One of the attributes of a politician is that they like talking about themselves. In fact, if you notice that is just about all they do sometimes, especially in an election cycle. They spend countless hours trying to convince voters that he or she is the right person for the job. In large part, they are also courting donors to their campaigns because without money, a ton of money, a person cannot even get elected dogcatcher these days.
The only real interesting part of the upcoming presidential contest in 2012 is the Republican primary. I’ve written about it before, here , here, here, and here. But with the entry of Governor Rick Perry of Texas into the race last week, everything has changed. He becomes one of the instant frontrunners with Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann.
Perry comes into the race full of the usual Texas bravado. We’ve seen it before. The country even elected it before. The question is: Will we make the same mistake twice?
Perry has entered the race touting a number of accomplishments like being the largest creator of jobs in the country, being a fiscal conservative and refusing to take federal government bailout money.
But there is a different story when you peel back the onion so to speak.
- Texas is the largest creator of jobs – This is the so-called Texas miracle. Texas does account for 29 percent of jobs created from June 2009 to the present according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. However, the jobs created are low wage jobs mainly driven by the population growth. Texas has a lower cost of living because it is a low tax – low service state. So, naturally, companies who come to do business there can hire workers at a lower wage. “Twenty-five states have lower unemployment than Texas,” US Representative Lloyd Doggett, said, adding that Texas is “tied with Mississippi for more minimum-wage jobs than anywhere in the United States.” And because Texas has a balanced budget requirement, cutbacks in services and education are mandated in order for the budget to balance. Texas ranks at or near the bottom of the list in the following areas:
50th in percentage of population without health insurance (2010)
50th in percentage of children insured (2009)
50th in percentage of women receiving early prenatal care (2010)
45th in rate of infectious diseases (2010)
44th in percentage of children in poverty (2010)
42nd in per capita health care funding (2010)
40th in overall health (2010)
36th in high school graduation rate (2010)
35th in crime (2010)
35th in percentage of children immunized (2010)
34th in rate of occupational fatalities (2010)
30th in percentage of people with college degree (2008)
Texas also ranks:
1st in amount of recognized carcinogens released into the air (2002)
4th highest in release of toxic chemicals into the environment (2002)
8th highest in percentage of people below poverty level (2008)
13th highest in obesity (2010)
- Rick Perry speaks out against Government Stimulus programs like the TARP Program – but yet, the State of Texas happily accepted a ton of federal government money in order to balance its budget. According to Politifact.org, Texas received $12.1 Billion in stimulus aid in 2009. Even though Perry has slammed the program in his campaign rhetoric, he wrote a letter to then Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging passage of the economic recovery package in 2008.
Let’s face it, most politicians will stretch and manipulate the truth to make themselves look good.
Perry is in the race because he is the ideal Christian Right, Tea Party conservative, good-looking candidate. The handwriting is on the wall that Mitt Romney may not be able to get the nomination because he is a Mormon and not a far right tea-party ideologue. However, the Republican Party is also big on the traditional that the “next in line” gets the nomination. And, when was the last time there was a fight at a convention over the nomination of a candidate to run for President? Nixon? Goldwater?
Now that Perry is in the race and his statements and past records can be further scrutinized, he will be shown, like many Texans before him, to be “all hat and no cattle.”
BTW, you know the joke:
What’s a pair of boots with a hat on top of them?
A Texan with the BS kicked out of him.
Wheat & Tares 
thanks for the crash course on rick perry. I knew very little about him.
Ready for Rick Perry to be the new president? Man, he’s going to be worse than Obama.
Hmm, I wonder where you stand on the issue?
No argument there.
I’m a little confused at your criticism of the state’s fiscal policy and job creation. Despite all your complaints the very praiseworthy point remains – they have a balanced budget and have created jobs. So what if they’re minimum wage jobs? A minimum wage job is better than no job. I think he/Texas deserves praise for having a balanced budget and creating many new jobs to get people out of the welfare line. Good for them.
As for the lack of welfare services, health insurance, etc. it is most unfortunate. I think there is one primary reason though, and I can’t blame them for it. The fact is, they don’t want to be better in those categories. If they did, they would accept higher taxes, and elect a different governor. What you see as downsides, apparently is okay for them. I applaud them for accepting all the crap that goes along with their clear preference for low taxes and self-sufficiency. Alternatively, they could be like the rest of America and want everything, want it now, and take no responsibility for it or have to pay for it.
