California’s leaders seem delighted by Biden’s big infrastructure bill. They shouldn’t be

Judging by all the smiling Californians, you’d think the state had a reason to be happy.

When President Joe Biden signed his $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill last fall, two Californians — Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein — were grinning beside him. When it passed the House the day before, another Californian, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, looked ecstatic.

And although we couldn’t see Gov. Gavin Newsom’s face when Biden’s bill passed — long story — his press release glowed, listing dozens of projects projected to bring California at least $44.5 billion worth of federal funds over five years.

Considering that the state’s expected haul outweighs all others, these powerful Californians’ enthusiasm might seem convincing — until you dig deeper.

It’s the people within the states who ride trains and wait for buses. And when the bill’s projected benefits are analyzed on a per-person basis — the only basis that makes any sense — Californians aren’t getting the best deal in the country. They’re getting one of the worst.

The federal government will spend about $1,100 per Californian, according to CNBC, which found that only a few other states will get worse deals. Other large states aren’t receiving much more. Florida and North Carolina are getting even less per capita; New York and New Jersey are getting a few hundred dollars more.

So which states’ leaders should be smiling? Those with the fewest people — and the least traffic.

Alaskans are getting six times what Californians are; Wyomingites, four times; Montanans, over three times.

What makes California’s deal all the more disappointing is that its transportation infrastructure routinely ranks among the most used and abused. An analysis last year found that the state had the most congested urban interstates and the most daily interstate traffic nationwide. A census study last year found that California’s cities have some of the country’s longest commutes.

Know where they don’t waste days of their lives on crowded, crumbling interstates? The Dakotas. Vermont. West Virginia. Yet these states’ residents will get more than double California’s share.

So even with a Californian vice president, House speaker and House minority leader, the state couldn’t get a better deal than Arkansas. What’s happening here?

Partisan politics don’t explain this. Population politics do.

California’s scant share reveals the impotence of the state, not its leaders, in a federal system that discounts its numbers and needs.

The Constitution’s allotment of two senators per state regardless of population has amplified the negotiating power of small states over large ones. Today, the Senate’s structure means one Wyomingite has as much power as 67 Californians — and that the 164 million Americans who live in the 10 largest states have as much power as the 7.9 million who live in the 10 smallest.

California’s bad deal isn’t an accident. It’s a symptom of this system.

The funding formulas controlling this $1.2 trillion have been shaped by small states over generations. “Small-state minimums” have guaranteed these states disproportionate shares of transportation, education and health spending. It’s a fact documented by decades of political science research.

The result? An inversion of logical policymaking: We have a system yielding the greatest good for the smallest numbers, not the greatest good for the greatest numbers.

Consider the latest tax overhaul’s effects: The smallest state, Wyoming, got the biggest benefit; the biggest, California, got the smallest.

Unsurprisingly, Californians routinely give more to the federal government than they get back. The infrastructure bill ensures that imbalance won’t change. But at least California commuters can comfort themselves knowing their tax dollars are hard at work constructing cow crossings in Casper, Wyoming.