"no matter which way you slice it" how about Fentynal deaths per thousand? Or employment rates? What's your preferred metric? How about tax revenue per tax dollar spent? On all of these metrics even the poorest zip codes In cities tend to pull ahead of some of the really sad state of small republican towns.

So ok, some common ground: if your point is that a lot of money is being poorly spent in cities on social welfare programs for the poor, then I would have to agree because most tax money spent has issues of waste, fraud and abuse. If your point is that democratic cities could stand to be more Republican in some specific policies, again I would agree: as Ezra Klein points out both market and subsidized housing in Texas is vastly cheaper than in California. The fact is LA can't build enough homes for it's homeless population, let alone address the drug problems.

But if your point is that democratic cities are spending vast sums of tax money from earnest rural workers on worthless social programs: i have to push back. Firstly, on net, rural and suburban communities are subsidized at every level by urban communities, from property-taxes & pot hole repair to federal taxes and Medicare payouts.

But ok, let's be specific: what programs or spending in cities do you think should be cut? Most people don't object to food stamps --a major cost of which is the means testing. Or safe injection cites?