Note that I don’t think I’ll be moving to Texas any time in the near future as I clearly value other things. But that’s the reason for having states right?
“I knew very little about him.”
there’s more where that came from. Like the people he grew up around in his small town hate his guts. And that he was a Dem until 1990
Re Jon
I’m curious what you mean here? Could you elaborate?
They balanced their budget by accepting money from the US stimulus while criticizing it at the same time.
Okay, I understand the hypocrisy. Nobody likes that. It’s not cool. Even so, they have a balanced budget. How many other states have criticized it, accepted the money, and still don’t have a balanced budget and haven’t created as many jobs?
What I’m getting at, is in the bag full of sh*t, there are worse turds to pick out than this one. And more specifically, perhaps this is the best turd in the bag (don’t confuse this metaphor with an endorsement for him as Pres.
Jeff, Aren’t you a Democrat (or at least vote for Democrats predominantly)?
jmb275,
Things about Rick:
He had a chief of staff that quit and went to a pharmaceutical company that makes Gardisal (sp). The vaccine was new at the time. Rick had been governor for 2 terms at that time (about 12 years), first executive order he signs during his terms in office is a law that circumvents the legislature that forced all girls (14 and over) that want to go to government schools to get this vaccine, that may (unproven – no long term studies) protect against a certain type of cancer. When questioned why he did it, he said, it was the insurance companies would pay for it.
He’s a big supporter of the trans Texas corridor. This highway should go on I-35 but they are making a new one, with a train track. They will take a one mile wide route from Mexico to Oklahoma confiscating people’s properties all along the way. So much for property rights.
Finally, he’s a typical politician, he’s a known liar. He says things and does things just to get elected. (Like sending national guards to the border of Mexico, even though five months before he ridiculed the idea as stupid and pandering.
Rick Perry doesn’t stand for principles. The only reason he’s a republican (as far as I can tell) is so he’ll get elected. Other than that he’s a true democrat, he’s a statist, he doesn’t believe in individual rights. He’s not a constitutionalist. He’s an opportunist.
He’ll lead us to more wars, I’m sure.
Vote and support a constitutionalist. Not people that don’t care about rule of law and only care about power and money.
The fact is, they don’t want to be better in those categories
That’s half true. The Anglo population of Texas is not particularly underinsured nor are its government services all that much worse than the rest of us. They hold the balance of political power in Texas and see no reason to be any better. Its the Hispanic population that is suffering (just not as much as it would in Mexico).
Great post. I cannot understand the fascination with Perry. He seems to define the term “form over substance.” @UtMormonDemoGuy Jeff Spector (Wheat&Tares) answers the question, “What is between Rick Perry’s hat and boots?” (Great Post).
Texas is rocking. I wouldn’t try to attack Perry for his jobs creation. The numbers suggest these were not low paying, government, or simply oil jobs:
http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590
Plus, Texas has had over 750,000 people move into the state (for jobs actually:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/287fgwvh.asp). If you take their pre recession population they would have a 2% unemployment rate.
For all of their problems people are voting with their feet and Rick Perry has a substantive case for being a jobs creator.
#3: “As for the lack of welfare services, health insurance, etc. it is most unfortunate. I think there is one primary reason though, and I can’t blame them for it. The fact is, they don’t want to be better in those categories.”
That may be true (but who chooses to be last in number of insured children or 45th out of 50 in rate of infectious diseases or 44th in child poverty?). But that is certainly not the mentality I’d like to move into the white house.
We need more comments like Morgan’s to get past mere talking point xeroxing …
I’d be less critical if I wasn’t (a) offended by the crude anti-Texas jokes and (b) if I had not heard the same analysis, almost word for word, about ten times so far.
BTW, for great commentary on Perry, visit the Dallas Observer’s web page.
Morgan – I’m not sure how pre-recession population unemployment rate is relevant. If we did pre-recession unemployment rate of the US, we’d be in good shape too – unfortunately, that’s not how it works.
However, even if you take you analysis at face value, it’s hard to pin it on Perry as Texas’ population and jobs have been growing pretty steadily and a pretty consistent rate for more than 20 years. The only difference over that 20 years are the number of jobs lost, which have tremendously increased under Perry – although, half the country had it worse.
If you go into a casino and win $100 but lose $1000, you can’t come out and brag that you won $100. You didn’t. You lost $900. Looking at jobs created under Perry and not looking at jobs lost just doesn’t paint any kind of picture.
