Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, & Wyoming.

Those being the four states that are not running a deficit right now. The relative sizes of the rest can be seen via this handy visual tool:

Via @MelissaTweets

I’d make more commentary on this, except that I can sum it up as stop spending money you don’t have, you idiots. And that is one of those binary things: people either already get that, or they don’t. Either way, there’s not much point for follow-up material. I will note, though, that the ‘top’ five deficit-ridden states (who make up 52% of the total deficit, interestingly enough) have one thing in common: their state legislatures are all dominated by Democratic politicians*.

Yes. Shocking.

Moe Lane

*With the sort-of exception of New York’s; their State Assembly is run by Democrats, and their Senate is currently being run by nobody at all

Crossposted to RedState.


  • […] to Moe Lane. Sphere: Related Content Share on: Facebook | digg_url = […]

  • Skip says:

    The chart would be more interesting to me if it weighted not by total dollars, but instead by percent of budget. So, for example, Texas being 2% into deficit would show up much smaller than California’s 25%. That would more effectively show which states are going to be able to deal with it, and which states probably will not.

    Texas, incidentally, has a rainy day fund with more than enough in it to cover this shortfall, so if you counted that, we wouldn’t be on the chart at all.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com