Ranting On...Andrew Cuomo & "Donor States"

Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY)

In 2020, every casual remark or comment from a politician will invite a score of criticism and debate from social media, and I'm not necessarily opposed to this.  I do think that "cancel culture" has gone overboard in some cases, though even saying that comes with connotations that I don't want associated with me, so I try not to say it too often (I definitely believe in "cancelling" some people, just not with the hair trigger some do).  But by-and-large if the conversation is productive, I feel like a healthy debate can pop up from parceling through a politician's comments, which seems to be the case with recent statements from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

For background on Cuomo's comments, essentially heres a 60-second version.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has stated recently that he's considering no longer sending money to states that are hard-hit by the coronavirus, states including Cuomo's New York, viewing these as bailouts, and even suggesting that these states consider filing for bankruptcy.  Cuomo countered pretty quickly that not only did he disagree with McConnell, but called the senator a hypocrite, stating that blue states like New York put far more into the federal budget than they ever get out, and that red states like Kentucky get the rest of the check.  Essentially, he accused Kentucky of giving less than it gives, and it's actually blue states that have been "bailing out" red states like Kentucky for years.

Put simply, Cuomo is right.  Kentucky receives more money in federal taxes than it puts into the federal tax base.  It is not alone in this regard-looking at numbers in 2019, 40 states fall under this umbrella, with only ten states paying more in taxes than they get back.  These ten states, if we use the 2016 election as a barometer, are almost all blue states.  Eight of the ten went for Hillary Clinton, and all eight of those states have two Democratic senators (the two holdouts are Nebraska and Nevada).  On the flip side, Kentucky is actually the worst in terms of what it gives vs. what it gives; using 2019 numbers, Kentucky receives $2.36 for every $1 it puts into the tax base-that's bigger than any other state, and makes it one of only four states (along with New Mexico, Mississippi, and West Virginia) who received twice what they put into the tax base.

There's a few things to suss through here.  Obviously, McConnell is a hypocrite in this scenario-that should be obvious.  His state disproportionately relies on federal money to keep its current economic status afloat, and his insinuating any other state relying on such money is a "bailout" is ludicrous.  But that's not where social media is going with their attacks here (everyone on social media hates Mitch McConnell).  Instead, what we're seeing is criticism of Cuomo, whom they say is demonizing the poor by saying that "rich New Yorkers can't give their share."

They have a point here.  Democrats, which includes Cuomo, have a basic principle that the rich should pay more in taxes to help those who are not of a higher economic status.  While we oftentimes think of this in terms of individual people rather than geography, the tenet still holds.  People in New York or Connecticut make more money than people in Kentucky or Mississippi-they should, in the principles of the Democratic Party, pay more in taxes.  I agree with that, and I suspect so does Cuomo even though he was trying to make a political point otherwise.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

But where the line is is here-the people of Kentucky (the majority of them, at least) are not doing enough to ensure that these programs stay-in-place.  Economically, they cannot currently help at the same rate as New Yorkers, but they can help when it comes to providing support for these programs such as Medicaid expansion or federal funding for transportation by electing Democrats who would ensure these programs continue, not just for their own state, but for the working poor of New York and the other 48 states.  If you look at these states, you'd assume that New York, who is getting less out of this deal than Kentucky, would vote for people that would ensure the current tax structure stays in place, but the opposite is true.  New Yorkers are electing Democrats, Kentuckians are electing Republicans.  Kentucky is essentially shooting itself in the foot by supporting politicians who would give tax cuts to New Yorkers (the wealthy) and cost them their healthcare & other federal monies.

As a result I think this is a conversation worth having.  Population swings mean that not only do Kentuckians get more money, they get more power in the Senate because their senators represent less people per capita than New York's do.  As a result, a vote in Kentucky is more likely to make a difference in electing a senator than one in New York, and so it'd be easier for Kentucky to vote for their self-interest than New York.  And yet, they don't.  We've talked about this before (weirdly using Kentucky as an example), but you have to wonder-at what point should the people of New York and other high-income states be angry that Kentucky gets this power structure, but when New York is in need, Kentucky's senator gets to deny them similar aid?

This isn't just true when it comes to Covid-19 funding.  Think of something like transportation funding.  Rural areas get a disproportionately large amount of funds despite not having as many people for transportation, while urban areas and mass transit systems (like the New York city subway system) descend to a point where they're basically broken.  Kentucky right now gets to rely on a system where they get to have the advantages of Democratic politicians protecting their self-interest, while not actually electing those Democrats, and as a result, screwing over the priorities of those Democratic states.

Listen-I don't think we need to upend our political belief system to punish red states-that's what Trump does, it's not what Democrats do.  But I also think it's worth addressing the elephant in the room, that places like Kentucky would be a lot worse off were it not for states like New York and Democratic politicians who have to stand in the way of the Republicans that Kentucky sends to Congress.  Perhaps Kentucky would like to contribute to the cause in the best way it can-by removing the Republican politicians who want to continue to punish the working poor of the Bluegrass State.  And say, I believe Kentucky has an election this year for one of its Republican senators.  Anyone know his name?