This isn't in the least surprising, since it's been previously noted that "red" states in general draw the most in federal benefits, overall costing more than they contribute to the federal budget. #ddtb
Reshared post from +Les Jenkins
The irony of this cannot be overstated. The people most likely to benefit from it are often the same people most likely to decry it. Unless you're rich, being Republican is acting against your own self-interest.
Embedded Link
MAP: Health Care Law Could Disproportionately Benefit Republican Districts
In an analysis released yesterday in Politico, three officials from the Kaiser Family Foundation claim that the health care law could disproportionately benefit GOP-represented districts, particularly in lower income Southern and rural areas where residents face higher uninsurance rates and more difficulty finding affordable health care. The authors — Larry Levitt, Drew Altman, and Gary Claxton — note than 233 congressional districts are expected to see a greater percentage of their residents…
Okay. My theory here is that the people who are voting in red states are not necessarily the people who are receiving the benefits, and being against benefits while “hypocritically” absorbing a disproportionate amount of them is a reflection of internal conflict.
So South Dakota. The reservations suck up a lot of benefits–and why not? The land is crappy, there are no jobs, and most people don’t want to live in a hostile, alienating culture, so people both do and do not want to leave. The tribes, as far as I can say I’ve observed anecdotally, have never been big on voting. So you get a situation where whites (the main part of the voters) are saying, “No more benefits for them damned Indians,” while the tribes are taking whatever they can get and still winding up poorer than anywhere else in the country.
@DeAnna – There’s probably a fair amount of truth to that — certainly in the case you describe. Voter suppression of the poorest populations doesn’t help matters any, either.