Should high-tax states such as California and New York get a bailout?
I explained last month why that would be a mistake, in large part because bailouts would reward states for irresponsible fiscal policy (similar to my argument that countries like Austria and the Netherlands shouldn’t be bullied into providing bailouts for Italy and Spain).
And I’ve shared two videos (here and here) for those who want more information about how bailouts encourage “moral hazard.” And this is true for banks (think TARP) as well as governments.
Today, though, I want to focus on some numbers that show what’s really causing fiscal problems in some states.
Adam Michel and David Ditch of the Heritage Foundation have generated some startling data on state government finances.
Instead of waiting on a handout from Washington, states should clear the way for a more robust economic recovery by addressing their unsustainable finances. States and local government spending has increased over the recent past… After adjusting for inflation and increases in population,
state and local spending (in constant 2019 dollars) has grown from $5,596 per person in 2000 to $7,268 per person in 2019. That amounts to a 30% increase in the real cost of state and local government over just two decades, even without the thousands of dollars per person the federal government sends to states and localities through a wide variety of programs. …not all states spend equally. As of 2017, Florida, Georgia, and Arizona spent about $5,800 per person on state and local governments, but New York spent more than $11,700 per person.
The most important number is the above excerpt is that there’s been a 30 percent increase in per-capita state spending after adjusting for inflation.
That’s a very worrisome trend.
But not all states are created equal. Or, to be more precise, they’re not all equally profligate. Here’s the chart that starkly illustrates why some states are in trouble.
At the risk of understatement, California and New York have not complied with the Golden Rule for fiscal policy.
Needless to say, there’s no justification for the notion that taxpayers in well-run states such as Texas and Florida should be coerced into providing bailouts for politicians in poorly run states.
And now we have a compelling visual that settles the argument.
P.S. Over the past several years, I’ve done multiple columns comparing Texas and California and also several columns comparing New York and Florida, all of which underscore that blue states have created their own problems by taxing too much and spending too much.
P.P.S. Thankfully, people can vote with their feet by moving from high-tax states to low-tax states. Let’s hope that Congress doesn’t enact a bailout so they’re forced to subsidize the states that drove them away.
[…] I shared data back in 2020 looking at the fiscal performance of Texas and Florida compared to New York and […]
[…] of those governments have been spending too much money and making overly expensive promises to interest groups such as government employees. Combined with […]
[…] the Golden State also is in trouble because the politicians in Sacramento have been spending like drunken sailors (with apologies to drunken sailors for that unfair […]
I’m afraid you did not mention a key number, namely how much the taxpayers of the blue states have been routinely bailing out red states.
A detailed and rather up-to-date source I found is https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/
Of the states you listed, California is basically neutral (gets a tiny subsidy of $12 per resident, even). But New York contributes a massive $1792 per resident!
As for the “well-run” states you name, Florida gets funding of $2,187 per resident, and Texas of a (moderate) $304 per resident.
So if New York, being hardest hit by the pandemic, needs a bailout now after feeding them for so many years, it’s only fair that they pay up. There is more reasoning for this than just numbers, too. New York provides commercial hub services for all of them, it needs to have a huge city to provide them, and that huge city thing also ensured a lot of impact from COVID.
But the numbers (and reasons) turn out different for California. With its high tech, with its self-declared nation state status, and not being severely hit by the pandemic (which might mean it did measures better than NY, as it has some big cities too), sure it can work itself out without relying on the Feds. It’s full-on in the states’ rights thing anyway – nearly budget-neutral and nullifying Federal laws, I guess old-school libertarians must love that! So let it. I don’t think anyone *here* would want to march the troops in.
Source on who is hit: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
I would also not trust fricking Heritage Foundation on liberty issues, They don’t know liberty when it hits them in the face. They may be “free-market” for reasons of tradition, but their strong position on social issues make them opponents of any reasonable view based on individual freedom. One doesn’t have to agree with “SJWs” to see that. There are classical liberal viewpoints and they are very far from one.
List can’t be right…….Illinois is to high on the list!
Dan, you’ve hit a homerun sir , a picture. is worth a 1000 words please get this to all senators and congressmen and All Chiefs of staff , rich donors ,,, the White House folks, please expand your reach to all economics professor in the country there’s got to be a mailing list for them (include a link with all the articles you’ve ever written)
The price for liberty is eternal vigilance!!
h
Hartford Campbell Realtor + Insurance Broker Phone: 770.633.3429 Email: Hartfordcampbellsr@gmail.com
>
[…] post Blue State Fiscal Irresponsibility in One Chart appeared first on The Bongino […]
Reblogged this on Boudica BPI Weblog.