Yes.
The recent tax bill was a good example. It was constructed to inflict the most pain on blue states.
The recent tax bill was a good example. It was constructed to inflict the most pain on blue states.
I care less about this and more about the fact that the federal government isn't bringing in enough revenue to cover its responsibilities.
The cynic on me thinks this is by design. It's much easier to press for the removal of programs when you can point towards how we're continuously unable to avoid a deficit because of them...
And Mitch McConnell is talking about making cuts to the big three social insurance programs to address deficits [0]. This comes after he championed and passed major reductions in tax revenue last year, to the benefit primarily of corporations and the very wealthy.
[0] https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-calls-for-cutting...
Certainly the popularity of the social insurance programs makes politicians, regardless of party, wary of cutting them but I expect that there have been cases where a bill with cuts has passed the House but failed in the Senate only because the need to get 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.
Now consider that the tax bill makes private school tuition tax deductible, but state taxes that pay for public school non-deductible. Hardly progressive.
The addition of other subsidies is orthogonal to the capping of the state and local tax deduction.
No, the context is important. The republicans would look a lot less hypocritical if they also capped tuition deductions, church donation deductions, etc, because the services those fund overlap a lot with what state taxes fund.
As it is, the tax bill largely looks like a trampling of states rights to determine their own taxes, and a pushing of the conservative model of "private schools are better than public schools", "homeless shelters should be run by churches, not by the state" etc.
And if other parts of the country are poorer, the Federal government should address that by its outlays, which it does:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the...
In response, I would just say that, yes, I do understand the recent tax bill. At it's core, it's part of a long term plan to reduce government by starving it for money, at the same time it is a giveaway to large campaign donors. These are not speculation, but directly acknowledged by the spineless and craven Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan.
Blue states tend to spend a lot more money on government services, especially education. This makes the taxes higher, but it was evened out somewhat by a reduction in federal tax burden. With that gone, it adds a lot more pressure to tax payers in states with higher property taxes. Those states tend to be blue. When evaluating the wisdom of this change, keep in mind that those states also tend to be net payers into the federal system, while red states tend to be net takers from the federal system. There are exceptions but the trend is clear.