And, don't ever believe that they maintain those bases out of the goodness of their hearts for the good of the country. Those bases are there because of political clout and would cost Texas scores of thousands of jobs.
True, to a point. If one were to cross-reference the number of military installations in New England and New England support for military expenditures, there might be a causal relationship between the two.
Military installations predominate in the South for three reasons:
1. When those installations were established, the Solid South Democrats, having been in the Congress for decades in many cases, were senior in the SASC/HASC committees and got to decide where installations would be established (1910s-1940s).
2. Southern land was cheap.
3. The warmer climate enabled training for more of the year than in, say, New York or Minnesota.
If DoD were to move out of Texas all of the installations/units/activities now
in Texas (something nobody denies that the Federal government now has the power to do), I believe you'd see the "43%-more-in-Federal-spending-than-paid-in-taxes" ratio change a good bit.
As for your proposition that they'd try to starve their poor into leaving for other states, I'd say "Seal the southern border with Texas - no more illegal immigrants..."
Perhaps (although given the attitudes the current governing class, I'd say they'd be just as happy to have Texas refugees as they would Latin American refugees, and for the same reasons: a reliable voting bloc), but, relieved of the Federal mandates, I'd bet Texans would tighten the criteria for public assistance. I doubt Texas would allow public assistance
EBT cards to be used in marijuana shops. And the Justice Department's army of underemployed lawyers would no longer have authority to force Texas to do so.
And there is a difference between "starving" welfare recipients and being more stringent in who is eligible and what public assistance pays for. My sister (a knee-jerk Democrat and mindless supporter of President Obama) has been on public assistance most of her adult life. She has two cars, three laptops, three cell phones, high speed internet, cable TV, a Netflix subscription, a dog, a cat, donates to the Sierra Club every month and is now going back to college to get her
second bachelor's degree because she does not like working in the field of her first bachelor's degree. She receives a lot more than she "needs." The controls are not in place to help her only to the extent of her actual "no kidding" needs. There is no political appetite to establish such controls. I would wager she is not alone in that situation.