Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[Jester]

The method you are thinking of is flawed. The amount of spending on large states like NY is much higher than for small states like North Dakota, however you wish to measure it per capita, or per revenue dollar received. Of course, areas with higher density are going to share a resource more efficiently.

Federal Distribution by State

Once again, are you reading these tables? Or just assuming you know what's in them? Because your link (once again) flat out contradicts you.

New York federal spending per capita: $7932. (This is slightly below average.)

North Dakota federal spending per capita: $9903. (This is almost 20% above average.)

Now, that's only half the story. The other half is federal tax dollars going into the coffers. New York contributes much more, and more per capita, than North Dakota.

So for example, a highway bridge over a major waterway may get a million uses per year by citizens in NY, while the same bridge in ND would get maybe 1000 uses per year. Both groups of citizens have an equal need for a bridge.

On an individual basis, maybe. But in sum, the NY bridge is a thousand times as valuable. Demolishing it would inconvenience a thousand times as many people. If they cost the same to build and maintain, then the cost-benefit analysis is obvious.

I don't perceive that "rural isolation and poverty" would be the result, merely that lower density states would grow infrastructure more slowly, as it would take more time to fund their needed infrastructure.

And yet, they need more infrastructure to provide the same level of services. Slower growth combined with greater needs means substantially lower levels of service. Lower levels of service means a less attractive place for people to live and businesses to set up, which means slower economic growth. Add that up over time, and the urban areas win, rural areas lose. The longer it continues, the more this will be true.

Currently, yes, NY, CA, TX, and FL fund wasteful boondoggles like Alaska's infamous bridge to nowhere.

Those states are paying in a larger share of federal revenues than they're taking out - NY and CA getting barely 80 cents on the dollar, Texas more like 95, and Florida not quite breaking even. Alaska, on the other hand, gets back almost two dollars for every one it sends to Washington. Good deal for Alaskans. Bad deal for everyone else.

-Jester