THE COLD CIVIL WAR AMONG THE STATES

Some Republican states, with Texas in the lead, are trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. The federal government is fanning the flames of this divisive extremism. Abortion, gun laws, public school funding, and even private companies’ behaviors are targets.

SUMMARY: Some Republican states, with Texas leading the way, are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. The federal government is currently fanning the flames of this divisive extremism. Abortion, gun laws, public school funding, and even private companies’ behaviors are targets of these efforts.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

As my previous post documented, states’ policies have very significant effects on people’s well-being, including health and health care, safety from gun violence, economic well-being, civil rights, and even their longevity. It also documented the very significant differences in policies and outcomes between Democratic-controlled (“blue”) states and Republican (“red”) states.

As politics and policies have become more polarized between Republicans and Democrats, these state-level differences are becoming more dramatic. This trend has been exacerbated over the last 45 years because the federal government has abandoned its role of working to provide a consistent national economic safety net and to reduce economic disparities among states.

As partisanship has grown, right-wing policy extremism has become a goal of red states in and of itself. The federal government is currently fanning the flames of this extremism. Furthermore, red states are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. This has created a cold civil war among the states. [1]

Red states, with Texas leading the way, are enacting aggressive and extreme right-wing policies and actively encouraging other states and communities to follow their lead. There’s even a competition of sorts among red states to enact the most aggressive and extreme right-wing policies. [2]

Texas and other red states are even trying to impose these policies on Democratic governments and private individuals beyond their borders. Abortion has been one focal point of these efforts. Texas and other red state haven’t been satisfied with banning abortions in their states; they have attempted to criminalize travel to other states to obtain an abortion and to ban the provision of abortion drugs across state lines. Texas has deputized its citizens by allowing them to sue anyone who aids or abets an abortion. Alabama has threatened felony charges against health care providers assisting patients with obtaining an out-of-state abortion. [3]

Gun laws have been another focus. Red states and red communities within blue states have asserted themselves to be “Second Amendment sanctuaries” where federal gun laws don’t apply. When their residents travel to other states, they have tried to make other states honor their laws that allow individuals to carry guns in public.

Red states have been expanding the funding for school vouchers, which allow parents to use public funding to pay tuition for a child attending a private school, including a religious school. They, and right-wing activists, have been pressuring the federal government to divert its education funding, including its funding for schools serving large populations of children from low-income families, to provide vouchers to parents to use for tuition at any school of their choice. [4]

Texas has used its economic leverage to coerce private companies. Its leverage comes from investing almost $400 billion held in various state-controlled pension funds and tens of billions more in various investment funds. It has pressured companies not to embrace policies or investment strategies supporting environmental, social, or good governance (ESG) goals. It has barred state investment in companies that encourage alternatives to oil and gas production and use.

The Texas Attorney General has sued other states to overturn their election results. He has sued hospitals in other states for allegedly providing telehealth services to transgender Texans.

Texas has also usurped some powers of the federal government. For example, it has evicted the federal border patrol from parts of the Mexico border and taken over border enforcement itself. It has invited other states to send law enforcement personnel and national guard troops to help it patrol the border. It, along with Florida, has shipped immigrants to blue states and cities, as much for political showmanship as anything else.

My next post will discuss how red states are using vigilantism and violence in the effort to spread their policies. It will also discuss the role of the judicial system and how blue states and cities can resist and push back.

For lots of good news see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2] Hooks, C., 10/8/24, “Texas will mess with you,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/08/2024-10-08-texas-will-mess-with-you/)

[3] Janssen, E., 10/9/24, “Red-state abortion tactics push into deep-blue Illinois,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/09/2024-10-09-red-state-abortion-tactics-deep-blue-illinois/)

[4] Berkshire, J. C., 10/11/24, “Breaking the public schools,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/11/2024-10-11-breaking-public-schools/)

YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE

SUMMARY: State policies and programs make a real difference in people’s lives and even in their longevity. They’re more important than ever given the dysfunction of our federal government. There are stark differences between the policies and programs of Republican-controlled states and Democratic ones that affect access to healthcare, workers’ incomes, and overall well-being.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

