Blue States’ Demographic Nightmare

 The Democratic Party has come a long way from 1996, when President Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign declared that America “cannot tolerate illegal immigration” and added, “We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants.”

When we seek explanations for why today’s Democrats refuse to call those here without permission “illegal,” oppose lawful deportations, and seek government benefits for those who’ve snuck into the country, we probably need to look no further than the population woes of Democratic states. At a time when states are governed increasingly by one party or another, the latest migration trends, released last week, show Americans continuing to move heavily away from states with politics dominated by Democrats, and toward Republican locales—significantly shifting population, political power, and economic resources.

The latest data, for the year ending July 1, 2025, show that seven of the top ten states gaining residents from elsewhere in the country are all governed by so-called Republican trifectas, in which the party controls the governorship and both legislative houses—including Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. The remaining three states in the top ten—North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada—went for Trump in 2024 and have divided governments that lean Republican. Of the 22 states where Republicans control all branches of government, only three lost population to net migration in the last year. In two of those, Mississippi and Nebraska, the net decline was less than 1,000. In all, Republican states gained a net of nearly 345,000 people from other places.  

By contrast, Democratic states dominate the list of places with the biggest outflow of residents. Nine of the ten states losing the most population are Democratic, led by California, with a net loss of 229,000 residents, and including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois. A notable addition to the bottom ten is Colorado—a politically competitive state as recently as 2019 but dominated by Democrats since. Unlike California and New York, which have seen net outmigration for more than a decade, Colorado’s fortunes have only recently turned, but dramatically so, as the state recorded the eighth-highest net loss of residents last fiscal year. Only four of the 15 Democratic trifecta states last year gained residents: Washington, Oregon, Delaware, and Maine. In all, Democratic-led states lost about 495,000 residents to net migration.

This trend has been building for years. A decade ago, when Gallup asked residents of every state whether they intended to move elsewhere, Democratic states dominated the ranks of places people wanted to leave. Analysts found “a strong relationship between total state tax burden and desire to leave one’s current state of residence.” It wasn’t clear whether most of those discontented residents wanted to move elsewhere specifically because of taxes, or whether taxes were just a marker for a big-government ethos that pervades other areas of life as well, but the result was the same.

When Covid-19 emerged, the policy and governing differences between red and blue states widened further, as Democrats were more likely to lock down society (including schools) longer, to institute more draconian restrictions on businesses, and to offset any declines in government revenues from these stoppages with higher taxes. Outmigration subsequently soared. Now, post-Covid, state policy differences have heightened in everything from transsexual rights to opposition to deportation to taxation.

The latest Census numbers illustrate why Democrats have been anxious to welcome immigrants (legal or not) and see that they get counted in the decennial tally. With the border effectively closed, the populations of states like California, Hawaii, and New Mexico are declining, and they’re stagnating in New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. Meantime, populations are growing significantly more in Southwestern and Southeastern states like Texas, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Compounding the problem is that Democratic-leaning states have some of the lowest total fertility rates. In 2023, nine of the 11 states with a birth rate of 1.5 children per woman or less were Democratic states. The blue state with the highest birth rate, New Jersey, ranks only 18th nationally, behind such Republican trifectas as South Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, and Utah.

These demographic shifts are showing up everywhere from politics to economics. In the last 20 years, Florida and Texas alone have gained nine electoral votes, while New York, Illinois, and California have lost six. Projections based on current population trends suggest that, in the next Census, Texas and Florida may each pick up two or more votes, while California and New York could each lose two or more electors. Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin are among those states which could lose a single vote.

 Economically, power has already shifted. The stark contrast in tax and budget policy among states during Covid showed in the rapid revival of the economies in Republican locales. A mid-2022 study documented the way Republican states had already added back 341,000 jobs, while Democratic states were still struggling with losses of 1.3 million positions from Covid lockdowns. Robust gains in everything from retail sales to home listings in Republican states followed on the heels of massive migration, as some 46 million people moved in response to Covid. A year later, a Bloomberg analysis found that the largely Republican Southeastern states and Texas had, as a region, surpassed the Northeastern states in contribution to the nation’s gross domestic product. A 2024 study of patterns throughout Covid further documented the massive movement of workers in their prime employment years and their families out of major metro areas in states like New York, California, and Illinois and into counties in places like central Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Florida, among other Republican areas.

