This is mostly correct, but the dynamic in USA is a bit more complicated. When one compares &quot;donor&quot; states to &quot;recipient&quot; states, by and large the donors are states with a political commitment to expanded federal spending while legislators elected by the recipients at least rhetorically favor curtailed federal spending. The transfers thus amount to a sort of &quot;bribe&quot; that allows spending bills to get through Congress. It&#x27;s not clear to what extent the &quot;spend less&quot; position is actually a calculated pose to procure more transfers...