According to a provacative new paper by Peter Francia and Renan Levine, Bush's policies have disproportionately benefited red states over blue states. On average, red states get more money from the federal government than they give back in taxes, and blue states tend to give more money in taxes than they get back from the federal government. Now, socio-economic and demographic realities, for the most part, dictate where federal resources are going. The 10 poorest states in 2004 were red states, and 8 of the 10 richest states were blue states. But, in recent years, the income gap between red and blue states has been closing, even as the federal spending gap has widened. And this trend has continued under Bush. When analyzing the change between 2000 and 2004, we find evidence in favor of the supporter benefits hypothesis. Even when controlling for all other independent variables, the model predicts that voting for President George W. Bush in 2000 increased the state’s level of net benefits by five cents from 2000 to 2004. The paper's findings suggest that, in terms of fiscal policy, Bush supporters are in fact voting their pocketbook. The flow of federal dollars to red states may also explain why Bush's Social Security initiative failed. The paper concludes: The implications of our analysis suggest that if the Republicans rolled back any significant programs, they would risk a backlash where they are strongest: in the poorest red states that receive the most benefits per tax dollar. As a result, the Republican Congress has left entitlement programs largely intact since coming to power in 1994. In the process, once Democratic programs now disproportionately benefit Republican states in the heartland.