States’ policies have very significant effects on people’s health, safety, financial security, and even their longevity. With our federal government so dysfunctional right now, there’s a lot of very valuable work that can and is being done at the state and local levels including:

Blocking the impact of big money in elections by enacting campaign financing systems that match small donations with public funds (see this previous post for more details), and
Tackling the affordability crisis by reducing wage theft, increasing the minimum wage, supporting unions, making taxes fairer, subsidizing child care and health care, and enacting paid family leave (see this previous post for more details).

As politics and policies have become more polarized between Republicans and Democrats, a natural experiment has been taking place among the states. Over the last 30 years, a state government’s partisan control has become an increasingly strong indicator of the policies it will adopt or not adopt. This trend has been amplified by the decreasing number of states where government control is or has been shared between Republicans and Democrats. Gerrymandering of state legislative districts is partly to blame. Aggressive and extreme policy proposals from right-wing funded think tanks and advocacy groups, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), have also contributed to the widening differences among states’ policies. [1]

The federal government used to work to narrow differences among the states but now is fueling a widening of the gaps among states. From the New Deal in the 1930s through the 1970s, the federal government worked actively and effectively to shrink the significant economic gaps between richer and poorer states. It provided financial assistance to state governments and residents, including supporting a safety net for low-income families and workers who fell on hard times. However, starting in 1980 and with the election of Republican president Reagan, the federal government reversed its role and has been fostering a widening of the gaps among the states.

Democratic controlled states tend to have stronger worker protections and safety nets than Republican controlled states. They also have better health and well-being among their residents. Republican states have, for example:

Higher rates of residents without health insurance, the ten worst health care systems in the country, and lower life expectancies.
Ten of the twelve states with the highest rates of smoking-related cancer.
Ten of the twelve states with the highest rates of obesity.
Eight of the ten states with the most Covid deaths.
Lower minimum wages. Of the twenty states that have the lowest minimum wage (i.e., the federal $7.25 per hour), thirteen are Republican.
Weaker gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun deaths.
Weaker protections for civil rights, including for LGBTQ individuals.

On the other hand, the thirteen states with paid parental leave all have Democrats in control. Notable differences between Republican controlled states and Democratic controlled states are evident in environmental, labor, tobacco, and, of course, voting and election policies.

As partisanship has grown, right-wing policy extremism has become a goal in and of itself. And Republican states, now abetted by the federal government, are actively trying to impose their right-wing policies on Democratic states. In effect, the U.S. now has a cold civil war among the states. [2] (More on this is a subsequent post.)

A case study comparing Oklahoma and Connecticut serves to highlight the differences in policies and outcomes. [3] In 1959, Oklahoma (OK) and Connecticut (CT) had nearly identical life expectancies and political and policy climates that weren’t that far apart. Between 1970 and 2014, researchers found that Democratic CT had passed the most progressive policies among the states, while Republican OK had passed the most conservative ones. Connecticut invested in healthcare expansion, paid leave, and tax credits for working families. Oklahoma cut taxes and its social safety net. Its 2024 state budget was 12% less than in 2000 after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

As a result, today, the gaps are dramatic:

Metric Oklahoma (Republican) Connecticut (Democratic)

Life expectancy [4] 61.2 years (47th in nation) 65.9 years (7th in nation)

Medicaid expansion Rejected until voters demanded it First to expand after federal law passed

Minimum wage $7.25 $16.94

Paid family leave Not available Enacted

Paid sick leave Not available Enacted

Earned Income
Tax Credit Not available Enacted

Child well-being
ranking (2024) 46th among the states 8^th among the states

Food-insecure children 24% 17%

Despite one of the highest rates of child food insecurity in the country, in 2024, OK rejected $48 million of federal funding to provide food to low-income children in the summer when free meals at school are not available. (Twelve other Republican states also rejected this federal assistance.)