Looking at these results, one might conclude that Democratic voters and the politicians they elect would consider reforms to keep and attract more voters. But states like California, New York, and Illinois have been racking up losses for more than a decade with no sign of political change. If anything, Democratic states seem to be pressing ahead with the very policies that repel a substantial number of citizens and businesses. During the Biden years, Democrats decided that the solution to this problem was to import a cohort of new voters. That immigration policy, ironically, had as much to do with the improbable reelection of Trump as any other Democratic strategy.

The great Scottish Enlightenment thinker Adam Smith once observed that “there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.” Today, you might describe the process as “managed decline.” It’s a feat that many Democratic states are pulling off quite convincingly.

Steven Malanga is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a senior editor of City Journal.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/blue-states-demographic-nightmare

'Economic and Constitutional Vices of California’s “Once-only” Wealth Tax'

 

These wealth taxes have failed pretty much wherever they have been tried, and this time is unlikely to be any different.

Right now, there is an extensive war of words over the “one-time” five percent on all the property of billionaires resident in the state of California, even those assets held personally or in trust outside California. The is intense. On the one side are the state’s unions, including public unions, who have mounted a powerful public relations campaign to get this measure on the state ballot this coming November. The proposal’s tough language announces that it will apply to all persons resident in the state as of January 1, 2026, even if they leave the state before the bill passes — if it passes — this November. Yet the bill contains no enforceable contractual promises to those who pay the tax this time that they will not be caught the next time, if the tax is reimposed, given the general rule, as announced in (1994), that the legislature is free to reverse its general tax waivers.


The union backers of the bill make this an “us v. them” issue when they claim that the entire health care system within the state will falter if that tax is not imposed on the 200 or so billionaires now living the state, who are asked to bear the brunt of the one-time tax, while being exposed to other potential tax increases at the same time. Many of these persons, such as Sergei Brin, Larry Page, and Peter Thiel, have out, taking with them not only their personal wealth but also the various partnerships and trusts, thereby denuding the base. How many billionaires will follow suit is somewhat uncertain. The head of Nvidia, Jensen Huang, has that he was “perfectly fine” with the tax that could cost him $8 billion. Others are likely to follow the lead of those who have picked up stakes. But the economic logic is unassailable. As Jon Hartley and Arthur Laffer : “To collect $6,000 a year [under the wealth tax], the state destroys about $75,000 in private wealth.”

Faced with that grim prospect, the wealth tax will not only cause exit, but also block entry, for no current billionaire will move into the state so long as this threat hovers over his or her head. In addition, individuals who think of themselves as potential billionaires may well leave the state before they get close to that mark, thinking that the so-called one-time promise, even if kept for prior payors, will not protect these newbies, given that they escaped the first round of taxation. This combination of threats has led to one critical defection from the progressive ranks — Governor Gavin Newsom, widely regarded as a strong contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, has his lot with the billionaires, given his concern about the exit damage, which he fears will not be contained. He may have looked at the recent projections for the change in electoral votes after 2030, where California (-4), New York (-2), and Illinois (-2) are expected to lose a total of eight seats in Congress, as Texas and Florida each gain four seats. Differential tax rates in general, not only the wealth tax, are a powerful determinant of that rising red shift, and Newson knows that if he caves now, his chances of taking the White House could easily go up in a ball of smoke.

