A recurring political debate is whether California is a “donor” state as opposed to what some call a “receiver” state. The argument is that high-tax states, which tend to vote Democratic, pay more in federal taxes than they get back in federal government spending. Progressives argue that states like California and New York are “subsidizing” Republican states, which have lower tax burdens.
Click Here to Subscribe to the California Political Review
No one whines more about how California is somehow being shortchanged relative to conservative states than our own governor, Gavin Newsom. For example, in June, his press office sent out a release claiming that “. . . California is the biggest ‘donor state’ in the country — providing around $83 billion more to the federal government than it receives from the federal government.”
As support for his thesis, Newsom quotes economist Paul Krugman who stated that California is “an economic and technological powerhouse” that “is literally subsidizing the rest of the United States, red states in particular, through the federal budget.” Krugman is obviously correct about the “economic powerhouse” bit – which California has been for decades under both Republican and Democratic governors – but he is off base on the subsidizing part. (It should be noted that National Review refers to Krugman as “Always Wrong, Never in Doubt.”)
But it now appears that Gov. Newsom’s narrative isn’t quite as solid as one would believe. According to a September 18 article by Nicole Nixon in the Sacramento Bee, California was actually a “recipient” state in 2023, the most recent year for which data is available: “In its latest analysis of the cashflow between states and the federal government, the Rockefeller Institute of Government found California received $13.4 billion more in federal funds than what residents and businesses paid in tax receipts in 2023.”
Nonetheless, it is likely true that, in most years, California sends more tax revenue to Washington than it receives in benefits, depending on how those funds are classified. But the broader question is: what difference does it make? Is the entire “donor” versus “recipient” state issue even relevant?
In an ongoing effort to determine winners and losers, The Rockefeller Institute’s “Giving or Getting?” report is published periodically and is usually cited by progressive politicians and interest groups to support their claim that progressive states are not being treated fairly. See, for example, the aforementioned Paul Krugman’s column entitled “The Moochers of Middle America.”
The problem with the Giving or Getting report is its methodology. For example, benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, are clearly a federal subsidy, but paychecks to members of the military are not. And yet the Rockefeller report treats both the same for purposes of determining the balance of payments among the states.
“””But it now appears that Gov. Newsom’s narrative isn’t quite as solid as one would believe.”””
Talk about the truth. Slick has never been ‘as solid as one would believe……’
The RSP (Radical Socialist Party) has been running stiff deficits, and mixing Federal Money and stating they are handing out “State of Calif.” grants, etc.
It would appear the ‘donor state’ is where the RSP national branch is using Calif. to support failing Blue States controlled by the RSP………
Once again it would appear Mr. Coupal has poked a very large pin in the Slick narrative and the RSP.