While pundits like to compare red states and blue states on metrics such as income and wealth to determine whether or not conservative or liberal policies are more effective, that’s hardly the best way to go about things. After all, different states in America have radically different demographics, geography, and a host of other factors that would affect income statistics.
For instance, while southern states tend to be poorer, it isn’t because they lean Republican, it’s because their economies are largely dependent on agriculture (which isn’t going to generate as much income as an economy dependent on something else, such as technology). Likewise, can we really blame red states like Texas and Arizona for their illegal immigration problem, which puts downward pressure on wages? Of course not. And ironically, it’s the politicians of blue states who push an open borders ideology.
So, where can we get two comparable states? Vermont and New Hampshire are practically a mirror image of each-other geographically, share similar demographics in terms of race and education levels, and have similarly structured economies. The main difference between the two is that Vermont is overwhelmingly liberal, while New Hampshire leans Right. Vermont tax collections averaged $4,594 per resident, while New Hampshire collects about $1,791 per resident, only 38% as much. Meanwhile, Vermont has a $15 minimum wage, while New Hampshire has a $7.25 minimum wage.
So for all those taxes and redistribution, and such a high minimum wage, is Vermont the better place to live? Nope. Despite all their liberal policies, the poverty rate in Vermont is 11.8%, compared to 9.2% in New Hampshire (the lowest in the nation). An additional 10% of Vermont citizens are at risk of falling into poverty, compared to 6.6% of those in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, incomes in New Hampshire are nearly $10,000 higher than neighboring Vermont. Where would you rather live?
California takes the cake when it comes to the most liberal state in the nation, and not coincidentally they’re officially the poorest – in terms of the poverty rate. According to the Daily Wire, “Newly released data from the U.S. Census Bureau put California’s 2017 poverty rate at 19% — or 7.5 million state residents. That was well above the national average, which was 13.9%.” Most poverty statistics between states aren’t comparing apples and oranges because the cost of living is different in each state – but in this case, the Census used a formula called the “Supplemental Poverty Measure,” which accounts for the cost of living. The measure also takes into account the value of government benefits citizens in California receive, meaning that despite all the redistribution, they’re still the poorest in the nation.
— The Hill (@thehill) September 14, 2018
And of note – every single state where the poverty rate calculated by the Supplemental Poverty Measure was higher than the officially advertised (“unadjusted”) poverty rate is left-leaning. They are California, New York, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
Support Conservative Voices!
Sign up to receive the latest political news, insight, and commentary delivered directly to your inbox.
When it comes to how states are run fiscally, states where Democrats control both houses of the legislature have an average of $22,214 in unfunded debt per citizen. In the Republican equivalent, that taxpayer burden is only $1,473.
Over 1,000 people move from a blue state to a red state each and every day. It’s clear where the better places to live are, and people are already voting with their feet.
Read this Next on ThePoliticalInsider.comMichael Bloomberg Wants to Take On Donald Trump in 2020 … As a Democrat