What makes the matter even worse is the implicit premise behind the new claims: namely, that the wealth tax is needed to fix a system that needs no other repair. But that argument ignores the simple point that the state already has the largest crop of billionaires subject to high income taxes, yet it still cannot make ends meet with such a large tax base. And the explanation is that these unions full well that whether the interest group is teachers, police officers, firefighters, or prison guards, the current system of collective bargaining allows them to use their political clout. The early opposition to public unions, when they were excluded from the Wagner Act of 1935, was that they sat on both sides of the bargaining table and could thus effectively control wages, contract terms, and pensions. So the thought experiment here is to ask what the deficit would look like if the state curbed union monopoly power, requiring them to accept competitive wages like other workers in the economy. No one has run these numbers, but the correct form of political reform is to undo that power and ask for additional revenue only then.

That point is not only an economic imperative, but also a constitutional one. The basic maxim is that a public office is a public trust that, in turn, imposes on these legislative fiduciaries the same duties that are imposed on all private fiduciaries — loyalty and care. They can do neither if they cut sweetheart deals with the unions with whom they have an adverse interest, which is why strongly opposed public unions where the union is on both sides of the deal, an alignment that does not arise with private unions. That position was largely reversed by John F. Kennedy’s disastrous 1962 Executive Order 10988, which gave limited collective bargaining rights to federal public unions, which then quickly spread to the states. The net effect of the union support of the wealth tax has little to do with the public good. The revenue needs could also be raised through traditional means, which will not be used here because the public would rebel. But that is precisely why income taxes, especially flat ones, are a tool to . Yet the key contrast is this. The reviled billionaires made their money by making ordinary people rich, because the out-of-pocket cost of each useful product generates substantial at low prices. The poorer unions make other people poorer still, because their monopolistic activities shrink others' opportunities. A vote for the wealth tax is a vote for public decline.

But now suppose that this bill is passed in its current form; what happens next? The first point is that it will be challenged legally, first as illegal confiscation and then as retroactive legislation. The Sixteenth Amendment for taxation of “incomes from whatever source derived.” That broad mandate, however, does not allow for a tax on wealth unless one wants to make the dubious claim that all wealth is derived from income and therefore covered by the Sixteenth Amendment. That position is wrong, first, as a matter of fact, because wealth derived from a gift or inheritance is not earned by the recipient and is thus outside the income tax under Section 102 of the Income Tax Code.

More fundamentally, income and wealth are contrasting notions. Income involves the change in wealth (including consumption, which is notoriously difficult to tax) between two points in time, and wealth is measured solely at a given point in time. There is therefore no authorization to tax wealth as such under the Constitution. The estate and gift taxes, moreover, are not wealth taxes because they are tied to the transfer of wealth either during life or at death and are thus excise taxes. Those taxes are exceedingly difficult to value because they cover all assets, including nonliquid assets, as does the proposed California tax. The valuation problems with these taxes are acute, and they often take years to determine.

The once-only wealth tax will also take much time and money to evaluate, and those uncertainties will increase the tax’s implicit economic burden. Indeed, part of the initial challenge to the California tax will target its extraterritorial reach, arguing that, under the due process clause, such wealth is properly taxed by the state in which it resides, which usually does not allow for this tax. There are also significant valuation questions about intangible assets and contingent liabilities that must be resolved under regulations that will not be ready the day the bill passes.

Finally, there is a nasty retroactive hook in this tax, which is said to apply to property owned by people who left the state before the bill's passage. That nasty provision is meant to tie up wealth in the state, whether the bill passes, to give extra leverage against the exit right, a key check on state abuse. At this point, it is for a year, but nothing says that if the bill fails this year, it may pass next year with the same holding effect. That gimmick should also be eliminated.

These wealth taxes have failed pretty much wherever they have been tried, and this time is unlikely to be any different. There are learned like Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman who think that a wealth tax is a needed antidote to increasing wealth inequality. If you think so, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell to you for a cheap price.

Richard Epstein is a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.

https://www.civitasinstitute.org/research/the-economic-and-constitutional-vices-of-californias-once-only-wealth-tax

Who Gets to Decide What Patients Know?

 The American media landscape teems with offers to upscale your mattress or replace an outdated device. It is peppered with ads for medicine treating ailments you may never have with side effects you would not wish on anyone. We mock TV ads for being cheesy, repetitive, and unavoidable until it is our turn and we are the ones ready to toss that old mattress, replace our outdated smartphone, or treat a problem your doctor flagged at your last checkup. Ads can give us timely information – information that makes a difference and empowers us to lead a better, healthier life.

