NY Times journalists explore what happens when Democrats have all the power, find out 'blue states are the problem'



A pair of New York Times journalists who recently set out to explore what happens when Democrats control all the levels of power in state and local governments across the country were shocked to discover that "blue states" — not red ones — "are the problem."

"What do Democrats actually do when they have all the power?" Times video journalist Johnny Harris asked at the outset of an opinion video posted by the paper last week.

Harris teamed up with Times editorial board writer Binyamin Appelbaum to examine why famously liberal states — such as New York, California, and Washington — struggle to advance the progressive policies despite little to no Republican opposition.

They focused on three core initiatives of the Democratic Party platform: affordable housing, economic equality, and educational opportunity. And in the end, they discovered that "liberal hypocrisy," not Republican opposition, "is fueling American inequality" and that things are actually much worse in blue states than they are in red.

Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. Here's How. | NYT Opinion www.youtube.com

"In key respects, many blue states are actually doing worse than red states," the journalists noted in a written report accompanying the video. "It is in the blue states where affordable housing is often hardest to find, there are some of the most acute disparities in education funding and economic inequality is increasing most quickly."

"Blue states are the problem," Applebaum, who covers economics and business for the Times, exclaimed.

"Blue states are where the housing crisis is located. Blue states are where the disparities in education funding are the most dramatic. Blue states are the places where tens of thousands of homeless people are living on the streets. Blue states are the places where economic inequality is increasing most quickly in this country. This is not a problem of not doing well enough; it is a situation where blue states are the problem," he added.

At one point, Harris noted that "affluent liberals tend to be really good at showing up at the marches and talking about how they love equality, [and] at putting signs in their lawns saying, 'All are welcome here.'"

"But by their actions," he continued, "What they are actually saying is, 'Yes, we believe in these ideals, just not in my backyard.'"

The New York Times may just be waking up to this notion, but the American people have been keen to it for some time — and have been showing their dissatisfaction by leaving blue states and moving to red ones at record levels.

(H/T: Foundation for Economic Education)

Study finds Americans are leaving Democrat-run states in throngs and heading for Republican ones



A newly published study that tracks migration patterns in the United States has found that Americans are leaving states and cities run by Democrats for Republican-dominant ones — and that the trend may have been accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic.

What are the details?

The study, conducted annually by United Van Lines, the nation's largest mover of household goods, found that in 2020, Americans continued the trend of ditching northeastern and West Coast liberal states for southeastern and Sun Belt states.

According to the group's data, which is based on household moves handled by United, the 10 states with the highest inbound rates were as follows:

  1. Idaho
  2. South Carolina
  3. Oregon
  4. South Dakota
  5. Arizona
  6. North Carolina
  7. Tennessee
  8. Alabama
  9. Florida
  10. Arkansas
The trend is patently obvious: Nearly all the states with the highest inbound rates are predominantly run by Republicans and consistently vote Republican.

On the other hand, the study found that states with the highest outbound rates were predominantly run by Democrats. Here's the list:

  1. New Jersey
  2. New York
  3. Illinois
  4. Connecticut
  5. California
  6. Kansas
  7. North Dakota
  8. Massachusetts
  9. Ohio
  10. Maryland
Near the top of the list for highest outbound rate was deep blue New York, a state that has been suffering from steady population decline for years and in 2022 could lose a House seat — or two.
The trends were not isolated to states either, but the study found the same pattern existed when examining inbound and outbound rates among U.S. cities.

What else?

Commenting on the study, Michael A. Stoll, an economist and professor in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted that the coronavirus pandemic was a huge factor in this year's moving patterns.
"We're seeing that the COVID-19 pandemic has without a doubt accelerated broader moving trends, including retirement driving top inbound regions as the Baby Boomer generation continues to reach that next phase of life," Stoll said in the news release.
Eily Cummings, director of corporate communications at United Van Lines, added, "As more people experience job and lifestyle changes amid the pandemic like remote working, we're seeing they have more flexibility in where they can live — many choosing to move from urban to more rural areas."

Anything else?

However, in its coverage of the news, the Daily Wire noted that while the pandemic may have accelerated the exodus from Democratic states and cities, the trend has been ongoing for a while and it mostly has to do with bad Democratic policies.
Here's what reporter Cabot Phillips said:
Residents in New York have the highest tax burden of any state in the country. Connecticut is the sixth worst, New Jersey the seventh worst, and Illinois the ninth worst.

By contrast, every single city on the "moving to" list is in a red conservative state with a tax burden well below the national average. Florida, for example, has the fourth lowest tax burden, with Tennessee having the second lowest, Alabama having the eighth lowest, and Idaho having the thirteenth lowest.

That's not a coincidence.

Perhaps if Democrat politicians weren't taxing their constituents so heavily, they might stick around instead of fleeing for warmer (and redder) climates.

People may not always vote with their pocketbook, but they do move with their pocketbook.