The New York Times has a really interesting Opinion piece about who actually is paying more taxes while getting less representation. It’s not angry working class America. Rather, we the blue state urban folk are heavily subsidizing the red state wahoos, and not getting much for it.
“For complicated reasons — some of which have to do with rural poverty, some of which have to do with the basic physics of supporting infrastructure in low-density regions — a disproportionate amount of per capita federal spending and benefits now flow down to the low-density states. According to a study by the Tax Foundation conducted several years ago, for every dollar New Jersey pays in federal taxes, it receives 61 cents in benefits and other federal spending. For the same dollar of taxes Wyoming spends, it gets $1.11 back.
Put those two trends together and you have a grievance worthy of the original Tea Party: more taxation with less representation. The urban states are subsidizing the rural states, and yet somehow in return, the rural states get more power at the voting booth..”
OK. I’m officially done. I want Congress to hear this: I could care less why angry white suburban and rural voters who loved the 1950’s feel the way they do. We urban and blue state voters are paying more of the freight; we get to call more of the shots.
I’m in no mood to reach out to repair the divide among American voters. The strategy of NO to everything worked quite well for the Republicans during the eight years of President Obama’s time in office. We Democrats are at a disadvantage, because we actually believe government works and are predisposed to cooperate with Trump where we can. I think it’s the wrong strategy. I think we should dig in, rebuild, and resign ourselves to living with a sharply divided populace where public policy zigs and zags dramatically to the right or left, depending on who wins a given election. It may not be a very sensible way to run the country, but it’s where we are.