There is no group of people in the US more subsidized by the government than the rural dweller. Both through direct and indirect subsidies.
Rural voters receive massive agricultural subsidies, they receive significant tax breaks, almost all their infrastructure, from roads, to internet, to the mail, is nearly entirely paid by the federal government with little support from local federal taxes because their tax base is so weak.
But then there’s also the indirect subsidies, such as the U.S. preventing the import of a whole lot of fruits, eve tables and meats altogether, and the ones they do, they do with high import taxes, or the US promoting the sale of rural products both domestically (USDA’s primary goal) and through international trade deals.
But rural voters actually believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that they are not the recipients but rather the donors of wealth to the rest of the country, particularly the urban parts. Most other Western countries’ rural areas have no such misgivings, so I suspect it’s a result of them looking at themselves as the archetype US cowboy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, with no help, etc etc.
So you have this strange situation where the rural voter votes for the party that promises to reduce taxes thinking that they will benefit, since they believe they pay more than they receive, but in reality they are shortchanging themselves.
This worked for a while. The richest enjoyed the real tax cuts, while the rural folks got minor cuts, but nonetheless they didn’t see any downsides, because the roads, hospitals, internet had already been built. Maybe it had a few more potholes than before, and you needed to wait 2 days instead of 1, but you never connected this to the reduction of federal tax money (to be fair, the impact would have been convoluted…tax money being pulled out somewhere else, so the state having to reduce district level funds in one area to plug that hole, which was then possibly pulled out from the hospital maintenance fee by the local administrators).
However, at one point these started accumulating, and what it took was 1 major stress event to go from slowly increasing the temperature of the water the frog was in, to picking them up from the lukewarm water and dropping them in a fire.
There is no group of people in the US more subsidized by the government than the rural dweller. Both through direct and indirect subsidies.
Rural voters receive massive agricultural subsidies, they receive significant tax breaks, almost all their infrastructure, from roads, to internet, to the mail, is nearly entirely paid by the federal government with little support from local federal taxes because their tax base is so weak.
But then there’s also the indirect subsidies, such as the U.S. preventing the import of a whole lot of fruits, eve tables and meats altogether, and the ones they do, they do with high import taxes, or the US promoting the sale of rural products both domestically (USDA’s primary goal) and through international trade deals.
But rural voters actually believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that they are not the recipients but rather the donors of wealth to the rest of the country, particularly the urban parts. Most other Western countries’ rural areas have no such misgivings, so I suspect it’s a result of them looking at themselves as the archetype US cowboy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, with no help, etc etc.
So you have this strange situation where the rural voter votes for the party that promises to reduce taxes thinking that they will benefit, since they believe they pay more than they receive, but in reality they are shortchanging themselves.
This worked for a while. The richest enjoyed the real tax cuts, while the rural folks got minor cuts, but nonetheless they didn’t see any downsides, because the roads, hospitals, internet had already been built. Maybe it had a few more potholes than before, and you needed to wait 2 days instead of 1, but you never connected this to the reduction of federal tax money (to be fair, the impact would have been convoluted…tax money being pulled out somewhere else, so the state having to reduce district level funds in one area to plug that hole, which was then possibly pulled out from the hospital maintenance fee by the local administrators).
However, at one point these started accumulating, and what it took was 1 major stress event to go from slowly increasing the temperature of the water the frog was in, to picking them up from the lukewarm water and dropping them in a fire.