Blue states and cities are paying a price for their policies

September 9, 2025

We know things are not good in blue states and cities, but over the last seven months we have more clearly seen just how bad things really are. 

Over a ten-year period, from 2012 - 2022 (the latest year for which data is available), there has been a surprising movement of people out of blue states.

The 5 states that have lost the most people are: New York - 1,757,720; California - 1,632,774; Illinois - 881,012; New Jersey - 350,111; Massachusetts - 283,838.

The 5 states that have gained the most people are: Florida - 1,591,626; Texas - 1,268,227; North Carolina - 520,615; Arizona - 483,368; South Carolina - 459,395.

The reasons for this transfer of population are that people in blue states often prefer the lower costs of living, a desire for policies that better match their political and social expectations, economic factors like job opportunities, a less regulated business climate and a preferable tax system that red states offer.

Looking at the tax issue, nine states have no income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Others are committed to eliminating it. And 14 more have a flat income tax ranging from Arizona at 2.5% to Idaho at 5.695%.

In addition to losing lots of people to red states, the blue states also lost money, as reported by Newsmax. Take California, for example. The 68,449 who moved to Florida took with them $12 billion in personal income over that ten-year period. And the 361,623 who moved to Texas took along $21 billion, the 74,978 who moved to Tennessee took $4.5 billion, and the 146,280 took $9.2 billion to Washington state.

New York has also seen substantial population decline. Over ten years 2 million people have left the state, and Cornell University researchers predict another 2 million will leave over the next 25 years.

While taxes and the business climate are significant factors, other policies are also significant. Harboring, protecting, and even inviting illegal aliens in has definitely caused much harm. The most harmful things are the crimes these illegals commit, like drug and child trafficking, robberies, assaults, rapes and murders.

Illegals are not the only ones committing crimes in blue states and cities, and even in red states, of course. But the policies of blue cities and states invites crime by not aggressively trying to prevent crime, and not punishing criminals.

Ideas like defunding police, failing to aggressively prosecute criminal behavior, which are frequent features of blue states and cities, send a message. These foolish policies actually protect criminals, and endanger citizens.

Some cities refuse to arrest people who rob stores unless they steal more than nearly $1000 worth of merchandise. Some refuse to enforce laws that focus on “minor” crimes, leaving the victims with no recourse against the people that harm them. 

What is the predictable result of failing to arrest people for their crimes? Is it possible that these ne’er-do-wells will continue their criminal behavior, or perhaps increase it? Well, duh!

And more recent news items note the problem of even teenagers who are “committing crimes with impunity.” The perception of these young people that the lack of consequences for their actions has raised concerns among residents and law enforcement officials. Ed Gonzalez, president of the Washington, D.C. Police Union, has said that kids are not afraid of consequences because they know nothing will happen to them. If something does happen to them, it is most often rehabilitation, not punishment.

Defending this approach is D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. She argues that providing young offenders with opportunities for redemption is more important than punishment.

If these problems are to be fixed, we have to look to the people in government, many of whom are failing to protect their constituents. Looking at some of the candidates, along with some of the incumbents, this doesn’t look promising.

Take, for example, Illinois and its major city, Chicago. Chicago has had more murders than any other American city for 13 consecutive years.

Yet, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat and potential 2028 presidential candidate, and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, also a Democrat, seem to think this situation is not worthy of much concern.

Looking ahead, in the race for mayor of New York City, the winner of the Democrat primary was Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed socialist. He has stated that “Capitalism is theft!” and campaigns on making child care and buses free, and wants grocery stores to be city-owned. He also has pushed reparations and abolishing the police.

He is anti-Israel, believes that billionaires should not exist, wants a $30 minimum wage, and wants to increase the income tax on the wealthy by 50%. Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to him that if he does that, the billionaires will move to Florida or Texas, or another red state. Or, perhaps he just want to be rid of them.

And economist Stephen Moore believes that if Mamdani wins, his policies will drive Wall Street and its stock exchange to Texas.

Wake up America! The continued existence or growth of the flawed philosophy of blue states and cities is the death knell for the United States of America.

A big Supreme Court decision, and crazy things in blue cities

July 1, 2025

The United States Supreme Court has at long last ruled on an important issue. After months of federal district court judges issuing rulings opposing and halting actions by President Donald Trump, the Court ruled 6-3 that Trump's efforts to end "birthright" citizenship are legal and constitutional.

Not only was it found that the decision on birthright citizenship was valid, it also tells these judges to stop issuing these universal injunctions.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority opinion, stated: "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she continued. “The Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson commented in a dissenting opinion: “Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” she wrote. “This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law.”

However, Barrett promptly and properly corrected Jackson’s flawed reasoning. "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."

She further clarified that when these judges issue injunctions to block Trump’s actions, they cannot apply the injunction to more than those parties involved in the case, classifying these nationwide injunctions as judicial overreach.

There are 677 authorized judgeships for these federal courts, with each of those judges having authority over a tiny sliver of the United States of America’s judicial system.  

One has to wonder exactly what these judges, supposedly trained in the law and our Constitution, were thinking when issuing these injunctions. Did they forget their extensive training in the law? Or, did they stuff their judicial integrity under the courtroom bench, and replace legal elements with political preferences?

Does this un-judicial behavior warrant some disciplinary action for those guilty judges.

“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves … not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” Trump commented. “Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”

Elsewhere, in San Francisco and New York City, we find the “progressives” hard at it.

Recently, the California Senate reportedly passed a law making it illegal for store employees to confront shoplifters.

Old Navy, which is headquartered in San Francisco, announced that it will close its flagship store there. When asked why, an Old Navy store manager said that his store is hit by shoplifters at least 12 or 14 times a day.

