There is a major disparity in the US tax system, and I'm not talking about income taxes. I'm talking about Giver states versus Taker states. Giver states are those states that receive less in federal funding and programs than they pay in taxes, while Taker states receive more thant hey pay in. To use a crude (and to some, offensive) analogy, some states are the wealthy who pay the majority of the income taxes and some are the welfare mothers who qualify for the Earned Income Credit and get back more than they paid in.
If you believe the hype and rhetoric thrown around by the Republican party in the US, you might think that they were all from Giver states, being leeched by those income redistributing liberals who want a welfare state and want to destroy human motivation and competition in the interests of equality. You would be wrong.
Every year, a non profit research group named the Tax Foundation, studies how much each state receives in federal benefits and compares that to the amount it pays in federal taxes. The article linked above notes
"For example, according to the most recent data, for every dollar the average North Dakotan paid in federal taxes, he received $2.07 in federal benefits. But while someone in Fargo was doubling his money, his counterpart in neighboring Minnesota was being shortchanged. For every dollar Minnesotans sent to Washington, only 77 cents in federal spending flowed back to the state."
In their analysis, 33 states were classified as Takers, while 16 were Givers. Only Indiana manages to find that perfect and serene balance of getting back every dollar they put in.
But how did those states vote in 2000?
"George W. Bush was the candidate of the Taker states. Al Gore was the candidate of the Giver states.
78 percent of Mr. Bush's electoral votes came from Taker states.
76 percent of Mr. Gore's electoral votes came from Giver states.
Of the 33 Taker states, Mr. Bush carried 25.
Of the 16 Giver states, Mr. Gore carried 12."
Have Republicans become the party of the welfare state? It certainly seems so, at least in the realm of federal spending.