This discussion made me go and look about the taxes paid vs. taxes received, This is per capita and the data comes from SUNY Rockefeller Institute of Government (2019).
I'd be happy to have land in WY. And if a resident I would vote to pay our own bills (at least to the extent others do, given the current state of affairs requires some fed $$ for all states). I got nothing against the state or its people, it's just the "we pay our own way, piss off" thing that grates on me now and would grate on me then.
Several others including Pew calculate differently and have WY as one of the most dependent states (and MN one of the middle states).
So who to believe?
The lawyer's source of course.
The pewww data was 2017 and your data was 2019 so your data is more current and more accurate in today's complex and dynamic economic trends.
Must be nice to have clerks running around all day long retrieving obscure data for HT pee pee matches...(emoticon)
Lots of ways to calculate, so your guess is as good as mine. I have seen WY & MT pop up on these types of lists often so I tend to think they are net takers in the whole game in a big way. But who knows. It's like arguing the inflation rate. But which one of the 7 or so the fed calculates and do you buy into the goods durability numbers they assign and the "basket of goods" they choose. There is a reason economics is referred to as the "dismal science"? Even makes lawyers seem reasonable sometimes in comparison.
Nobody seems to mind either that Wyoming receives part of pennies on the dollar when Shirley Basin and Beaver Rim are mined for Uranium, the Powder River or Green River Basins for gas and oil, our forests logged, etc. that all provide cheap power, building materials, raw materials, and fuel to the rest of the States.
325 million Americans wouldn't even know or care. And for 10 million it would improve their chances. For 2 million vested incumbents I am sure they would be pissy, but maybe we need a @wllm1313 pie chart to point out how imbalanced those numbers are - "thunderous backlash" is monumental hyperbole. How big was the backlash when waterfowl were taken away or wolves protected? Life moves on.
Big enough deal for the Western States to get their Federal Legislative body to pass S.339...
If you are playing the import-export game then I guess WY should be thankful for 95% of its food, 100% of its computers, 100% of its TVs, 100% of its pickups, etc etc etc. A complete non-starter rhetorically.
Can you honestly say you would support this if you were from Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho? Defending something you have grown up with and loved your entire life is not being “pissy”.
Reid/McConnell/etc get to deliver all types of little goodies to their constituents when the majority of people don't care, comes with the position. That is not the same as assuming thunderous rebellion had it gone the other way.
I remember the "Sagebrush Rebellion" and I think the political climate now is much more flammable than it was then. I don't think the idea that there would significant backlash as hyperbole. I don't remember the duck issue, well before my time and I think yours. Also much waterfowl was on the verge of extinction unlike deer and elk.
I'm not the one bitching about paying higher prices for tags or being limited to a low allotment in the 10 or so other states I apply in either.
I grew up in ND and lived a bunch of other places. Lots of things are held dear to me, but that does not mean 300 million others should/would care. I am not against hunting, or against rural states, I just get tired of the half-truth self-serving narratives that are used in place of real arguments. I think "the better done at the local level" is a fair and reasonable argument. I think "sticking with the status quo until there is a clear improved alternative" is also fair. Go back and look through my posts if you wish, but I have never said states can't regulate wildlife - I have said it is not etched in stone, it is not in the constitution. Believe what you wish, just don't make up the law or claim the victim card in doing so.
I disagree...if it wasn;t a big deal to the Western States, I doubt it would have had the bi-partisan co-sponsor list it did.
