I'm not sure your point is improved by expanding the scope of the confident description of the internal mental state of "Most Democrats", a set of which I'm statistically likely to be a member, yet I don't recognize your description of my mental state. Manufacturing things out of whole cloth like that kinda shakes my confidence in the rest of your assertions, ya know?

Asking my opinion of the national average is meaningless, and it misses the insights the map is giving us. Did you notice that the pattern does not change over time? That's profoundly significant. It says that there are concrete reasons that government benefits flow where they do; if the reasons were political, let alone the result of the conspiracy you're positing, they'd fluctuate as politcal power fluctuated; we'd see shifts tied to historical political trends like the South going more conservative. But we see quite clearly that the benefits are tied to inherent qualities of various regional populations.

It's great that you can view segments of the data, and the "income support", aka poverty, category shows what anchors all of those areas that receive the highest level of government benefit. Zoom in on Santa Clara County, and note that it remains pale beige over four decades of high tech prosperity; while just over the hill, out in Agricultural Mordor, aka the Central Valley, broad swaths remain in deep poverty the whole time. Zoom out, and you see the correlations with other chronically poor populations, like retirees and Native Americans (the eastern quarter of Arizona must be one grim place).

The point I'm working toward is that the data is two dimensional, while your question about my "preferred" percentage is zero-dimensional. So here's a multidimensional answer: Reduce the level of government payments overall by addressing the most expensive end of the spectrum, the "40 percenters". Deal with chronic poverty in America and you'll see those payments dry up.

And your tax bill will go down--do you see your enlightened self-interest yet?

How about this: All that government money flowing into agricultural regions is a food price subsidy. What would happen to the price of food if agribusiness had to pay 100% of the upkeep of its seasonal and part-time workers, instead of the 60% the numbers are showing us? I'm fine with it--ensuring the food supply is a matter of national security.

Addressing poverty reduces the "bad" kind of government support, the kind that liberals find regrettable but necessary, and conservatives just see as regrettable. That'll make us better able to pay for the "good" kind, things like a guarantee of minimal basic health care, and public education, liberal ideas like that.

Sorry I couldn't just give you a number, but there isn't just one. I'd change the mix.