Having lived with multiple sclerosis (MS) for more than thirty years, I rely on ready access to all aspects of health information, and I am well aware of what we stand to lose when it is restricted. That is why I am alarmed by any policy proposal that would make it harder for American patients to learn about the latest medical therapies and treatments.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are considering regulatory changes to drug advertisements that would cram ads with extra, often unhelpful side effect disclosures, overwhelming viewers and making ads virtually useless to people like me. Current regulations already guarantee ads for medications are factual and balanced, layered with warnings and alerts to potential side effects.

The Trump administration knows better than anyone the importance of protecting the free flow of health information. During the pandemic, federal officials and social media platforms took steps to limit speech around medical information, dictating which voices could be heard and which facts would be repressed. Esteemed scholars, leading scientists, and frontline practitioners, including the current heads of NIH, Jay Bhattacharya, and HHS Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., were censored online and targeted by the political establishment, in some cases for the only “crime” of sharing informed opinions and data, encouraging people to consider information and decide for themselves.

Some of the very people who were silenced or cancelled for sharing health information then are now the ones pushing to silence – even outright ban – critical health updates. Whether in medicine or civil society at large, our leaders ought to know the importance of free speech. Their commitment to making America healthy again and radical transparency gives many patients like me hope. It gives us hope that we will get access to unfiltered medical information, without corporate or governmental censorship. Whether it is a venerated doctor, the publication of new data, or even drug ads that make some of us roll our eyes, patients do not need Washington to be their nanny.

For patients with a progressive disease like me, the stakes are deeply personal. Managing my MS requires lots of study. Making good choices about my care requires a steady flow of research data and regular updates about innovations around symptom treatment. It allows me to have meaningful conversations with my doctor, including weighing an advertised treatment, so that together we can make decisions to best manage my health. Withholding information from patients is not just a matter of First Amendment rights and constitutional law for me. It is life or death.

Patients become their own best advocates when equipped with the tools to enter their doctor’s office with knowledge, ready to be active participants in their care. Whether through scientific articles, news coverage, or even television commercials, knowledge helps create an informed patient. The informed patient is empowered to understand their options and participate fully in decisions about their health, regardless of their condition, community, or circumstance. The informed patient does not have all the answers, but they know enough to start the right conversations and seek out care.

The decision to pursue a treatment always rests with the patient and their team of medical professionals. I have often first learned about innovative medical treatments from an advertisement, and then was able to discuss them with my neurologist, prompting my doctor and me to consider every option. That conversation is important, regardless of whether we pursue that specific new treatment option or not.

This progress is what we risk losing if we renew the dangerous habit of repressing legitimate, factual information. I know that many people dislike drug ads (or any ads, for that matter). I can find them annoying, too. But I should have the freedom to be informed and be the one who can freely press the mute button – not Washington – if I choose. I want to use my freedoms to find the best ways to live in the body I have, to enjoy my family for as long as I can, and to find hope anywhere I can.

The federal government should not be in the business of limiting what people can read, hear, or learn about their health. Informed patients are healthier. And an informed population is stronger. Preserving the free and effective flow of medical information is not just about patient health. It is about protecting principles that make our society thrive.  

John “CZ” Czwartacki is the Executive Director of the Informed Patients Project and has lived with multiple sclerosis for 33 years. 

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2026/02/04/who_gets_to_decide_what_patients_know_1162966.html

'Home Test for Respiratory Viruses No Substitute for Office Visit'

 The availability of a four-in-one respiratory virus diagnostic for home use may be a boon to consumers, but some clinicians say it should not be used as a substitute for a physician’s guidance.

The Flowflex Plus rapid antigen diagnostic — which detects respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza A and B, and COVID — is now available on retailers’ shelves, for around $16.

The FDA approved Acon Laboratories’ diagnostic in October 2025, making it the first-ever RSV home test and the first home test for children aged 6-23 months.

