This is mostly correct, but the dynamic in USA is a bit more complicated. When one compares "donor" states to "recipient" states, by and large the donors are states with a political commitment to expanded federal spending while legislators elected by the recipients at least rhetorically favor curtailed federal spending. The transfers thus amount to a sort of "bribe" that allows spending bills to get through Congress. It's not clear to what extent the "spend less" position is actually a calculated pose to procure more transfers...
Have you heard of the "halo effect"? It's a very common fallacy where people mistake cause and effect. If a company is doing well, people will say "this company has great management and has a great, productive work culture." If a company is not doing well, people will say "this company has inefficient management, and has an unproductive, corrupt work culture."
They will say this, even if it is the exact same company say, right before a crisis and 6 months into the crisis. See [1] for more information.
When Germany's economy was doing worse than EU average, Germany was the "sick child of Europe". Now they are doing great and they are the "locomotive engine of Europe".
Besides, how do you reconcile these "ex protestant" work ethics with the breathtaking corruption of the VW scandal?