Texas is a very favorable environment for business, so many have moved there. So the jobs in Texas that were “created” were also lost somewhere else. The fact that oil is now $3.50/gal also has helped, no doubt.
thechicken: I’m not sure you read the article but it seemed obvious to me why that number matters. The OP here suggested the job numbers weren’t that great because something like 25 states have lower unemployment numbers than Texas. Texas still created more jobs than all the other states put together, but their unemployment stayed high because of all the new move ins. The article I linked to shows how some states like Wisconsin that has a net job loss have better unemployment numbers than Texas because 30,000 people left the state. So used by itself the unemployment figure doesn’t tell the whole story.
There are also articles I’ve read where the regulatory climate of Texas was better, they had Tort reform, and comparitively strict down payment laws that innoculated them from the worse effects of recession. (I believe that was the second article to which I linked that didn’t show up as a link). Even if these were jobs that were going to be created anyway and Texas just stole them from other states,(a dubious argument since it suggests job creation is a zero sum game), Perry can make the argument that Washington DC has done the exact opposite of Texas and only hurt themselves. And what Texas did is something they should do on a Federal level, maybe lead by a President that has already done this somewhere or something.
My major point is that attacking Texas jobs is not good strategy. As you saw above the contrast with DC (and many blue states) is striking and the argument almost makes itself. Contrasting arugments usually boil down to some kind of “yes but” argument that gives Perry yet another chance to highlight some pretty outrageously good numbers. (We’ve seen many of those arguments on this thread). Or it boils down to Perry doesn’t control job numbers so he can’t take credit for his good numbers (but somehow Obama does create or save jobs so we need his policies). I’m not sure Texas creating more jobs than the rest of the country put together, even with whatever caveats or flaws, is the argument Obama wants to have against the governor of that state.
Everyone might be interested in this link:
“Seven Ways Rick Perry Would Change the Constitution”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html
Bottom Line, Morgan D, it ain’t as great as he is claiming credit for.
““Seven Ways Rick Perry Would Change the Constitution” ‘
That is what makes him popular with his crowd, but will not play in most of America.
19: Thanks for that link, as if I needed more reasons not to support him.
Vote Parry, with an A for America. 😉
That’s “Ah-Mar-Ric-Ah”
Sorry, but his line about being in love with America made me lose all respect for him, even before Jon Stewart skewered him for it. Anyone in politics going after POTUS who comes up with such mockable sound bites out the gate is an idiot:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/jon-stewarts-epic-rant-of-what-rick-perry-would-do-to-the-america-hes-in-love-with-video.php
I’ve been mostly against Ron Paul due to the “tin foil hatted genius” issue, but I have to say, again, Jon Stewart nails it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EY5Ofcxjs0
I’m tired — and scared — of the entire bunch. They make me long for the good old days of Reagan or Bush when the Republican Party still had some grown ups in it.
Hawk,
Two excellent links. I am actually beginning to feel sorry for Ron.
I love Jon Stewart and cannot wait for Saturday Night Live to start up in a month or so. they should have a ton to say about the current campaign and the shenanigans of this past summer.
Morgan, by your logic, President Obama has a great job record and the USA doesn’t have a jobs problem. He has created millions of jobs since taking office. Sure, they don’t keep up with population growth enough to lower the unemployment rate, but according to you, that doesn’t matter.
If Obama has done so well on the job front, then why does Perry choose to attack him on it?
I’ll take your reliance on naked assertions as a victory and move on.
Chicken: I don’t know if you are reading the same posts I wrote and the links or what kind of bass awkwards logic you are using but that is not what I was arguing. If you really want to take Obama’s job record and run it against Perry’s I wil grab some popcorn and nachos and enjoy watching the latter shoot fish in a barrel.
Morgan: The only thin you, Perry, or the links claim as a victory for Perry is that Texas as increased the number of jobs. If this is innacuarate, let me know what I’ve misunderstood.
Number of jobs is not relevant. If you don’t raise jobs relative to population, you still have high unemployment. As I said, Obama has also created millions of jobs. Do you dispute this?
If Obama and Perry have both increased the number of jobs – why is one worse or better than the other? of course, it’s because the number of jobs in the US under Obama have not risin as fast as population. Same for Perry in Texas. The only difference is – jobs were being lost before Obama, but before Perry, jobs in Texas were being increased by the same rate.
Please let me know how this is not logical?