Before that approval, consumers could order a test kit from Labcorp that would detect those viruses. But it cost $129 and took several days to get results via polymerase chain reaction.

Pediatric Appointment Still Needed

The new rapid antigen diagnostic might be a convenience, but it could lead to missteps, said Joanna J. Parga-Belinkie, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics and an associate professor of pediatrics and clinical neonatologist at the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She said it would be useful to test for flu and COVID because antiviral medications are available if it is early in the course of the illness. “What makes RSV different than those viruses is that there’s no treatment,” Parga-Belinkie told Medscape Medical News.

While testing might give information, “I don’t think for a parent, it changes the need for chatting with your pediatrician, talking to them about symptoms, and getting advice for symptom management when you have RSV,” she said.

Supportive care is the only option for RSV, said Parga-Belinkie.

It’s important to prevent RSV, if possible, she said. Babies and young children can benefit from a dose of clesrovimab or nirsevimab, monoclonal antibody treatments that produce antibodies against RSV. “That’s a real, good layer of protection for babies who are in their first RSV season,” she said, adding that older adults and pregnant people should get an RSV vaccine.

The over-the-counter diagnostics “should always be paired with guidance from a family physician,” said Sarah C. Nosal, MD, FAAFP, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement provided to Medscape Medical News.

At-Home Test Sampling Reliability 

Nosal said the tests’ “reliability varies widely depending on how the sample is collected and the timing of the test relative to symptom onset.”

The home use tests “may have lower sensitivity than tests performed in a clinical setting, which means they can miss infections, especially early in the course of illness,” she said.

The package insert reported that the Flowflex has a sensitivity of 91.6% for SARS-CoV-2, 92.9% for influenza A and B, and 94.1% for RSV. The specificity values were 99.9%, 99.8%, and 99.8%, respectively.

Still, a clinician likely knows a patient’s medical history and “can help interpret results, assess test reliability and determine whether additional testing or treatment is needed,” Nosal said.

And she gives timeworn advice: “I recommend staying home when sick, washing hands, and avoiding contact with others, particularly high-risk individuals.”

Parga-Belinkie and Nosal reported no disclosures.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/home-test-respiratory-viruses-no-substitute-office-visit-2026a10003ok

Cigna targets at least $30.25 EPS for 2026 following FTC settlement

 

and strategic PBM transformation

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4548124-cigna-targets-at-least-30_25-eps-for-2026-following-ftc-settlement-and-strategic-pbm

US Pushes Price Floors At Global Minerals Summit To Cut China Dependence

 The US convened officials from 55 countries on Wednesday for a critical minerals summit focused on stabilizing supply chains and reducing reliance on China, according to Bloomberg. The Trump administration promoted price floors and expanded private investment to secure reliable access for American manufacturers.

The European Union, Japan, and Mexico agreed to work with Washington on new policies, including possible price floors, and toward a binding multilateral trade agreement, according to the US Trade Representative. These moves signal closer coordination among allies to address supply vulnerabilities.

“Today, the international market for critical minerals is failing,” Vice President JD Vance said. “Consistent investment is nearly impossible, and it will stay that way so long as prices are erratic and unpredictable.” He called for stable investment conditions and proposed a “preferential trade center for critical minerals protected from external disruptions.”

Bloomberg writes that price floors have long been seen as a way to shield non-Chinese producers from market flooding. Recent public commitments suggest partners are edging toward a coordinated approach.

The US and EU aim to finalize a memorandum of understanding within 30 days to strengthen supply security. The US and Mexico will identify priority minerals and explore price guarantees ahead of a review of the US-Mexico-Canada trade pact. Vance also cited the administration’s $100 billion lending authority.

The summit followed President Donald Trump’s plan for a nearly $12 billion national stockpile. “We’re crowding in, most importantly, US private equity participation,” said Ex-Im chief John Jovanovic, citing strong repayment assurances and physical collateral.

Concerns over China grew after Beijing announced rare earth export restrictions last year. Trump said Wednesday that he and Xi Jinping had a “long and thorough call” on trade and that he plans to visit China in April.

