54.7 F
Sunday, May 28, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsMoore: Illinois among the nation's ten "Loser" left-wing states

Moore: Illinois among the nation’s ten “Loser” left-wing states



Screen Shot 2016-12-19 at 10.06.03 AM

Illinois is one of the nation's ten blue states that voted for Hillary Clinton in November. That's not good news for the state, says economist Stephen Moore, who says "blue states are in a depression."

By Stephen Moore - 

People are leaving the Hillary-supporting states in droves.

When I say the blue states are in a depression, I don’t mean the collective funk they are in because they lost the election to Donald Trump.

I’m talking about an economic depression in the blue states that went for Hillary. Here is an amazing statistic. Of the 10 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest percentage margins — California, Massachusetts, Vermont, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut — every single one of them lost domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years (2004-14). Nearly 2.75 million more Americans left California and New York than entered these states.

They are the loser states. They are all progressive. High taxes rates. High welfare benefits. Heavy regulation. Environmental extremism. Super minimum wages. Most outlaw energy drilling. The whole left-wing playbook is on display in the Hillary states. And people are leaving in droves. Day after day, they are being bled to death. So much for liberalism creating a worker’s paradise.

Now let’s look at the 10 states that had the largest percentage vote for Donald Trump. Everyone of them — Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Idaho — was a net population gainer.

This is part and parcel of one of the greatest internal migration waves in American history as blue states especially in the northeast are getting clobbered by their low tax, smaller government rivals in the south, southeast and mountain regions.

By the way, pretty much the same pattern holds true for jobs. The job gains in the red states carried by the widest margins by Mr. Trump had about twice the job creation rate as the bluest states carried by Hillary.

The just-released 2016 edition of ALEC’s Rich States, Poor States, which I co-author with Reagan economist Arthur Laffer and economist Jonathan Williams shows a persistent trend of Americans moving from blue to red states. The best example is that from 2004-2014, the two biggest conservative states in terms of population size — Florida and Texas — gained almost one million new residents each. The two most populous liberal states — California and New York — saw an equal-sized exodus.

It’s easy to understand why people might want to leave gray and rusting New York. But California? California has arguably the most beautiful weather, mountains and beaches in the country and yet people keep fleeing the state that is supposed to be a progressive utopia.


What doesn’t make California and New York paradise is the high cost of living thanks to expensive environmental regulations, forced union policies, and income tax rates that are the highest in the nation at 13 percent or more. Florida and Texas are right to work states with no income tax. Is it really a shocker that people would choose zero income tax over 13 percent? New York politicians know that their record high tax rates are killing growth, which is why the state is spending millions of dollars on TV ads across the country trying to convince people that New York has low taxes. Sure.

And Chicago is crime-free.

Even when it comes to income inequality blue states fare worse than red states. According to a 2016 report by the Economic Policy institute, three of the states with the largest gaps between rich and poor are … those progressive icons New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Sure, Boston, Manhattan and Silicon Valley are booming as the rich prosper. But outside these areas are deep pockets of poverty and wage stagnation.

The lesson to be learned from the states is that the “progressive” tax and spend agenda has been put on trial. Not only do the policies lead to much slower growth, they also benefit the rich and politically well-connected at the expense of everyone else.

President-elect Trump is now promising that on a national scale, he will cut taxes, deregulate and cut wasteful government spending, In the presidential debates Hillary Clinton disparaged this agenda as “trumped up, trickle-down economics,” and then she asked, when has that ever worked? Actually in prospering red states like Florida, Tennessee, Texas and so many other states that voted Republican, that is exactly how they grow the economy.

Stephen Moore is an economist with Freedom Works and a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign. First published in the December 3rd Washington Times.


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories


  1. “Not only do the policies lead to much slower growth, they also benefit the rich and politically well-connected at the expense of everyone else.”
    – Actually, it’s even more sinister than that. In Illinois, “the rich and politically well-connected” are actually created directly from state revenue. They’re publicly employed.

