No. of Recommendations: 17
From Christopher Armitage:
Blood Money: How Progressive Tax Dollars Build Conservative Tyranny
SEP 11
We can begin with a premise that every decent person shares; that vulnerable populations in hostile territories deserve our support. The Black communities facing apartheid conditions in Mississippi, the trans youth targeted by state violence in Texas, the women dying from pregnancy complications in states with abortion bans. These are real people facing real oppression, and any moral framework worth having must account for their suffering.
This is why some argue passionately against any suggestion of cutting federal support to red states. "You're not an ally," they might say, "if you're willing to abandon LGBTQ+, Indigenous, and Black people to their fate. Come canvas. Come organize. Come help." This isn't just virtue signaling. These are people doing genuine work, and operating from sincere moral concern. They see calls for fiscal separation as privileged blue staters pulling up the ladder behind them.
I understand this position. I've made these arguments myself. They're also wrong, and that error has deadly consequences.
The error isn't in the moral intuition but in the assessment of what our current system actually does. We need to examine an uncomfortable possibility: what if our federal transfers don't help vulnerable populations but instead fund their oppression? What if continuing to subsidize failed states actually enables the very violence we claim to oppose?
Let's start by following the money.
Mississippi receives $2.53 in federal spending for every dollar its residents pay in federal taxes according to 2024 federal spending data. This isn't emergency aid or targeted assistance to vulnerable communities. It flows into the state general fund, where it becomes indistinguishable from the budgets that maintain the state's prison system, fund its police departments, and pay for legal defenses of unconstitutional laws. The Black women dying in childbirth at rates of 43 per 100,000, worse than Gaza's 28.5 or Iran's 15.8 according to WHO data, don't see this money. The communities in Jackson collecting rainwater in buckets during their third water crisis since 2021 don't see this money. The state government that fails to provide these basic services while debating mandatory "In God We Trust" posters for classrooms? They see every penny.
Washington State tax dollars paid for the website where Texans report their neighbors for suspected abortions. We funded that.
Alabama presents another stark picture. When the UN Special Rapporteur on poverty visited in 2017, he found conditions he described as "uncommon in the developed world." Raw sewage pooling in yards. Hookworm, a disease of extreme poverty, affecting 34% of residents in some counties. The state's response to these medieval conditions? Zero dollars allocated to sewage infrastructure. Six million dollars budgeted for defending abortion bans in court. The federal subsidies that could theoretically address these crises instead maintain the state apparatus that perpetuates them.
Texas makes the mechanism even clearer. The state that can't keep the lights on during winter storms, where 246 people died in the 2021 grid failure alone (likely 700+ according to excess mortality analyses), somehow finds resources to maintain a bounty system for abortion reports. They've created a surveillance state that pays citizens to inform on their own neighbors while refusing to connect to federal power grids that would require basic winterization. Every federal dollar that flows to Texas doesn't just fail to help women fleeing abortion bounties. It funds the infrastructure that hunts them.
Louisiana tells the same story through different failures. The state maintains the highest incarceration rate on Earth at 1,094 per 100,000 people. Not just the highest in America. The highest on the planet. Higher than El Salvador, higher than Rwanda, higher than any authoritarian regime we condemn. This mass incarceration system, which disproportionately cages Black men, runs on federal subsidies. Meanwhile, the state ranks dead last in education, 48th in healthcare, and watches its insurance market collapse as companies flee hurricane losses. The legislature's priority? Mandating Ten Commandments displays in the same classrooms where teachers lack basic supplies.
The common response to these facts is predictable: "That's exactly why we need to organize harder. Get out the vote. Flip these states blue."
This is where we must confront the hard reality of electoral politics in the U.S.
Not the aspiration and not the hope, but the actual numbers.
Texas hasn't elected a Democrat statewide since 1994. Despite changing demographics, despite massive organizing efforts, despite billions spent on voter outreach, the state has moved further right. The suburban voters who were supposed to flip Texas blue? They elected Republicans by larger margins in 2024 than 2020. The state's gerrymandering is so efficient that Democrats would need to win by 12 points statewide just to break even in legislative seats.
Mississippi only abolished its Jim Crow electoral system in 2020, a system that required winning both the popular vote AND a majority of House districts to win statewide office. Even with that gone, the state's voter suppression machinery makes statewide Democratic victory virtually impossible. The gerrymandering ensures that even if every single Black voter turned out, even if they convinced a significant number of white voters to join them, they still couldn't win the predominantly white districts drawn specifically to prevent that outcome.
Those who can't leave aren't organizing their way to victory. They're surviving.