OK has a part-time legislature, which has fewer staff now than in 1979. Therefore, it often relies on industry lobbyists to draft legislation and on model legislation from conservative advocacy groups like ALEC. For example, ALEC’s proposed bills to cut or ban health care services and other programs have been passed.

The comparison of OK and CT provides a stark example of the differences in state-level policies being promoted by Republicans and Democrats and the real and serious effects of these differences. It also underscores how important state policies and programs are, and reminds us all to set aside some time and energy to advocate for good state (and local) policies and programs. After all, they directly affect access to healthcare, paychecks, safety, and affordability.

For lots of good news, much of it at the state and local levels,see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Dayen, D., 10/7/24, “The cold civil war,” The American Prosect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-cold-civil-war/)

[2] Dayen, D., 10/7/24, see above

[3] Thomhave, K., 10/7/24, “The chasm between Oklahoma and Connecticut,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2024/10/07/2024-10-07-chasm-between-oklahoma-connecticut/)

[4] World Population Review, retrieved from the Internet on 5/14/26, “Life expectancy by state 2026,” (https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/life-expectancy-by-state)

TAX CUTS OFTEN INCREASE ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

Small government advocates have worked to shrink government by cutting taxes. The results have been exploding economic inequality and federal budget deficits. They are now working to cut state income taxes and local property taxes. This will only expand economic inequality and feed the oligarchy.

SUMMARY: For over 40 years, small government advocates have worked to shrink government by shrinking its revenue, i.e., by cutting taxes. Despite their claims of strong economic growth benefiting everyone, the reality has been exploding economic inequality and federal budget deficits. Now, they are turning their focus to cutting state income taxes and even the local property tax. If they succeed, it will only expand economic inequality and feed the oligarchy that is trying to take over our democracy.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

For over 40 years, small government advocates, historically conservative Republicans, have worked to shrink government by shrinking its revenue, i.e., by cutting taxes. At the federal level, they have succeeded in dramatically reducing income taxes on corporations and high-income households.

Year Corporate tax rate Top personal income tax rate
1950s 50% 90%
1970s High 40% 70%
1980s 34% 50%
2026 21% 37%

Republicans and so-called supply-side economists promised that tax cuts would spur economic and job growth resulting in prosperity for all (aka trickle-down economics), but the reality has been exploding economic inequality. Everyday working Americans are struggling with the affordability of the cost of living and many middle-class Americans have seen their dreams and economic security vanish. Meanwhile, the wealth of the wealthy has skyrocketed. Note that if tax cuts did indeed stimulate economic growth, based on the tax cuts documented above, our economy should have been soaring for the last 50 years.

Despite Republicans’ and supply-side economists’ claims that tax cuts would actually increase government tax revenue due to strong economic growth, their tax cuts and increases in military spending have caused the federal budget deficit to explode. The annual budget deficits have grown from under $74 billion in 1980 to almost 30 times that or $2 trillion in 2025. The accumulated federal debt has grown from under $1 trillion in 1980 to $38.5 trillion in 2025. Although Republicans have offset their tax cuts’ increases in the deficit somewhat by cutting social spending, these efforts have met with limited success because of the need for and public support of a social safety net that includes unemployment benefits, food assistance, and subsidized health care when workers fall on hard times.

Republicans and their supply-side economists have also been trying to get states to cut taxes. The focus has typically been on personal and corporate income taxes and they’ve had significant success. Since 2021, twenty-six states have cut their personal and/or corporate income taxes. [1] Massachusetts will likely have two tax cut measures on the November 2026 ballot.

They are proceeding with these tax cut efforts despite the dreadful experience a decade ago in Kansas. In 2012, Kansas dramatically cut its personal and business income taxes based on the supply-side promises of booming economic growth. However, by 2017, state revenue was down hundreds of millions of dollars, economic growth was below average, and the state was having to cut funding for schools and roads. The Republicans in the state legislature voted to repeal the tax cuts, the Republican Governor who’d sponsored the cuts vetoed the repeal, and the Republican legislature voted with an over two-thirds majority to override the Governor’s veto.

