Socializing the risk

An essential function of our multi-state union and an easy WWJD answer

---

House Speaker Mike Johnson pre-approving California’s government leaders on the charge of dereliction of duty with regard to the LA Fires disaster prelude and response, ominously intoning that “there should be conditions on that [federal] aid.”

Talk about a government death panel: Do you really need this chemo after eating bacon for breakfast your entire life? Gonna be some conditions on that!

In a moment of extreme need, this is most definitely dirty pool — unstatesmanlike in the extreme. It bodes very badly for Trump 2.0, but we can hardly describe it as unexpected as our future POTUS chimes in with various accusatory and condemning tweets — how Churchill-like at this very stand-up-and-be-accounted-for leadership moment.

A primary benefit of our multi-state union is our ability to socialize particular risks, the idea being that, when one or more states suffer some tragedy or disaster, the rest of us kick in — through the flow of Federal assistance.

It’s the ultimate expression of I got you buddy!

Why do we do this? Simple application of the Golden Rule: would we want the same to come our way if the circumstances disfavored us? Sure we would.

Plus, there’s just human empathy. You don’t kick at people when they’re down. Ask Jesus. He’d point you in the right direction.

The GOP’s political gamesmanship here is what my Mom used to call dirty pool: unsportsmanlike conduct. When I played basketball from 3rd grade through 12th, if I didn’t raise my hand to acknowledge a foul levied on me, my Mother’s voice would ring out “THOMAS!” and I’d instantly know better. You just don’t embarrass yourself or your family in a public moment like that — as small as it was.

I still hear her voice in my head. My Dad’s as well.

Take some responsibility, show some class.

As for the truly big moments — the ones you never forget? That’s when you really need to remember who you are and what you represent.

When my firstborn Emily was battling cancer as a toddler, I would ask myself time and again, How many times am I ever going to face a situation like this (some crisis) and do I want to do it up big-time or do I want to low-ball it?

And, each time, I chose to do it up big — the maximum effort, because How many times in your life do you get to take your kid into a hospital for a platelets transfusion?

And, you know, the answers to such questions don’t really matter. Whether it’s just the once or a hundred times, the deeper question is, How do you behave at a moment like this? Who can we count on you to be?

With genuine sorrow, I come a piece like this from the always solid Philip Bump:

WAPO: Republicans want concessions before California gets its tax dollars back; The Golden State gives far more to the federal government than it receives. Republicans want to force California to change before it gets assistance for its wildfires.

It is fairly despicable to play politics at a moment like this, but it fits the Trumpian pattern of Did they vote for me or not?

Numerous insider accounts of Trump 1.0 indicated that this was standard operating procedure, and it stinks to high heaven — the bully as passive aggressive.

For a president, with no further elections possible, to behave like that is supremely disappointing. Nobody deserves to be treated like that, and yet, it’s hard not to expect this sort of viciousness in spades over the next four years.

The wildfires that have obliterated entire Los Angeles neighborhoods are still burning. But recovering from the disaster can’t wait. The city and the state of California have thousands of homeless residents, and a need for resources already extends into the billions of dollars.

In past similar moments, the federal government has quickly stepped in. Soon after Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas in 2017, Congress passed legislation that provided nearly $8 billion to help states that had been affected. Only three legislators voted against it.

However, the response to Hurricane Sandy five years before was different. That storm inundated the Northeast, leaving Lower Manhattan without power for days. When Congress began considering a slightly larger bill providing funding to the affected region, nearly 70 legislators opposed it — all Republicans.

Texas good, New York bad, meaning we’re not all in this together and I’m only the president of those Americans who voted for me.

That dynamic is very much in play following the fires in California. Within hours, Republicans and others on the right were spreading claims (often false ones) presenting the disaster as fundamentally a function of Democratic mismanagement. With that baseline established, various legislators have suggested that the state needs to change its policies before it should receive federal funding.

The real enemy here, according to Republicans? “Green energy stuff” involving public funds that should have otherwise been spent … I dunno … on drill baby drill!

To be fair, there is an underlying logic there: at some point we all need to shift more of our spending from mitigation (presently about 90%) to adaptation (still only about 10%), but you know damn well that that’s not the argument Republicans are making here, and that is sad, and a genuine dereliction of duty for legislators (which leaves one even more disappointed with Johnson’s performance for the cameras)

Here’s the underlying truth of the matter: nobody pays into the US pot more than California — nobody. When it comes to disasters, nobody has pitched in more on behalf of others — nobody.

By way of contrast, Texas is the third-biggest sinkhole of federal spending, trailing only DC-adjacent Virginia and Maryland. That pretty much means that California routinely sends billions of dollars each year to cover Texas’ shortfall or its conspicuous consumption of federal funds.

California gives and Texas takes. It’s as simple as that.

And when California needs some of that money back in a disaster? Then Texas legislators jump to the front of the line to condemn and accuse their fellow Americans of negligence.

On Fox Business, Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) insisted that funding would need to come “in conjunction with some reforms that California hasn’t been willing to make on the way they regulate their water and things of that nature.” The state, he said, had “wasted their taxpayer dollars on all kinds of crazy, woke agenda items that they’ve had and green energy stuff.”

Does California return the favor when Texas is hit? It does not.

Per the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s online data portal, blue Massachusetts sends in almost $4k per person more to the Fed than it gets back. New Jersey just over $3k and California at $2.2K.

Texas, by the way, receives $2.3k per person more than it sends to DC in taxes.

Again, California literally covers Texas’s federal welfare flows.

And do not pretend that military spending is the difference, because both California and Texas have mucho military bases.

Self-reliant Texas, my ass.

California gives and Texas takes.

And here’s the funny part: States that take more than they give tend to vote Republican, while virtually all of the states that give more than they take vote Democratic.

The political hypocrisy of that dynamic is stunning, when you think of it: all that government is evil bullshit coming out of one’s mouth while holding out your hands for your federal funding.

Eleven states pay more than they take from the Fed: California, Washington, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. All but Utah went for Harris in 2024.

Thirty-nine states take in more from the Fed than they pitch in. Trump won 30 of those states, Harris nine.

So, 90 percent of the Givers voted Blue, while 76% of the Takers voted Red. Those Takers, we are told, now demand that the Trump administration should blow up the Federal government and reduce it to a mere fraction of its former fiscal self.

Riiight!

Again, the hypocrisy and salesmanship here is masterful: getting people to vote against their own economic interests time and again.

California — get this — faces only an average climate vulnerability when compared to the rest of the Union. Florida is worse off, and Texas ranks among the very worst.

Does the GOP really want to play this game in the years ahead? Because their electoral base is basically climate-vulnerable America while the Dems’ base is climate-resilient America.

Of the twenty states designated as relatively more vulnerable than the rest, 18 of them voted for Trump.

Keep that in mind as the climate-change-fueled disasters continue to pile up.