The Mismatch of Federal Funds Among States

Some Are Givers, Others Are Takers

I have always assumed that in our federal system, money was generally allocated in a way that could be perceived as fair. I assumed that on a state by state level, what we pay in taxes was approximately equal to what we receive in federal funds. As it turns out, there are a few states that receive far more than their fair share, while others do not get enough! It's surprising to me that despite the disparity, not a lot of people seem to notice. The chart below shows the federal payback for every one dollar spent.

Whoa South Carolina!

For every dollar spent in taxes, South Carolina receives about $8 while Massachusetts receives less than $1. This seems crazy, but it is actually rather simple to explain. For decades in the 20th century, the south was run by Democrats and many Democrats in Congress gained seniority from decades long tenures and were able to earmark huge sums for their states. As a result, states like South Carolina and Louisiana receive tons of federal funds.

One caveat to this is that some federal funds are distributed unevenly because they have to be. Programs such as SNAP go to low-income families, and southern red states tend to have the most people in poverty and so they receive the most aid. But this only explains a part of the difference. 

Interestingly enough, Republican states that argue for shrinking the government and cutting spending actually receive the bulk of federal funds. Look back at the chart and notice that some of the most conservative states appear near the top but many of the most progressive states are near the bottom. So despite the fact that red states depict blue states as "takers," the reverse is actually true. 

What Your Drink Can Indicate About Political Preference

Alcohol and Party Ties

Sometimes statistical relationships can prove to be quite interesting. A new study by The Independent shows that your favorite choice of alcohol can be a strong indicator of your voting habits. They published a chart that shows the relationship between alcohol and liberal views as well as tendency to turn up on voting day.

One observation is that some drinks tend to reveal age. For example, drinkers of Jaegermeister or Don Julio are likely on the younger end of voters. These drinks are found towards the bottom of the chart, indicating lower voter turnout, which tends to make sense. On the other hand, drinkers of wine, who tend to be older, turnout more consistently for elections.

Republicans tend to drink dark colored alcohols while democrats prefer clear drinks such as vodkas or champagne. The study doesn't actually attempt to explain why this is so, but it is always possible to theorize. Despite these differences, it seems that rum, which is shown in purple, does not actually tend to suggest either a left or right leaning individual.

I find it particularly interesting that even though we may not be actively thinking about our political beliefs, we may accidentally reveal some information about our tendencies simply through ordering a drink. This is not to say that these relationships are foolproof or that drinking causes political affiliation, but it is nonetheless an interesting observation. 

The Great American Political Divide: Urban vs. Rural

Throughout most of the democratic world, elections results tend to split around regional differences. Historically this is true of the United States as well. Think back to the American Civil War. In presidential election of 1860 that preceded the war, the country split almost perfectly along a north south divide. The following map illustrates the stark divide in politics between north and south.

However, over the last 20-30 years in the United States, this long-standing pattern has begun to unravel. With each passing year, the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans has shifted more and more from a regional separation to one of urban vs. rural. Cities have increasingly swung Democratic while rural areas have become Republican strongholds. It seems that population density is becoming one of the biggest indicators of voting preference.

Take of example this map of midterm election results for 2010. Notice that most of the country looks strongly red; the Republican party controls a strong majority of the physical land area.

Notice also that this map is very different from the first. There seems to be few regional splits in voting preferences. Blue and red areas are largely intermixed throughout the country.

But now look at this third map. This shows the same results as the last map, but now the sizes of the districts have been changed to show them in proportion to their population. This image is barely recognizable as the United States. Notice how tiny the huge swath of red districts has become in comparison to the now prominent blue, Democrat controlled districts. You can clearly see Cape Cod, Long Island and the San Francisco Bay Area all colored blue. 

These blue areas almost exclusively represent densely populated urban areas. When looking at this map, the country looks much more evenly split. In the last election in 2012, 27 of the 30 largest urban areas in the country voted Democratic in the presidential election. 

If this trend continues with urbanization, the future of the Republican party as we know it may be uncertain.