With all the popcorn eating that seems to go on, you’d think the economy would improve just from that…. 🙂
Basically it boils down to several of the graphs in my first link. First, Texas lost as many jobs in the first months of the recession as other states, but then regained them faster. And many states aren’t regaining them at all which you would have seen if you read the link. After they created 70% of all the jobs in America in 2009 they became a destination to find a job. That was in both links which show that Texas has more than double the growth of next state. So Texas lost jobs but then gained over 700,000 net jobs, 40% of the jobs created in the entire nation during the recession. So while their unemployment numbers remain somewhat high, they are still lower than the national average and based on the job creation it will continue to dip despite their massive immigration.
Meanwhile, the nation still hasn’t even recovered all the jobs they lost. In fact they aren’t even creating enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Meaning with current job creation the unemployment numbers will go up. So these created or saved jobs from Obama are not expected to put a dent in the national unemployment number. You need about 250,000 jobs a month until the election to replace the jobs lost and get unemployment down to about 7%. (That is still 2% higher than what many people consider is “good”) The best Obama has done is about 150,000 a month, and some months were more like 17,000. And here is the kicker: I don’t have the numbers but if you take the 2008 population with the job creation under Obama I expect you will not have anywhere near 2.3% unemployment (like Texas would).
Seems pretty simple to me. Why don’t have some kind of poll or election and see what people want: what happened and is happening in Texas (lower unemployment, good outlook, relatively healthy economy, balanced budget, low taxes, freakishly high job creation, relatively healthy housing market etc), or what is happening nationally (possible double dip recession, anemic GDP, stagnate jobs creation, high taxes, housing market still a zombie, debt crisis, excessive spending)? Again, I don’t think that is a winning argument for Obama no matter what spin he tries to put on it or the numbers from Texas, tries to say “yes but”, or blame Bush for his pathetic economic record.
Good one Jeff. Have I used that line before or is that just a comment on how many times you think the Texas jobs argument will come up?
Morgan, you’re not saying why my reasoning is illogical. As population increases, obviously jobs increase. As do car accidents, houses, schools, etc.
There are many more people in California than North Dakota. There are waaaaay more jobs in California than in North Dakota. The unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.3%. In California, its aroun 12%.
So you’re saying the governer of California is much more successful than the goevernment in North Dakota because there are more jobs there than in North Dakota?
I’m not trying to make a winning argument for anyone – just pointing out that, we don’t keep track of the number of jobs, we keep track of the unemployment rate, because that’s what matters.
Re: 7 Ways Rick would change America:
1. Doesn’t make sense since they are supposed to be “separate” branch and be independent.
2. Maybe a 3/4ths vote. Still, I’m a little wary. They could just change the constitution to make the law constitutional, couldn’t they? If their edict isn’t based on the constitution do they even need to be guided by it?
3. Yay, maybe the 4th would have some meaning after that again.
4. Yep, makes sense.
5. Nope, if the cronies in washington just kept to the constitution there would be no need for a new amendment. Also, we know there is no rule of law right now so it wouldn’t be adhered to anyways. Look at AZ. We have a contitutional law that says no more than $350,000 of debt can be accrued by AZ. Well, we have a lot more debt than that right now. If there’s no rule of law it doesn’t matter what the constitution says.
6. Nope, leave it to the states (or even better, get gunvernment out of marriage altogether).
7. Once again. A state issue. Smaller government = better government. We shouldn’t be using the threat of violence to get people everywhere to do what we believe is right. Although I think most abortions are sinful I think persuasion should be used, not violence.
@bewarethechicken,
A sound knowledge of economics is needed. If you want to go to the heart of the matter read “Human Action”. Otherwise start out with easier (but not flawless) books like “Economics in One Lesson”.
Obama can’t create real jobs. It’s the unseen vs seen fallacy. That’s like when Krugman said that 9/11 was good for the economy, straight broken window fallacy. Don’t know why people pay attention to people like that, or people that propose the same or similar ideas as he does.
I dont know what else to say. I’ve gone into fairly great detail explaining the economics of the matter. Reread my posts, examine the data in the links, read a book, continue as though you know eveything, idk. Good bye.
Morgan, they are just jealous of not getting rained on, while in Texas we would like some of the clouds 😉
Really, if this discussion wasn’t so much about bashing Texas and more about Rick Perry (the entire “What’s a pair of boots with a hat on top of them? — A Texan with the BS kicked out of him. — just made me feel like the author wanted to start kicking me in the back), the discussion might have been more useful.