Other name brands have also left the city, including Walgreens, T-Mobile, Whole Foods, Amazon Go, and Nordstroms.

Other downtown stores are merely waiting for their leases to run out, and then they will also leave.

The City of San Francisco just released a $6 million tourism campaign, and the next day the two largest hotels in the city shut down, blaming street conditions, and apparently not believing the tourism campaign would make a difference.

State Farm Insurance has announced that it will no longer provide business and property insurance in California, following Allstate, which left six months ago, due to policies that encourage lawbreaking.

These foolish leftist policies are producing exactly the results that their critics predicted.

And in New York City, a 33-year-old state assemblyman, Zohran Mamdani, is the Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the first Muslim nominee, and a supporter of radical policies.

Predictably, he has an extremely radical plan for New York, should he win the election. 

"This is a city where one in four of its people are living in poverty, a city where 500,000 kids go to sleep hungry every night," he said recently. "And ultimately, it's a city that is in danger of losing that which it makes it so special."

He has proposed the following radical ideas to cure New York’s problems: Free bus service citywide, rent freezes and stricter accountability for negligent landlords, a chain of city-owned grocery stores, and universal childcare for children aged six weeks to five years.

As with so much of the liberal/socialist/progressive mantra, these things sound pretty good. But they don’t work as imagined. Ideas like defunding police, not enforcing some laws, rental price freezes, having the City own and control the grocery stores, and some of his former “solutions” are a recipe for disaster.

Just ask the businesses and residents in San Francisco.

Democrats are working against principles of the United States

September 12, 2023

Big city Democrat mayors have brought attention to themselves through poor policy decisions. Folks like Chicago’s former Mayor Lori Lightfoot, D.C.’s Muriel Bowser, and New York City’s former Mayor Bill de Blasio, are among those who have distinguished themselves with dramatic failures.

After de Blasio’s horrible tenure as New York City’s mayor, many people thought that nearly anyone would be an improvement. And so, when the news that the person elected to succeed him was a former police captain with 20 years of service, many were encouraged. The possibility of another Rudy Giuliani was shining brightly.

Alas, Eric Adams has not lived up to those positive expectations. 

He has struggled with the difficult task of dealing with 110,000 illegal aliens in his city, and he has been openly critical of this nation-wide problem.

He has correctly said that this crisis may well destroy New York City. But he criticized Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for sending some of the millions of illegals coming into Texas to other places, like New York City, calling him a “madman.”

Adams, you may remember, proudly supported the sanctuary city/state concept. Yes, he would welcome a few illegal “migrants,” while Texas and other border states have had to contend with millions of them. And now that he’s faced with a tiny fraction of what Texas has to deal with, he is outraged.

He went so far as to criticize former President Donald Trump for starting this influx. Trump, however, was the guy who was building a border wall to slow or stop the invasion of illegals, and started the “Remain in Mexico” idea, which kept asylum seekers in Mexico until their hearing date. These things Joe Biden cancelled when he became President.

Trump pushed for dramatic changes to the immigration system, but he faced opposition from Congress and the courts. The rush began after Trump left office, and Adams darned well knows that.

Why will Adams not correctly identify the real cause of this dangerous nationwide crisis? Could it be because he supported Joe Biden for President, and continues to support him?

And, why is it illegal for Texas to protect itself and its citizens from this invasion of millions of illegals by using buoys in the Rio Grande River to discourage illegal crossings? This is the responsibility of the federal government, but it refuses to secure the border, against the intent and instruction of the U.S. Constitution, and then sues the state for trying to do the federal government’s job and protect itself.

On another topic, Democrats in California’s State Assembly recently passed a bill that would require judges in child custody cases to consider whether a parent has affirmed a child’s “gender transition” by making “gender affirmation” an equal part of a child’s “health, safety, and welfare” under state law.

The bill, AB 957, passed the Assembly by a vote of 57-16 along party lines, and the state Senate also passed the bill along party lines by a 30-9 vote. And Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the bill into law. 

The bill was written by a Suisan City Democrat Assembly member, Lori Wilson, whose child identifies as transgender, and was co-sponsored by State Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco.

Parents could actually lose custody of their children if they refuse to participate in a child’s transgender efforts. Under the bill’s mandates, they will have failed to provide for the “health, safety, and welfare” of their child.

Somehow, in the minds of California Democrats, adults who are parents could run afoul of this bill if it becomes law for disagreeing with their elementary school, middle school, or high school child on whether they are mature enough to understand what is going on, and in opposing the child’s decision on what to do about it. 

And in their effort to protect their child from making a life-altering and potentially dangerous decision, they will be considered guilty of failing to provide for the child’s health, safety, and welfare. Do we have logic anymore?

Parents are responsible for their children’s lives, from the beginning until they go out on their own. Not the government, not the school system, not classroom teachers. Encouraging children to transition, and teachers, administrators and school boards hiding it from their parents, should be a felony.

Efforts by the left to replace parents and rule over the development and indoctrination of the youngest generation is un-American. But of course, the ultimate goal of the left is “to fundamentally transform the United States of America,” as then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said several years ago.

Fearing another term as president for Donald Trump, Democrats are trying to get everyone to believe that Trump is as evil as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hussein, Castro or Vlad the Impaler. 

Interestingly, to prevent Trump from running in 2024 the Democrats are employing the same tactics to put him in jail or otherwise keep him off the ballot as those tyrants they compare him to employed against their citizenry.

And isn’t it interesting that the crimes that Trump is accused of committing happened years ago, but no action was taken until the campaign began for the 2024 election?