Are regional inequities in federal spending pushing people West and South?

We've known for a long time that certain states get far more in federal expenditures than they pay in taxes. I was curious if these inequities were helping push people out of the Northeast and Midwest, and into the South and West, where the latest census data shows the largest growth again.

Unfortunately we can't create an alternate universe and change only these ratios and see what happens. But the data could clue us in to any correlation. Generally Western and Southern States are higher on the list of dollars received per dollar given, and states in these regions are also generally the fastest growing. However, on the state by state level, the correlation between this ratio and population growth is murkier, with some very high-growth, low-spending ratio states. Barring large numbers of interstate commuters, the correlation between spending inequities and migration looks fairly week.

See the chart here, (note the census region and population growth columns) --
https://sites.google.com/a/kamali.net/images/home/fed-spending-per-revenue-by-state

The spending inequities may still be a small contributing factor, as the weighted average in population growth for above $1 may be higher than growth for below $1. (Hope to do deeper analysis at some point.) And many of these states high on the list might have lower or even negative growth without them. Other contributing factors could still involve taxes and subsidies, and perhaps these inequities should be reduced in fairness. But looking at this chart, the inequities themselves don't appear to be the direct driving factor in the push South and West.

What's not at all murky is a fact that others have noted before: "Red" states overwhelmingly get more in federal expenditures than they pay in taxes, while the opposite is largely true for "Blue" states. (Note the last two columns.) So, paradoxically the states that are ostensibly for "smaller government" gain the most from federal spending.