Furthermore, in part because not every state has an income tax, the Republicans and their supply-side economists are now targeting the source of 70% of local government revenue, the property tax. They claim that state governments will step in to make up local government shortfalls through sales taxes and other state revenue sources.

Almost inevitably, tax cuts on personal or business income, as well as to property taxes, disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. Although middle- and lower-income individuals may see some benefits, the larger benefits go to the well off. This expands the already growing economic inequality in the U.S. For example, one of the Massachusetts proposals would cut the state’s base income tax rate from 5% to 4%. While the proponents state that on average families would get a $1,300 tax break, low-income families would get about $70, those with incomes of roughly $1 million would get $1,000, and the wealthiest families would get $35,000 or more. Similar effects would occur with cuts to, let alone elimination of, property taxes as the wealthiest families have the properties with the highest values.

Note that replacing this lost income or property tax revenue with sales taxes or gambling revenue means using very regressive taxes to replace often progressive ones. Moreover, the loss of government services and supports due to loss of revenue will hit the lowest income families the hardest.

Therefore, these tax cut strategies that Republicans and their supply-side economists are pushing will further increase economic inequality, which will only strengthen the oligarchy that is working to take control of our democracy. If someone tries to tell you they can cut your taxes without cutting the services you get from government, such as schools, roads, public safety, and a safety net for hard times, don’t believe them. There is no such thing as a free lunch. And if they tell you you’ll save a little money, ask them how much the millionaires will save and what you’ll lose from your government in the bargain.

I encourage you to contact your state and local elected officials, as well as your U.S. Representative and Senators, to ask them to support progressive tax policies that support everyday working Americans. [2] Such policies include progressive income tax rates, wealth and unearned income taxes, and fair business taxes. (See this previous post for more on fair taxation.)

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Curry Wimbish, W., 4/8/26, “Live tax-free and die,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/2026/04/08/apr-2026-magazine-live-tax-free-and-die/)

[2] You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

BILLIONAIRES ARE ALREADY BUYING THE 2026 ELECTIONS

SUMMARY: Billionaires are already spending record amounts of money on 2026 election campaigns. Most of this money flows through Political Action Committees (PACs) and goes to Republicans. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and state Democratic committees should ban PAC money from their primary elections because it distorts election results, perverts governments’ policies, and drowns out the voices of working people.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

One of the problems with great economic inequality in a democracy is that the wealthy will find a way to buy policy decisions and enforcement that favor them. It can be through outright bribes. Or it can be more subtle. Our campaign finance system effectively lets the wealthy buy candidates. First, candidates without access to wealthy people’s money generally don’t even bother to run because they don’t have a chance. Second, during the campaign, wealthy donors fund and support candidates who will do their bidding once elected. Once in office, those elected want to get re-elected, so they curry favor with wealthy donors by supporting policies donors favor to ensure their funding for re-election campaigns.

Although U.S. campaign finance laws limit the amount an individual can give directly to a candidate or a political party, the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision allows unlimited spending by super Political Action Committees (PACs). PAC spending is supposed to be independent of the candidate being supported, but the rules on independence are ignored and unenforced.

Therefore, much of the billionaires’ money flows through PACs. Nine of the eleven richest PACs fund Republican campaigns. Trump’s MAGA Inc. PAC leads the way with $89 million from billionaires. Musk’s America PAC is second at $45 million. The Senate and House PACs for Republicans have received a combined $66 million while those for Democrats have received $37 million. The other five richest PACs all fund Republicans and have between $15 and $10 million.

