Again, most of the Federal money that goes to states is not discretionary, it is program specific. So, again I am not sure where you are going.
The three largest drivers by far of money that flows to states are:
1) military spending. Not sure the military would be on board with having the Federal government limit pay to soldiers at various military bases around the country... but why don't you run it pass them.
2) Retirement benefits. So are you proposing people that retire to lower cost of living states should not be able to take their retirement benefits with them. What about Federal workers and veterans that retire in those lower cost of living states. When was CFO over several government programs, we identified something like 80% of veterans retired in low cost of living states. You might like this tidbit...
The top 10 best states for military retirees, based on their combined scores for economic environment, quality of life, and heath care, were:
Alaska
South Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
Florida
Maine
New Hampshire
North Dakota
The worst 10 states for military retirees, based on their combined scores for economic environment, quality of life, and heath care, were:
Illinois
Arkansas
Nevada
New York
Utah
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Indiana
Oregon
New Jersey
Rhode Island
See any pattern?
3) Poverty programs ranging from Medicaid to Food and Housing subsidies. It is true that poor people gravitate towards warmer climates (who wants to be homeless in Chicago), but if you insist on them moving up north, I think people in low cost of living states would not object.
Regarding your "passport" idea, California might buy into it. In cities like San Francisco, 43% of homeless came from out of state (as mentioned, it's hard to be homeless where it gets cold).
Many (not most) of the "poor" in the South are northern seniors or illegal immigrants. So, under your passport idea, they would have to live in rich northern states, since their passports would deny them access to lower cost states. You want that? I don't think the low cost of living states would stop you.
You really have drunk the Kool-Aid regarding northern states subsidizing poorer states. When you granularize the data, the Federal government is not subsidizing southern states, it is funding the military, retirees, and the poor.
And those groups are opting to live where their money goes farther.
And you want to cap their benefits if they seek lower cost of living places? Good luck with that proposal. You might look into ivermectin, you seem to be suffering from long Covid and foggy thinking.
BTW, when I lived in Florida, the older obese people were mostly northern retirees. When I lived in Massachusetts, our property taxes and rising property assessments were forcing seniors out of their homes.
Pretty sad, when rich states can't afford to care for their elderly and even worse when they complain that if their elderly take their government benefits with them that they are subsidizing the states they move to.
As an aside, I am a classical liberal who voted Democrat more than half of the time up through Clinton. After Clinton, the Democratic party was taken over by progressive liberals (I still voted for the occasional Democrat moderate), but mostly Republican.
Regarding Trump, I favor Trump's policies over progressive liberalism, even if I am not a fan of Trump, "the man". You seem more inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though it is hard to tell whether you reject Trump and therefore his policies, or you reject his policies and therefore Trump.
"More people than ever are moving to Florida, but if you think it’s new retirees or their families that are the fastest-growing population segment, think again. It’s those 85 or older, according to an economist."