  2. Gee I dunno I consider states that need the Feds to balance their budgets and states that have a high dependency on federal dollars because of unpaid for tax cuts LOSERS.
    That would be every single red state down south. There are more people on federal welfare in these states than in any other. look it up. Conservative trickle down bull sh*t is back and giving huge tax cuts to the 1% who take the money and invest anywhere but this country.
    Lookee how all the red states that cut taxes and got no extra revenue from this failed disproven policiy have had to cut basic services to people. All so their rich donors have more money in their pockets. It’s a disgusting theft from the poor to the wealthy. And you al voted them back in….. congrats.

  3. You pick and choose your facts and what you highlight. It’s incredibly sad that professions such as an economist have also become an extension of the political parties.
    Where do we find an economist without a political an agenda these days? One that don’t come to the table with a desired outcome and then proceeds to picking and choosing facts and information that will deliver an outcome that confirms their ideology.
    Mission impossible: find an economist that have no desired outcome of their studies and assessment, but rather is seeking the truth and looks at the entire picture before delivering an assessment of results based on causation (policies). Even if the results give no clear answer, or even is able to tell you if one set of policies are good or bad. Maybe the answer isn’t so clear ever, clear answers require a over simplification that isn’t realistic unless you are only trying to prove your preconceived notions.
    Which this writer is successful in doing.

  4. Chase is quite correct: Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont used to be reliably Republican. Expatriates from Massachusetts and New York transformed Vermont into a leftist paradise that is solid blue. New Hampshire leans blue, but is competitive for Republicans in a few races. Maine’s sole value to the GOP is that it awards its electoral votes on the basis of Congressional Districts, so a Republican can sometimes pick up the crumbs.

  5. This map basically illustrates: http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/February-2016/Where-Is-Illinois-Losing-Population/ and then this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-population-record-loss-met-20160324-story.html What’s fascinating is that it’s the counties immediately outside of Chicagoland that are imploding. I suspect that has to do with superintendents, administrators and other public officials trying to keep up with the expectations inside Chicagoland, but without any sort of tax base that could realistically support the largesse. The property taxpayers can’t afford to live here anymore.

  6. the delta? the difference between the wealthiest in the state and the poorest? is the way has been set up by the GOP since Reagan..
    look it up Reagan dropped the highest tax rates on the wealthy and left most of the more with the bag of tax revenue. Look up a chart on the google and you will see it the siphoning of money to the wealthiest via undeserved and unmerited tax cuts base on the failed trickle down policy is whe the “inequality”.
    trickle down policy is a failure. every time it is implemented in bankrupts a state… and leads to loss of service. Look up Kentucky, look up North Carolina, look up Alabama and you will see GOP tickle down policy has siphoned the coffers. NO cash revenue is pouring in. Its a failed policy. Look these states up and read about all the cuts to 90% of thei citzens in favor of continued tax cuts to other 90%
    The Paul Ryan plan… look it up. It gives over 90 % of cuts to top 1% ONLY. Only 10% of the cuts to 99& of this country… think about THAT! ]
    Use your brains you’ve been taken. You voted in a rubber stamper for GOP money grabbing.

  7. “Use your brains …”
    Look in a mirror. First, as usual, you can’t spell, or use proper punctuation.
    Second, the question was why is inequality worse in blue states than red states? If you can’t answer it fine but don’t reply unless you have an answer to the question.
    Third, you are a Chicago Public School graduate working for Soros and badly in need of proper medication and professional mental help.

  8. you won’t like my answer… but the affluent in the country are fleeing the red states low income white folks willingly voting in GOP legislators to make that quality of life so miserable….. even the affluent flee. Who wants to live a state on the decline with failing infrastructure and rich fat cat GOP critters getting all the bucks.
    Look up the economic status of the red states. open your eyes. you’re being fleeced by establishment GOP everywhere on every level of government,.

  9. In addition to writing like a six year old Chicago Public School student the logic here makes no sense. The entire premise, factually proven, is that people are fleeing blue states for red states (see Illinois losing to Indiana and Wisconsin).
    You should sue your Chicago Public School for the education they gave you.