1) The citizens of California and New Jersey are on average more productive and less dependent on the federal government than the citizens of Mississippi and New Mexico.
2) The citizens of Mississipi and New Mexico are on average less productive and more dependent on the federal government than the citizens of California and New Jersey.
Maybe you can now understand why the citizens of Donor States like California and New Jersey get a little irritated when they hear a resident (like you) of a Parasitic State (like Arizona) complain about "bailing out California."
Why don't we all work together to see if we can't find ways to reduce the dependency on the federal government of states like Arizona, Mississippi and New Mexico or, as you prefer to put it, why don't we all work together to see if we can't find ways to reduce the dependency on the federal government of citizens of states like Arizona, Missippi and New Mexico?
“Maybe you can now understand why the citizens of Donor States like California and New Jersey get a little irritated when they hear a resident (like you) of a Parasitic State (like Arizona) complain about “bailing out California.”
Can the fiscal plight of CA and NJ seriously be laid at the feet of their being “donor states”? If that truly were the case, then I’d argue in favor of their shedding some of their excess obligations—perhaps by challenging the constitutional foundations of them (for example, the Medicaid formula is structured precisely to redistribute funds from “rich” states to “poor” states, but this would appear to violate the principal that taxes be levied proportionately among states etc.). But if eradicating this fiscal imbalance would only solve, say, 10% of CA’s fiscal problem, then I would say that hiding behind this excuse is not very defensible.
In light of all the horror stories we’re heard about outrageous pensions etc., my guess is that the truth may be closer to the latter than the former.