Not like Perry doesn’t have lots of people who dislike him.
But seriously. A recap of talking points — that I’ve seen or heard at least fifteen or twenty times — tossed in with crude, hostile bashing of Texas and Texans in general, doesn’t do much for me.
Maybe if I either did not live in Texas or if I were a fan of Perry, I could get into this more.
But seriously, haven’t you ever dealt with some brain dead anti-mormon who just keeps parroting things, without understanding them? This conversation feels like that, down to the cheap jokes and generic insults.
bewarethechicken — you are missing the point, it is the relative delta. Follow Jon’s advice this one time.
Jon – Krugman never said 9-11 was good for the economy, so not sure where you are going there – but he is a Nobel prize winning economist so I assume that is a “pretty sound” grasp of economics.
I only have an undergradate degree in economics, but I don’t know why you’d need that to know that if you don’t create enough jobs to keep up with population growth, then your unemployment rate goes up.
@bewarethechicken,
And Obama won the peace prize yet he is a war monger. The Nobel prize is worthless since it is too tied to politics.
Here’s the quote from Krugman:
– Paul Krugman
This guy commits economic fallacies up the wazoo. Broken window fallacy, obvious.
You got a degree from a bunch of statists. Maybe you should go back and get one from the Mises Institute so you can really understand economics. Read “Human Action” if you truly care about economics. I would say the other book again but if you already have a degree in economics then you should be able to comprehend “Human Action”. As von Mises said, you need to read all opinions in order to understand something completely, hence the reason he would still read books that differed from his own opinions.
The private market creates jobs. Government destroys jobs by stealing from one set of people to “give” to another set. This is not job creation.
@bewarethechicken,
A simple video showing the broken window fallacy and the fallacy that government can create jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG3AKoL0vEs
“Rick Perry: All Hat, No Cattle”
Yeah, he was a cotton farmer…..
Jon “And Obama won the peace prize yet he is a war monger”
Jon, there’s a huge difference between a just war, like Afganistan, and that illegal invasion of Iraq that Bush and his cronies did. They are responsible for all the death that happened there, all the civilians, all the troops, and all those inocent children, because they had no right to be there and no right to start a war with that country!
@All_black,
Yet we’re still in Iraq. Yet Obama still hasn’t closed down Guantanamo Bay. Yet we are still bombing Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, etc.
Justified to overthrow Afghanistan? Maybe justified to go after Al-Qaeda and then leave and be done with it.
Is Syria next?
Obama and the pursuit of endless war:
Starting new fights and prolonging the old ones
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-12/news/ct-oped-0612-chapman-20110610_1_generals-war-american
“Obama is a democrat therefore all his wars are just. Let us fight.”
The subject is and was Rick Perry.
“The subject is and was Rick Perry.”
yeah, but he’s a cotton farmer who probable supported the war.
Jon a)didn’t you get the memo on the troop withdraw, today at 50k only, and b)you couldn’t get to al-qaeda without going through the taliban.
Oh, yes, Rick Perry.
When Rick becomes president the republican’s will worship him like the democrats currently worship Obama.
@Steve: lol. I did feel it was like talking to an anti with his talking points. Thats why I just bowed out. (I was also out of town and didn’t feel like spending my limited internet time reexplaining the same thing.)
#30 and #34:
“As I said, Obama has also created millions of jobs. Do you dispute this?”
“…just pointing out that, we don’t keep track of the number of jobs, we keep track of the unemployment rate, because that’s what matters.”
Well, I do dispute this, because the Bureau of Labor Statistics DOES keep track of jobs, along with keeping track of unemployment, underemployment, and labor force participation about “sixteen ways from Sunday”. You can access years of the results here:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsatabs.htm
It turns out that — to the extent that any president can “create” jobs simply by happening to be president when the jobs register — you might credit Obama with creating a few hundred thousand jobs, but not millions.
Even then, you have to be pretty imaginative about which months you count, because job growth began to pick up in early 2010, then jobs went down in the fall, and then began to resume at an anemic pace for the last several months. It’s hard to avoid blame for late 2010 and 2011 when you’ve already claimed earlier parts of 2010 were the recovery summer that vindicated your brilliant policies.
So, using the seasonally adjusted data from Tables A-1 of the Household Survey (which, I reemphasize, IS the data used to compute the current 9.1% unemployment rate), we can look at the number of jobs in the US civilian labor force for July of the last 5 years:
7/07 145.9 million
7/08 145.5 million
7/09 139.8 million
7/10 139.0 million
7/11 139.3 million
At that last 300K/per gain rate, we’ll be back to where we were in 2007 by about 2033. Think we’ve got remotely that long before things turn really ugly in terms of unrest?
