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.

California’s troubles are many, and some of them are manmade

 

“In the last few days, a moisture-laden heat wave has unleashed extreme weather in almost every corner of California,” the Los Angeles Times reported on August 18. “In a single day, Northern California was hit with triple-digit temperatures, as well as hundreds of lightning strikes that ignited brush fires. The mercury hit 107 degrees Sunday in Santa Cruz, known for its moderate climate, and Death Valley reached 130 degrees — one of the hottest temperatures ever recorded there.”

 

And then things got worse. High temperatures created a demand for electricity that the state’s electric utilities could not meet. Rolling blackouts turned off the lights and air conditioners of two million state residents without warning, as utilities cut power to blocks of communities in order to protect the state’s electrical grid. This heatwave has been termed the worst in generations, and the state’s power utilities simply could not produce what was needed.

 

California, perhaps the most “progressive” of our 50 states, fancies itself a leader in what’s best. And where electricity production is concerned, renewable energy sources like wind and solar are best, and fossil fuels are worst, according to politically correct wisdom.

 

California seeks to generate 60 percent of electricity via renewables by 2030, and has a long way to go. An estimated 34 percent of the state’s power came from renewables in 2018, according to the California Energy Commission.

 

In its “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” drive to replace natural gas production with wind and solar, the state’s very ambitious climate policy forced the retirement of 9 gigawatts of natural gas capacity over the past five years. That’s enough electricity to power 6.8 million homes.

 

This was done despite years of warnings that there would not be enough power generation during the peak period in summer, and that a potential shortfall of 4.7 gigawatts in evening hours could occur starting this year.

 

Despite these changes in electricity production, a staff attorney at Communities for a Better Environment, described as an environmental justice nonprofit, blamed the outages not on inadequate renewable energy production, but on natural gas.

 

“It was actually gas that failed,” said attorney Shana Lazerow. “We should be talking about how gas is unreliable.”

 

The basis for her statement is that gas is to blame because burning gas creates climate warming, and climate warming is why California is trying to rid itself of any and every fossil fuel. She fails to note that whatever the actual cause of the heatwave — climate change or the Earth’s periodic alternating cooling and heating phases — having more natural gas electric facilities would produce the power to make up for production levels that solar and wind cannot meet.

 

But, of course, what is actually unreliable is wind and solar energy, especially for large scale applications like an entire state’s electricity needs.

 

If you want to lower your electric bill by putting some solar panels on your roof, go for it! Once the investment is paid off, you will likely save money. Particularly if you live in a sunny place and have the panels located where the sun will shine on them as much as possible. And, if you can store the excess energy for periods when the sun doesn’t shine.

 

But you might want to have a back-up plan, like being a customer of the electric company.

 

On the state level, California should have maintained backup natural gas production facilities to even out energy production when wind and solar cannot meet demand. Or, had enough storage for ample excess power to cover low production levels.

 

“Big Batteries Needed To Make Fickle Wind And Solar Power Work” headlined a report by NPR.com discussing the need for storage of power produced by wind and solar applications to fill the gap when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.

 

However, the report continues, “Nobody really knows how the batteries can best smooth out the irregular power supply from wind and solar power.”

As the NPR report further noted, “That's partly because batteries aren't very efficient. Batteries waste about 25 percent of the energy in the process of being charged and discharged. These sodium-sulfur batteries need to be heated to 600 degrees Fahrenheit to work.”

In other words, California overdrove its headlights in the rush to replace dependable fossil fuels for electricity production in favor of unreliable renewables like wind and solar. Was California a student of the Obama administration’s manic efforts to do away with fossil fuels, or was it a partner?

 

This is yet more evidence of the failure of “progressive” ideals to actually deliver the results that are promised.

 

James Delingpole, writing for Climate Depot, tells us that “No successful economy has ever done [what California is trying to do]. Those that have tried — such as the state of South Australia — have had the same result as California: rocketing electricity prices; blackouts and brownouts; an exodus of businesses; misery and disruption for everyone unfortunate enough to still live there.”

