Trump administration prioritizes high-birthrate areas for transportation funds which means more federal funding to red states: South Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota & Texas [See body text] (archive.ph)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by InevitableSwing@hexbear.net to c/urbanism@hexbear.net

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The NYT pretends the move is "puzzling" and puts a reason in the second half of the article.

Prioritizing areas with higher birthrates would, however, send more federal funding to Republican states. South Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota and Texas are among the states with the highest fertility rates, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. States that have the lowest fertility rates include Vermont, Oregon, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, none of which voted for Mr. Trump in the 2024 election.

“Clearly this is helping red states,” said Phillip Levine, an economics professor at Wellesley College who has studied the topic of falling U.S. birthrates.

The other reason is this is Trump making the fascists and fundies happy by mentioning birthrates in red states. I'm actually surprised Trump didn't have his transportation secretary stooge simply say "The more you vote for Trump - the more we help you."

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 18 points 1 month ago

I'm actually surprised Trump didn't have his transportation secretary stooge simply say "The more you vote for Trump - the more we help you."

It's just understood at this point.

[-] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago

Isn't that expected behaviour from an elected politician?

[-] regul@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago

Nah. Democrats bend over backwards to try to be liked by people who loathe them. I'm specifically thinking of Obama's high speed rail money. Wisconsin and Florida were both given huge grants to build high speed rail, but their tea party governors literally gave it back.

[-] InevitableSwing@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago

Vote for me more and I'll help you more. Simple. But... [singsong] maybe maybe maybe maybe - you don't need to vote for me anymore. I could be president a loooong time.

[-] BeanBoy@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago

Oh that’s those libidinal politics I was looking for

[-] BeanBoy@hexbear.net 11 points 1 month ago

Our big wet boy is back

[-] crime@hexbear.net 15 points 1 month ago

Nothing to do with incentivizing abortion bans either

[-] regul@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago

Bright side here is that you most likely do not want the transportation funds that the Trump admin is giving out. They're basically just going to be doing freeway expansions.

[-] Rojo27@hexbear.net 13 points 1 month ago

Just one more lane timmy-pray

[-] ClimateChangeAnxiety@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

To be fair, not that I should, this is basically the way federal tax money already flows and should flow. States with low birth rates also tend to be states with higher income, and therefore higher tax revenue. States with high birth rates are mostly poorer and receive more federal funding.

Also as regul said, you probably don’t want those funds, they’ll almost exclusively be for things that will make your cities worse.