colorado 3,444
22 Rhode Island 3,439
23 Mississippi 3,391
24 West Virginia 3,360
25 Oklahoma 3,275
26 California 3,254
27 South Carolina 3,215
28 Louisiana 3,105
29 Utah 3,098
30 Texas 3,088
31 Idaho 3,062
32 Georgia 2,933
33 Kansas 2,895
34 Pennsylvania 2,889
35 North Carolina 2,775
36 New Hampshire 2,707
37 Nebraska 2,591
38 Arkansas 2,557
39 Ohio 2,533
40 New Jersey 2,506
41 Delaware 2,409
42 Florida 2,383
43 Illinois 2,369
44 Iowa 2,331
45 Oregon 2,328
46 Minnesota 2,321
47 Nevada 2,257
48 Indiana 2,228
49 Wisconsin 2,181
50 Michigan 2,072

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
1/6/2006
http://www.nemw.org/fedspend2.htm

The above list is not a perfect indication of where pork barrel spending went during FY 2004, but it does a much better job than of doing this than other lists that have been shared in this thread.

With Alaska ranking number 1 it is perhaps not a coincidence that Ted Stevens chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee for most of the time from 1997 through 2004. Given their proximity to Washington DC, it is not surprising to see Virginia and Maryland near the top of the list. West Virginia ranked number 24 that year.

Figures don't lie but liars figure

[Clark2008]

70. OK - but when a red state child starves, I'm blaming you.

Look - this is AMERICA - we're a unit.

And nearly half of the people in "red" states voted Democratic. Are you going to punish the 48 percent of us who voted for Harold Ford in Tennessee just because you have some personal axe to grind? The problem is and always has been that the rural areas vote red and the urban areas vote blue and there simply are more urban areas in the "blue" states, thus, tipping the balance. This is not a state vs. state issue - it's an urban (with more alternative media) issue vs. a rural (with less alternative media) isse.

The pork to the "red" states with be cut, anyway, because the Republicans are in the minority.

Geesch.