A Localist's Guide to "Stimulus"

The Center for American Progress has assembled a map-guide to how various states are making out with federal stimulus spending, at least as planned as of Friday in the House's proposed Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Their caveats:

This map shows state-by-state allocations for the aspects of the plan for which we could establish where the money is going. This constitutes 66 percent of the total cost of the package. The map also shows the proportion of the funds that will help each state balance their budgets rather than providing additional funding for specific programs.

Some big-state highlights: California  gets $63 billion, with 12 percent set aside for budget balancing; Florida gets $29 billion, with 12 percent set aside; Virginia gets $11 billion with 14 percent set aside; New York gets $41 billion, with a 9 percent set aside. Check your own state, give a big boo-yaa if you are getting more than your neighbors.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Untermensch||

    Need to check that first link up there, because it's not really a valid link at all...

  • ||

    This map is pretty worthless because it only shows total number rather than per capita. For example, CA gets ~$1,700, NY gets ~$2,100 and AK gets ~$2,500 per person. CA and NY have "valid" needs, but AK writes checks for their citizens, what's their excuse for getting a $1.75B with 9% set aside to balance their budget?

  • Brian Doherty||

    Unter---Uh, yup. Fixed now. The first link should be working (same as the second link, actually).

  • Matt Moore||

    Hang on, in the post below this one Krugman is arguing that tax cuts are bad as stimulus because some people might save the money rather than spend it. How is setting aside money for budget balancing any different from saving?

  • ||

    Budget set-asides? Funding state government deficits raises my blood pressure, but how is it supposed to stimulate my economy?

  • Naga Sadow||

    Mississippi! Whoo! We got more than Arkansas! Whoo!

    Okay, given my shout out. Can I be depressed now?

  • Glodie||

    Turn the light blue to red and you'd have a map quite similar to the 2008 electoral map.

  • Nigel Watt||

    Um, Texas doesn't need any federal funding to balance the state budget. What the fuck?

  • Untermensch||

    Thanks Brian. I'd guess it was probably the same link, but couldn't be sure.

  • SpongePaul||

    Why are we the taxpayers giving federal tax monies ( i would rather not but anyway) to balance STATE BUDGETS!!!!!!!! So mad, seriously thinking bout moving to amsterdamn, lol

  • ||

    Um, Texas doesn't need any federal funding to balance the state budget. What the fuck?

    We also don't need a state income tax to balance the budget. How sweet is that?

  • ||

    I think Senator Byrd must be in a coma, West Virginia only got $3 billion out of this.

  • Paul||

    You kids notice Washington up in the corner at more than $10b? That's right. Fork it over, flyover country bitchez. We want our Big Dig II, The Big Dig Goes to Washington.

    My estimate before completion? $20billion. Will that be cash or charge?

  • ||

    Paul,

    As Mo noted, this is worthless mapping.

    Per capita WA gets less than the nat'l average ($1700), so flyover this beeyatch.

  • ||

    Why are we paying federal taxes so they can turn around and ship that money back to our states to lower our state taxes?

    Doesn't that seem a little odd?

  • ||

    And not much for the home state (just average) - where's the IL love? Oh yeah, Governor Dead Man Walking.

  • T||

    We also don't need a state income tax to balance the budget. How sweet is that?

    It'd be even sweeter if we weren't fucking everybody over so we can cash in on the Fed for $38 Billion. But I guess we can spend it on ridiculous highway projects even better than most states. After all, I've lived in Texas off and on for 20 years now and I-10 has been under construction in every major city that entire time.

  • Tyler||

    "Why are we paying federal taxes so they can turn around and ship that money back to our states to lower our state taxes?

    Doesn't that seem a little odd?"

    Because states might actually have to raise their taxes if they want to pay for this shit. The fed can just print money or borrow it from other countries!

    "Taxes? Debt? Inflation? We have no clue what you're talking about!"
    *printing press whirring*

  • Paul||

    Per capita WA gets less than the nat'l average ($1700), so flyover this beeyatch.

    that's because they're calculating that tunnel to only cost $4 billion. When was the last time boring a tunnel underneath a metropolitain downtown only cost $4 billion?

  • Taktix®||

    I live in Florida, so I already know we're getting a big chuck of that cash. Gotta keep that AARP lobby in big sunglasses and Metamucil...

  • economist||

    "Why are we paying federal taxes so they can turn around and ship that money back to our states to lower our state taxes?

    Doesn't that seem a little odd?"

    Because the feds are "borrowing" a lot of the money ("borrowing" in quotes because the word usually implies the money will be paid back).

  • ||

    give a big boo-yaa if you are getting more than your neighbors.

    HA! That's brilliant Brian. Now see if you can work in a dig on Kulow the Commie.

  • dhex||

    taktix is in the pocket of big wrinkle.

  • Taktix®||

    taktix is in the pocket of big wrinkle.

    Damn you, dhex!

    *shakes fist*

    I started laughing loudly and I am at work -- not using the internet for any personal reason.

    Win!

  • Xeones||

    Old Dominion, what what!

  • Some Coloradan||

    Colorado gets more than any adjacent state, but seeing as we are surrounded by mostly empty mountains, desert, and plains, that may not mean much. Approximate per capita: $1473.

  • ||

    A Localist's Guide to "Stimulus"

    Well, you know the old saying:

    All stimulus is local.

  • Paul||

    Always remember, folks... to the rapist, it's "stimulus". To those getting raped, it's well, something else entirely.

  • Kaitlin Duck Sherwood||

    Here's a map of the per-capita proposed stimulus projected aid:
    http://maps.webfoot.com/demos/stimulus2009.html

    California actually fares pretty poorly, except on the tax credits for college measure. I was surprised at how little Michigan got, also.

    Per capita, small states did better than large states, probably because small states have way more Senate representation per capita than the big states.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement