> In reality the states that are most outwardly in favor of small/no federal government and "states' rights" are also the ones that benefit most from federal sp

> In reality the states that are most outwardly in favor of small/no federal government and "states' rights" are also the ones that benefit most from federal spending. It's worth noting that the issue gets confused because of the makeup of the political coalitions in the US. Namely the party of "small government" is a coalition of social conservatives (who often are fine with government spending, so long as it's not forcing liberal social policy on them), and economic libertarians (who care deeply about low taxes and less business regulation, but aren't as sensitive to liberal social policy). The social conservatives bring the votes, but party has historically prioritized the policy of the libertarians. Until relatively recently, it was actually pretty common for the states you speak of to send socially conservative Democrats to Congress. Over the last 15 or so years, the Republicans successfully exploited the compromises those Democrats were often forced to make with an officially socially-liberal party to defeat them electorally. Also, as an anecdote, one of these states (North Dakota) could probably legitimately claim to be one of the most socialist states in the country. It literally has a couple major state-owned businesses. If you took social issues off the table, I think you'll see those states behave much differently.