If the sane Democrats think they dare not turn the country back over to the “crazy Republicans”, they’d better start mounting serious support for a primary opponent against Obama who can appeal to independents pretty soon.
I should write for the New York Times:
This fact doesn’t seem to miraculous:
“Between December 2007 and last June, private-sector employment in Texas declined by 0.6 percent”
Just because more people require more teachers, police, firefighters and mailcarriers, doesn’t mean the private sector is doing anything.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/perry-criticizes-government-while-texas-job-growth-benefits-from-it/2011/08/18/gIQAPPZQSJ_story.html
FT: so do you think Obama should take credit for the increased number of jobs in the country as Perry takes credit for the increased number of jobs in Texas? If not, why not?
I only care that we don’t use a double standard, i.e., the following theory of explanation:
— All good things that happen during the administration of a Democrat are the result of democrat policies.
— All bad things that happen during the administration of a Democrat are the result of bad policies of a preceding Republican administration or of circumstances beyond the Democrat’s control that will never, ever happen again if the Democrat is reelected.
— All bad things that happen during the administration of a Republican are the result of Republican policies.
— All good things that happen during the administration of a Republican are the result of good policies of a preceding Democratic administration or of good fortune beyond the Republican’s control that will never, ever happen again unless a Democrat is elected.
Now, if Obama could actually show job creation by now in the millions instead of a few hundred thousand at most, we wouldn’t have to be talking about the job creation record of Republican governors at all, would we?
How the F$@& can you criticize a man for CREATING MORE JOBS THAN ANY OTHER STATE! Some people are just ignorant, job creation means that these people don’t take money from the government for unemployment. People PLEASE, think before you speak. Its BS that people would rather sit on their A$$ES and collect GOVERNMENT money and MY money than to take 1 or 2 low paying jobs. Grow a pair, GET A JOB and stop complaining. PEACE OUT!
To Morgan, et al…
Here’s a link to Paul Krugman’s piece on the “unmiracle” in/of Texas. Not really critical of Texas per se, just putting a reasonable perspective on what happpened there and why what has happened in one state can’t automatically work for the rest of the US.
Before you click on the link, I suggest you drop prejudice against Professor Krugman..Yes he’s from Princeton and his politics are liberal…but his economics (which can be separated somewhat from his politics) are spot on…Generally speaking the data have shown it over and over again…
(perhaps that’s because he seems to look at the data before drawing his conclusions, rather than so many of the idealogues –on the right and left — who deciode on their politics, policies AND THEN look for numbers to rationalize their positions…
Anyway here is a link…
I’m not impressed:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dont-mess-texas-economic-record_588300.html
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/02/texas-booms-while-california-busts
I love how you try to cast your hit piece as the “reasonable” perspective when really its one of many that try to explain away the real success or “miracle” of Texas with stale liberal talking points. Its really not a miracle if you understand basic conservative and captialist principles like low taxes and limited government. I’m under no illusions that Texas is perfect, but compared to the mess of many blue states and the federal government millions of people have voted with their feet.
Gallup is today (Monday) reporting a registered voter poll showing Obama trailing Romney, tied with Perry, and leading both Bachmann AND RON PAUL by less than the poll’s margin of error.
The left might want to reconsider the “Republicans are too extreme” strategy if Obama isn’t even out of reach of a Libertarian candidate at the moment.
@ctcoast,
If you follow Paul Krugman than you would know that his politics and economics are intertwined. Krugman is for Keynesianism, which is for big government, which Democrats and Republicans want.
I cannot respect the opinions of a person that called for a housing bubble to get us out of the dot com bubble. Just doesn’t make any sense, that’s Keynesianism for you.
The best way to get rid of bubbles is to get government out of our business (except for taking cases for fraud, breaking of contracts, etc. – which is spurious in and of itself). We need to return to sound money and return to the ethics of thrift.
Left vs Right, Democrats vs Republicans, It doesn’t matter. One slave master to the next.
Yet more pushback on Krugman:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275073/texas-miracle-no-myth-john-r-lott-jr
I just saw this article and immediately thought of this thread:
http://news.yahoo.com/perry-bills-feds-349m-incarcerating-illegals-025702439.html
The man is a walking contradiction.