Here's where we must face our complicity. Every dollar New York contributes that flows to Tennessee helps defend laws that until recently allowed child marriage. Every dollar Massachusetts pays that goes to Florida funds the legal infrastructure defending book bans that have removed everything from encyclopedias to math textbooks for containing "prohibited topics."
We're not passive observers of red state fascism. We're its financiers.
The federal government facilitates this transfer at scale. Blue states contribute billions more than they receive back. Red states depend on this subsidy for basic functioning. Kentucky gets $3.35 for every dollar contributed according to 2025 data. Alabama gets $1.25 per dollar and receives $41 billion more annually than it contributes. West Virginia gets $2.72. These ratios have increased, not decreased, as these states have become more authoritarian.
The moral calculation people make is that cutting this funding would harm vulnerable populations. But we've established that vulnerable populations don't receive this funding. State governments do. The same state governments that use these resources to oppress vulnerable populations more efficiently.
Smart critics will point out that federal transfers include Social Security, Medicare, and SNAP benefits that DO help vulnerable populations directly. This is true. Approximately 75-80% of federal transfers consist of these direct citizen benefits. Only 15-20% represents discretionary funding to state governments. However, blue states could create interstate compacts to provide these benefits directly, bypassing hostile state governments entirely. The Multistate Tax Compact already operates without congressional approval, as the Supreme Court ruled in 1978. There's precedent.
Consider what blue states could do with the billions currently subsidizing red state oppression. They could fund relocation assistance for anyone fleeing hostile states. They could build housing for refugees. They could create job programs specifically for people escaping red state violence. They could fund legal defense funds, and direct mutual aid to organizations actually serving vulnerable populations. Instead, that money goes to the state of Texas, which uses it to pay bounties on women seeking healthcare.
Economic pressure works where electoral politics fails. When North Carolina passed its bathroom bill, it lost $3.76 billion in economic activity. PayPal canceled a $2.66 billion expansion. The NBA moved its All-Star Game. The state partially repealed the law within months. When Indiana passed religious "freedom" legislation targeting LGBTQ+ people, the threatened boycotts forced amendments within one week. Money talks when votes can't.
So what's the solution? How do we stop funding oppression while actually helping the people who need it?
The path forward requires states to reclaim fiscal sovereignty. States already have extensive tax auditing powers and require employers to file comprehensive tax documentation. A state could mandate that all employers route both federal and state tax payments through a state-controlled verification system. Frame it as protecting citizens from tax fraud and IRS errors. Ensuring proper withholding. Creating transparency in tax collection. Implement, enforce, and let the courts sort it out.
The state would hold federal taxes for "verification" before forwarding them to the IRS. During federal government shutdowns or dysfunction, these verification periods would logically extend. If the federal government fails to provide basic services or uses funds to enable state-level oppression, states could argue they have a duty to protect their citizens' tax payments.
No state has tried this yet. That doesn't make it unconstitutional. While there's no precedent supporting it, the current Supreme Court's emphasis on state sovereignty creates an opening. The federal government would have to sue to stop it, creating a public confrontation over states rights. Even if it fails legally, the political pressure could influence federal reform.
Interstate compacts offer a clearer mechanism. The Supreme Court already ruled these don't require congressional approval when they don't increase state power at federal expense. Blue states could create reciprocal tax agreements, shared infrastructure funds, and joint programs that reduce their dependence on federal redistribution. They could collectively negotiate with the federal government as a bloc, refusing to participate in transfers that fund oppression.
Direct funding to mutual aid networks, rather than through federal programs that reach state governments, could ensure resources actually reach vulnerable populations. Blue states could establish refugee resettlement programs, creating clear paths out for those who want to leave. They could fund organizations doing actual ground work rather than sending money to hostile state governments.
The objection will be that this abandons people who can't leave. But we're already abandoning them. We're doing worse than abandoning them. We're funding their oppressors while telling ourselves we're helping. The current system doesn't serve vulnerable populations. It serves the state governments that oppress them.
If we accept that our moral obligation is to help vulnerable populations, and we accept that current federal transfers don't help but actually harm these populations, and we accept that electoral change is impractical in gerrymandered states with codified voter suppression, then the conclusion becomes inevitable: continuing to fund these states begins to look immoral.
Blue states face a choice. Continue subsidizing fascism while pretending it's charity, or reclaim those resources to build genuine sanctuary for those who need it. The vulnerable populations in red states don't need our thoughts and prayers. They don't need us to fund their state governments. They need escape routes, sanctuary cities, and direct support that bypasses their oppressors entirely.
Stop funding the oppression. Start funding the solutions.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Or, put another way, some tyrants are, first, elected.
Or to put it another way-
Some successfully climb the ladder of electoral politics, then immediately turn around and kick away the ladder and surround their rooftop redoubt with concertina wire.
