If you actually bothered to go to the source they cited, you would have noted they cited it incorrectly. Which is why it conflicts with the data I've provided.
From his source...
"Is Texas really getting more for less? To back up Maddow, MSNBC spokeswoman Lauren Skowronski pointed us to the most recent state-by-state analysis of federal tax burdens and spending by the Washington-based Tax Foundation, a business-backed tax policy group. It covers the 25-year period between 1981 and 2005.
According to the analysis, Texans paid about $147 billion in federal taxes in 2005 while the state received $149 billion in federal spending. That year, 33 other states also got, as Maddow put it, more money back than residents paid in."
In otherwords... in 2005. It received 2 billion more then it recieved.
The rest of the 25 years weren't actually mentioned... or referred to, because Texas spent more then it received in most of those as shown by the above, or if the guy would of read a few more sentence down in what he cited.
" On an annual basis, however, there were only six years in that time period when Texas residents paid fewer dollars in federal taxes than they got in return, according to the foundation."
So you got yourself caught up in a case of lazy journalism there, of someone who had an idea in their head, and stopped reading once they thought they found a justification to their original hypothesis.
Like I said, Texas mostly pays more then it receives, the opposite has only become true recently, since the deficit has started increasing so much.