 

Someday in the future, after technologies have been developed to assist wind, solar and other so-called “renewables,” the transition to non-fossil fuel energy will naturally occur. We must be smart and stop rushing the process.

“As California goes, so goes the nation.” Is that still true?

Not so long ago, California was “the” place to be. Known as “The Golden State,” it has beautiful topography, with the ocean, cliffs, lakes, mountains and forests, and generally nice, warm weather that lured those from other states to visit, and even to relocate. Many special attractions add to the state’s allure.

The state’s openness to, and propensity for novel ideas on government and other things led to the creation of phrase “As California goes, so goes the nation.”

Today, California is only a dark shadow of its former self. The natural beauty is still there, many of the other attractions remain, but the state has lost much of its charm and allure.

In certain areas it is very expensive to live, and that situation has not been improving of late. AMAC Magazine tells us that “In 1970, Californians spent three times their salary on a home.” That cost/earnings ratio has risen to 10 times salary. 

This and other factors drove a million residents to other states between 2007 and 2016. “The online survey, conducted [in January] by Edelman Intelligence, found that 53 percent of Californians surveyed are considering fleeing, representing a jump over the 49 percent polled a year ago,” as reported by CNBC. 

Taxes add to the discomfort. In some locations the state sales tax is worsened by local sales taxes, and the total tax averages out to 8.54 percent for people in those locations, one of the highest in the country. The 18-cents per-gallon gasoline tax makes things even worse.

The state has become very difficult for middle income earners, who can’t afford to live there comfortably anymore. 

As a result of high taxes and aggressive regulation, businesses now do studies to see if it makes economic sense for them to expand in California, or expand elsewhere, or to totally move from the state.

California’s “sanctuary state” status puts unneeded stress on social welfare programs and public education, both of which are funded by taxes. And, the homeless population is out of control.  

“In 2018, there were 129,972 people on the streets on any given night statewide,” as reported by the Los Angeles Times back in August. “The most recent count conducted in Los Angeles County revealed that there were nearly 59,000 homeless people in 2019, while there were 9,784 homeless people in San Francisco, including in jails, hospitals and rehab centers — a jump of 30 percent from 2017.”

And recently the state has been suffering from the annual wildfire season. Each year hundreds of thousands of acres of land and dozens of buildings are lost to these fires, and the lives of thousands of residents are turned upside-down, and some die. And things are getting worse each year.

Many people place blame on climate change, not only for the worsening degree of the fires each year, but for their origin. Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom, his predecessor, Jerry Brown, and many Newsom political allies claim climate change is driving California’s increasingly intense and deadly wildfires.

While natural circumstances contribute to the problem, most of the fires are started not by nature, but by the actions of people, about 84 percent of them, according to Vox.

Such things as a tree limb contacting a power line. Sparks from a trailer wheel rim with no tire on it produced sparks that caused one fire. Another was deliberately set by an arsonist. And so on.

Some sources say that the degree to which climate change contributes to the fire problem is directly related to the intensity of climate change assumptions that drive the state’s energy and environmental policies. 

“For instance, California’s large and heavily regulated public utilities — PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE — prioritize wind and solar power, leaving little for powerline maintenance and upgrades,” Chuck Devore wrote in The Federalist. “Simply put, the utilities are doing exactly what the regulators tell them to do. They make money for their investors on wind and solar; they don’t on powerline maintenance.”

And a 2015 Reason Foundation study noted: “While it is possible that climate change has played a role in increasing the size of fires, the primary cause seems to be forest management practices, which have changed several times over the course of the past 200 years.”

Failure to harvest timber and manage the downed trees that proliferate in wooded areas and fuel the fires has greatly increased the likelihood, and also the intensity of fires. The policies that limit forest management often are decisions by government to protect wildlife.

No one can argue that California does not have many problems, some very serious. But elected representatives have made scant progress, if any, toward solving the worst of them.

It is a fact that the state government and many/most local governments are and have been under Democrat control for a while. With the hard-left leanings of the current potential Democrat nominees for president, a Democrat president could be a real danger to the country, championing higher taxes and regressive policies such as those in The Golden State.

If it is still true that “As California goes, so goes the nation,” America is in deep trouble.