Get all the latest news on coronavirus and more delivered daily to your inbox. Sign up here.

Costs associated with the coronavirus pandemic are mounting. What could be the focus of the next federal bailout? States with deficits that are growing as a result of lost tax revenue and higher unemployment, education and health costs.

The states facing the largest deficits will be blue states, including California and New York.

Given that the federal government is already providing states with $150 billion in aid to help cover unemployment, education and medical costs, you can expect some states and even localities to ask for more federal aid to cover their deficits.

MARCO RUBIO REACTS TO STAGGERING NUMBER OF JOBLESS CLAIMS: 'TRUE NUMBER IS MUCH HIGHER'

President Trump should resist bailing state and local governments out those deficits, however, because of the dangerous long-term precedent it would set.

Never before in American history have the federal and state governments pushed the closing of so-called non-essential businesses across the country. With most states implementing widespread closures – including California, New York and Florida – the American economy is experiencing a rough patch of undetermined duration.

While President Trump rightfully wants us to get back to business when we can safely do so, neither New York nor California are ready for that. Indeed, Los Angeles County, where the population exceeds that of 41 states, could see a surge in infections in the weeks ahead.

Despite Trump acting on Jan. 31 to restrict travel from China, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti only now seems to be sounding the alarm. That includes finally moving homeless people off the streets, despite years of warnings about the health risks they represent to themselves and others.

Obviously, with the federal government typically running a trillion-dollar deficit, any money allocated to the states will simply add to the federal deficit. As we all know, the federal government can do that by printing money on demand. Deficits are a way of life for the federal government.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

States, on the other hand, cannot print money like the federal government. California and more than 40 other states have balanced budget requirements. Yes, they can borrow money, but they usually borrow the money for specific purposes before spending it.

The individual states have existing budgets that were based on projected revenue streams. Those projected revenue streams, of course, did not take into account a shutdown of non-essential businesses for weeks on end.

That is a major problem because states and cities rely heavily on sales and business tax revenue.

California, for instance, relies on sales taxes for approximately 17 percent of tax revenue. In New York, it is approximately 15 percent, and in Pennsylvania, it is approximately 23 percent.

Of course, individual and business income tax receipts will drop as well for states.

Meanwhile, the operating budget for the city of Los Angeles is approximately $11 billion annually, with sales taxes, hotel occupancy taxes and business taxes accounting for approximately 15 percent of revenue. The Los Angeles County city of Santa Fe Springs, where about 18,000 people reside, relies on a 10.5 percent sales tax rate, and the city Chicago has a sales tax rate of 10.25 percent.

What will cities and states do? Given that the economy may well be weak for months, if not longer, raising taxes will not be popular with state legislatures, counties and cities. If they do resort to raising taxes, and many will have to do just that, it will reduce economic growth even more.

Logically, non-essential services and expenditures could be cut – but that would require politicians to act like American families and be responsive and responsible to their new reality. Beyond cutting services, those states could improve their business climates to foster business start-ups, employment and therefore increased revenues.

What is more likely, however, especially considering the federal response to date of allocating $150 billion to states and localities, is for them to come knocking on Congress’ door seeking a bailout without reforming their spending practices or business climates.

And why not? According to The New York Times, "The Fed pledged to buy as much government-backed debt as needed to bolster the markets for housing and Treasury bonds."

But just where will that end? Is this the new normal going forward? And will this not encourage irresponsible additional spending by states and localities, knowing a federal bailout is a strong possibility?

At the start of our country, Alexander Hamilton proposed that our new federal government should take on the debt of the states, only some of which had been incurred during the Revolutionary War. James Madison fought the proposal because he said it would penalize states that responsibly retired their debt.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Today California and states like it spend billions upon billions of dollars annually on blue-state social-justice programs. Meanwhile, California is consistently at the bottom of surveys for fostering business startups.

If the new normal becomes "all taxpayers must pay for deficits in other states," it will not only encourage reckless spending and poor business practices, it will deepen our red-state blue-state divide. For these reasons and others, the federal government should avoid covering state deficits.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TOM DEL BECCARO