> It is an oversimplification, because those people were getting more federal money. [..] They voted for lower taxes in their local states and thus underfunded

> It is an oversimplification, because those people were getting more federal money. [..] They voted for lower taxes in their local states and thus underfunded own infrastructure. You cut what you can when you're strapped, and Kansas and Louisiana can't control their federal tax obligations, or federal contributions to things like the Big Dig or the post-collapse Baltimore bridge building projects. They just hope that when the tornadoes / hurricanes come and the levee breaks that the rest of the country will be keen to pay for something that benefits them. This doesn't always pan out though. As an example.. it doesn't get more federal than the army corps of engineers, but they argued for sovereign immunity. We'll see whether the LA wildfires get handled better or worse than climate catastrophes in the flyover states or the south east, but naturally California will probably do better and get more help than a politically unimportant place would. Without getting way into the weeds on details, perhaps we can agree that the optics of this stuff just aren't great. Without "rationalizing motivations" or "making people sound better".. basically you can choose to either double down on the other'ing or you can at least try to listen and empathize.