Officials avoided naming China directly at the summit. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said supply is “heavily concentrated in the hands of one country,” creating geopolitical and economic risks. He also announced FORGE, a new partnership to succeed the Minerals Security Partnership.

China criticized the effort, with spokesman Lin Jian opposing “small groups” that could disrupt global trade.

China controls more than 90% of global rare earths and magnet refining capacity, while demand is rising with artificial intelligence and advanced computing. As Under Secretary Jacob Helberg noted, “Everything is geographically concentrated in China… countries want to diversify and de-risk the supply chain.”

The initiative builds on earlier programs under both Trump and Biden. The summit, hosted by Rubio, drew mainly foreign ministers and diplomats, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer also involved.

Recall, the Trump administration is preparing to launch a major initiative aimed at protecting US manufacturers from disruptions in the supply of critical minerals, committing about $12 billion in initial funding to build a strategic stockpile of essential materials. The project, known as Project Vault, is designed to reduce America’s dependence on China for rare earths and other strategically important metals. By creating a centralized reserve for civilian industries, officials hope to cushion companies against sudden shortages and sharp price swings that can disrupt production and strain finances.

More than a dozen major companies have joined Project Vault, including General Motors, Stellantis, Boeing, Corning, GE Vernova, and Google. Three large trading firms - Hartree Partners, Traxys North America, and Mercuria Energy - will handle sourcing and purchasing materials for the stockpile.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/us-pushes-price-floors-global-minerals-summit-cut-china-dependence

Nvidia Could Delay New GPU Due To Deepening Memory Crunch

 News flow around the memory crunch is accelerating by the week, and the casualty list is growing.

Just this morning, Qualcomm and Arm Holdings warned that shortages of high-bandwidth memory (HBM) could crimp smartphone production this year. Apple signaled earlier this week that it will prioritize higher-end iPhone models, while Nintendo shares slid as soaring HBM costs threaten to squeeze margins.

The alarm bells are getting louder after a new report from The Information, citing two sources, saying Nvidia won't release a new gaming GPU (RTX 60 series) this year due to a HBM supply crunch, forcing it to prioritize limited HBM for its far more profitable AI chips over gaming GPUs.

If confirmed, it would mark the first year in roughly three decades that Nvidia has not released a new consumer-grade gaming GPU.

Here's more color from The Information:

The delay will also push back the release of Nvidia's next-generation gaming GPU. Likely called the RTX 60 series, it was originally scheduled to begin mass production at the end of 2027, according to one of th people.

The existing line of gaming GPUs, the RTX 50, is based on Nvidia's current Blackwell GPUs, while the RTX 60 is based on the upcoming Rubin chips.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang publicly announced last month that mass production of Rubin AI chips had already started and that the company was on track to ship them to customers in the second half of this year.

. . . 

Nvidia is also slashing production of its current line of gaming chips—the GeForce RTX 50 GPUs—because of the memory shortage, one of the people said. Prices of Nvidia's latest gaming GPUs have already risen at retail stores and websites due to their scarcity over the past year.

"Demand for GeForce RTX GPUs is strong, and memory supply is constrained," a Nvidia spokesperson told the tech outlet, without confirming the delay. The person added that all GeForce products are in stock and shipping to customers.

Latest on the memory crunch:

• Memory Shortage Fears Spread, Raising Alarm At Qualcomm And Arm

• Nintendo Profit Misses As Soaring Memory Prices Could Become Major Headache

• Apple Prioritizes Premium iPhone Rollout As 'Great Memory Crunch' Tightens Global Supply

Makes sense:

• "Do It Now": Industry Insiders Urge Consumers To Front-Run PC, TV, Smartphone Purchases As 'Memory Crunch' Will Intensify

Professional subscribers can learn more about the memory industry on our new Marketdesk.ai portal​​​​.

We suspect the memory crunch is about to get a whole lot worse.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/nvidia-could-delay-new-gpu-due-deepening-memory-crunch