Billionaires are willing to spend lots of money on campaigns (or bribes) because the return on their investment is huge. A few million dollars can buy them tax cuts worth billions as the Republicans 2017 tax cut bill and the 2025 so-called One Big Beautiful Bill did. The wealthy’s campaign spending also buys them deregulation or contracts for their businesses that are worth billions. In the 2024 federal elections, billionaires accounted for almost 20% of all campaign spending. [1]

Grassroots organizing that gets lots of people to vote and educates them to distrust the advertising they see and hear from wealth-backed candidates can beat billionaires’ money, but it takes lots of work. Public matching funds for small donations to campaigns coupled with links to limits on donation size also make a huge difference as Mayor Mamdani’s campaign in New York City demonstrated. (See this previous post for more information.) Democracy is NOT a spectator sport. It takes work, participation, and voters who are paying attention and not believing the lies of wealth-backed candidates like Trump.

American billionaires are already spending big on the 2026 elections. As of March 1, the 50 highest spending billionaire families had already spent over $400 million on 2026 election campaigns. At this rate they will exceed the record for a non-presidential election and spend over $1 billion by election day. Not surprisingly, 80% of this money is going to Republican candidates or groups because Republicans have been the ones at the forefront of pushing policies that favor the wealthy. This is obscene and undemocratic. This is why we have an oligarchy running our government. [2]

Twelve of the top thirteen billionaire families have given money exclusively to Republicans. The Musk family leads the way at $71 million followed by the Yass family at $55 million and the Brockman family at $25 million. The next ten families have given between $10 million and $16 million each with the one Democratic donor at $13 million.

This is why we must change our tax laws to reduce the wealth of billionaires. (See this previous post for specifics.) They are so rich that they can afford to spend essentially unlimited amounts of money to corrupt our democracy to serve their interests, i.e., to make it an oligarchy. High levels of wealth lead inexorably to concentrated political power. [3] As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote almost 100 years ago, “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Please contact your U.S. Representative and Senators to ask them to support a fairer tax system that taxes wealth and transfers of it. [4]

In addition to the billionaires, special interest groups are also already spending big money on the 2026 elections. Some of these special interest PACs split their money between Republicans and Democrats because they want to buy influence with both parties. A current example is the crypto industry. Its primary PAC, called Fairshake, has already raised $133 million. The vast majority of this comes from two billionaire-backed companies, Ripple and Coinbase. The crypto industry also spent heavily in the 2024 elections and some of the corrupt influence its spending bought is readily apparent. The Trump administration dropped thirteen charges for security law violations against Binance, the largest cryptocurrency exchange and pardoned its billionaire founder. The crypto industry has been pushing Congress, successfully so far, to leave the crypto industry largely unregulated and the beneficiary of tax loopholes.

Billionaires and special interest PACs spend money in Democratic primaries, often to defeat candidates who strongly oppose their policy interests and sometimes to support candidates who support their interests. The crypto industry has done this frequently, as have the AI industry and pro-Israel interests.

This is why my previous post called for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and state Democratic committees to ban super PAC and dark money (i.e., money where the true donor is unidentified) from their primary elections. A coalition of four Democratic Senators (Merkley [D-OR], Warren [D-MA], Welch [D-VT], and Van Hollen [D-MD]) and Independent Sanders (VT) are pushing Democrats and the DNC to ban money from billionaire- and corporate-backed PACs from Democratic primary elections. They noted in a letter to the DNC that unlimited PAC spending will “distort our elections and drown out the voices of working people.” [5]

For lots of good news, see Jess Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water blog’s most recent good news Sunday post here.

[1] Johnson, J., 3/25/26, “‘Modern-day royalty’: 50 billionaire families have already pumped over $430 million into midterms,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/billionaire-spending-2026-midterms)

[2] Americans for Tax Fairness, 3/25/26, “No Kings – No billionaire kingmakers either,” (https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaire-kingmakers/)

[3] Bivens, J., 11/17/25, “Raising taxes on the ultrarich,” Economic Policy Institute (https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-taxes-on-the-ultrarich-a-necessary-first-step-to-restore-faith-in-american-democracy-and-the-public-sector/)

[4] You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[5] Prager, S., 4/27/26, “Bernie Sanders lead Senators in demand to end super PACs in Democratic primaries,” Common Dreams (https://www.commondreams.org/news/sanders-dnc-dark-money)