"union states"? I assume you mean states in the union which receive more than their citizens pay to the Federal Government in income taxes. No one is talking about "kicking" anyone out. In a Federal system, states have rights as well. Once the western territories were admitted, there were undeveloped states and economies in the union. You may recall from your high school text books, the problems of regionalism.
Anyway, now we have earmarks and Congressmen who vie for the most pork for their respective districts. The answer is less of our money for the political class to distribute to the objects of their preference.
When the political and cultural elites decide that some sector of society is entitled to preference, and by that I mean transfer of your money (I assume you're among the 50% that pays income tax though I don't know why I make that assumption), they first decide that group is "needy" in some way. Once they decide members of a group have superior rights to the money of individuals who are productive, then we see "group" rights prevailing over individual liberties. Group rights are always at the expense of individual liberties.
Of course, some would say that it is better to be generous. However, for the most part, it is people who are willing to be generous with other people's money who hold themselves out as the most socially conscious.
Of course that leaves the individual with less to give to charities of the individual's choice. Obama intends to end deductions for charitable contributions. That should finish things off pretty well. He and the liberal elites will drive the Catholic Church out of most medical, adoptions and other charitable enterprises, and pretty soon, the only soup line will be the People's Soup Line with a big picture of Obama on the wall.
