Regarding the state receiving federal dollars as a ratio of federal taxes, I think there needs to be some explanation as to what those received federal dollars are for and how they might benefit the nation vs. just the state and local populations.
Let me take North Dakota and Minnesota for a comparison, as I've spent time in both. Both states are heavily agricultural states, so they would be likely to get farm subsidies or other government dollars spent under our federal farm programs. North Dakota has two air force bases, Grand Forks and Minot. Minnesota has no air force bases. I'm guessing it costs quite a bit of money to run an Air Force base and this may be a big part of what tilts north dakota to being a "winner" vs. Minnesota being a "loser" state. That is just one example of where the federal government spends money. I'm guessing that there are others. But those Air Force bases are part of our national defense, and Minnesotans benefit from those bases even though they are in our neighboring state. Thus, I don't think this comparison carries all that much water other than being a political football that can be tossed around when necessary to help promote some political agenda or issue. Also, since Minnesota tends to have more wealthy people, I'm guessing that on average, our per capita federal income taxes are higher than North Dakotas. That doesn't mean our middle classes live much different lifestyles when comparing the two states. North Dakota has less strict gun control, but that point is only raised to make sure this has some gun related content.
