GOP Austerity May Hit Red States Hardest-- But Will It Hit Red Voters Harder Than Normal People?

Former top GOP strategist Stuart Stevens tweeted the other day a simple reason why voters are turning away from the party of austerity: “There is no optimism, no appeal to a greater good, of helping others. No wonder GOP is getting killed with younger voters. Who wants to identify with a party that demands constant anger. It’s exhausting and joyless.” Their own policy agenda hurts their own states even more than the country at large. The austerity measures that McCarthy is demanding in return for not pushing the economy off a fiscal cliff will be most devastating in red states.

In light of the cuts McCarthy laid out Monday, a Reuters analysis of federal spending data indicates that his proposed domestic-spending caps could be felt most acutely in the states that backed Trump in 2020— which sounds fair enough… until you think of the people who voted against Trump and who are likely to be disproportionately hurt by the GOP agenda. “Those 25 states received roughly $172 billion in the last fiscal year for highway construction, housing, public health and other purposes, amounting to $1,196 per person. The 25 states plus the District of Columbia that backed Biden received $205 billion, or $1,079 per person… The amounts vary dramatically from state to state. In the 2022 fiscal year, heavily Democratic California received $760 per capita, while deeply Republican Alaska got $6,423 per resident.” In other words, taxpayers in blue states are subsidizing the morons who vote Republican.

<b>

Much of that money is distributed through formulas that take factors like poverty into account. As a result, federal aid does not play as big a role in relatively wealthy, Democratic-leaning states like New Jersey that are more able to raise their own taxes to fund safety-net programs, said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States.

"As a rule, wealthier states get fewer funds per capita," she said.

McCarthy's proposed increase of 1% per year would not keep up with inflation or population growth. Those caps could be felt most acutely in Trump-voting states, where the collective population grew 9.8% between 2010 and 2022, nearly twice the 5.3% growth rate in Biden states.

McCarthy's spending cuts would not scale back Social Security retirement benefits, which are projected to double in cost over the coming 10 years.

But the agency warned last month that budget cuts could make it more difficult to administer benefits. That could have a bigger impact in Trump-voting states, where 20.1% of residents rely on the program, compared to 18.6% of residents in Biden states.

It is not clear whether McCarthy's caps would apply just to domestic programs, as some media outlets have reported, or would cover military and veterans programs as well. His office did respond to a request for clarification.

McCarthy also proposed stiffening work requirements for benefit programs like SNAP, which provides grocery money for low-income people.

That, likewise could hit Republican-leaning states harder: 3.1% of the population in those states could lose benefits, compared with 2.8% of residents in Biden states, according to a Reuters analysis of data compiled by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

Republicans have tried for years to tighten these programs to lower costs and push more people into the work force.

But spending cuts could undercut that goal.

In Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, several dozen SNAP participants rely on a separate federal program to help cover child-care and transportation costs to get to work, said Terek Polite, who oversees the program for the local government. Any cuts could force those people to quit their jobs, he said, adding, "As opposed to scrapping the program, maybe they need to strengthen it."

You may have never heard of Calcasieu Parish, which is in the southwest corner of the state, up against the border with one of the most backward regions of Texas. Although it includes Lake Charles, the parish gave Trump 64.68% of it’s vote in 2016 and 66.62% in 2020. It sits in the 3rd congressional district which is represented by Lousiana’s most extremist reactionary, Clay Higgins, who took 66% of the Calcasieu vote.

I have no beef with the morons who vote Republican losing their benefits. To be honest… well you already know how I feel about it. The problem is the 12,812 Democratic votes (24%) in Calcasieu Parish. I have a bad feeling that much of the pain will be directed right towards them, not towards the Republicans who are behind the cuts and who deserve that pain.