Morning Joe’s Steve Rattner exposed how Trump’s economic plan would harm his core MAGA constituents. Sam Stein pointed out that the economy is doing better under the Democrats. Joe Scarborough pointed out that the Red States depend on the Blue States. They are takers.
Trump’s policies are shafting his MAGA supporters.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
Donald Trump’s supporters in red states are often among his most passionate defenders, many of whom are unaware that the policies he champions disproportionately harm them. The irony of Trump’s economic agenda, which purports to uplift working-class Americans, is that it devastates the very communities that voted him into power. Red states, which frequently suffer from higher poverty rates and greater economic dependency, receive substantial financial support from the federal government—most of it funneled from wealthier blue states. Yet, Trump’s proposed policies, from regressive tariffs to slashing federal programs, amount to a betrayal of his MAGA base.
A key point that often goes unmentioned in right-wing media is that red states are net takers from the federal system. On her recent show, Joy-Ann Reid highlighted the reality: red states heavily depend on the wealth generated by blue states. These red states receive more federal benefits than they contribute in taxes. Federal programs such as the Inflation Reduction Act, signed by President Biden, have sent significant investment into red states, particularly in clean energy. As discussed on Morning Joe, while many Republican leaders rail against federal spending and decry “socialism,” their states are the beneficiaries of economic redistribution funded largely by Democratic-led blue states.
Steve Rattner’s analysis on Morning Joe emphasized that red states would suffer greatly under Trump’s regressive economic plans. One of the most harmful aspects of Trump’s proposals is his fixation on tariffs. While Trump’s base may see these tariffs as a way to punish foreign competitors, the reality is that tariffs act as taxes on American consumers. As Rattner pointed out, these tariffs disproportionately hurt working- and middle-class families by increasing the cost of everyday goods. On average, families would pay an additional $1,600 a year, a burden that falls heaviest on low-income households in red states. And while Trump’s tariffs would increase costs for regular Americans, the wealthy—those Trump claims to fight against—would benefit from the accompanying tax cuts. It’s a form of reverse Robin Hood economics, where wealth is redistributed upward.
Reid also contrasted Trump’s policies with those of Kamala Harris. While Trump proposes tariffs that burden the poor and tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, Harris advocates for increasing taxes on corporations and the ultra-rich while offering significant tax credits to small businesses. Harris’ policy aims to lift small businesses, many of which exist in rural areas, thus directly benefiting red-state economies. This approach starkly contrasts with Trump’s protectionist and corporate-driven agenda, which is aligned with Wall Street, not Main Street.
Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in Trump’s rhetoric is his focus on dismantling federal programs that disproportionately benefit red states. Many states rely heavily on federal assistance programs, particularly education and infrastructure. For example, Head Start and Title I funding, which support education in low-income areas, primarily flow into rural red-state districts. Yet, Trump’s support for Project 2025 would decimate these programs, cutting off essential funding that sustains rural schools and their children’s future. The cognitive dissonance is staggering: voters in these areas often decry “big government” while simultaneously relying on federal aid to survive.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed by Democrats, provides another example of how federal programs benefit red states more than blue ones. The IRA has pumped billions into clean energy projects across red states, driving investments in renewable energy infrastructure like wind farms and solar energy production. This investment has led to economic growth and job creation in regions that would otherwise be left behind. Yet, the very politicians who represent these red states continue to rail against the act, attempting to undermine the very policies that benefit their constituents. As Rattner pointed out, investment in red states under the IRA increased by 84%, while blue states saw a slight decrease. This means that red states are receiving a disproportionate share of the financial benefits, and yet, Trump and his allies in the GOP have vowed to repeal it.
The underlying issue here is a lack of awareness among Trump’s base. Many are unaware that their states are net beneficiaries of federal spending. For years, the Republican party has demonized the idea of wealth redistribution and vilified federal programs that help the poor, painting these as “socialist” or as handouts. Yet, red-state residents benefit the most from these programs. The cognitive dissonance is staggering, as these voters often advocate for policies that strip them of essential services while benefiting the wealthy.
In contrast, Democratic policies, such as those outlined by Kamala Harris, provide tangible benefits to working-class Americans. Harris has intended to raise taxes on the wealthy, not the middle class, and reinvest those funds into small businesses and essential services. Harris’s plan acknowledges the need for investment in struggling rural areas, focusing on providing tax credits and support to entrepreneurs, many of whom operate in red states. This kind of forward-thinking policy contrasts sharply with Trump’s regressive tax-and-tariff agenda, which leaves working-class people to foot the bill for the wealthy’s tax cuts.
The tragic irony is that while Trump’s base continues to support him, they are the very people most hurt by his policies. As Reid and Rattner both underscored, red states remain economically dependent on blue states, and Trump’s agenda only exacerbates that dependence. Trump’s policies favor the rich, harm the poor, and continue to leave his supporters in red states economically vulnerable. It’s time these voters realize the truth: they are the takers, and Trump’s policies are leaving them worse off.
Ironically, Moody Analytics makes it clear that Trump’s economic policies would benefit the rich, while Harris’ policies support the working class. Moreover, Harris will generate a much better economy than Trump’s. This is historical, as Democratic presidents over the last several decades have outperformed Republican presidents. Our MAGA brothers and sisters need to wake up not only for the good of the country but for their well-being.
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
