“The red-blue contrast is often overdrawn. But it’s a sensible way to understand Obama’s summer struggles,” wrote columnist Ross Douthat. “On health care, energy, taxes and spending, he’s pushing a blue-state agenda during a recession that’s exposed some of the blue-state model’s weaknesses, and some of the red-state model’s strengths.” Douthat noted how Texas has survived the national recession pretty well while California has been a fiscal disaster area. “In state capital after state capital,” he wrote, “the downturn has highlighted the weaknesses of liberal governance — the zeal for unsustainable social spending, the preference for regulation over job creation, the heavy reliance for tax revenue on the volatile incomes of the upper upper class.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
77 Comments
Poor comparison Texas and California. Texas has some of the worst standard of living in America so getting back up to the worst standard of living level isn’t too difficult.
And what is the red state model? Complain how you don’t want stimulus funds then beg for them while you think nobody is looking?
It does appear that states that expect the federal government to bail them out of their financial problems with stimulus funds borrowed from China are the ones that are deepest in trouble.
Seems as if Brownlee cherry picked his info: the same article says “The Deep South has been hit hard by unemployment, and some liberal regions are weathering the storm reasonably well. And clearly part of the blame for the current crisis rests with decisions made in George W. Bush’s Washington.”
Part of the blame? Try ALL of the blame. Texas won’t pay out anything for social programs, which shows in how many mentally ill they have running the streets. But hey, at least you can legally shoot them. I guess they call that target practice.
Kansas’s own struggles are apparent with how poor we’re doing, and last I checked, republicans ran this show. They just took money away from programs that help the truly disabled…people with developmental disabilities. Republicans hate kids with Down’s Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy. And you think they’re going to take care of your grandma?
If you people would quit whining so much about paying a few taxes and pay for your own stuff, we wouldn’t owe China anything. You republicons caused that mess.
I do want to know why the state funding for developmental disabilities and elderly care was cut drastically, and yet, nobody in the media has reported on it. How come cons get to skate on this? We who live and work with the disabled and elderly sure know it, yet nobody hears us.
Top five U.S. cities for recent U.S. college graduates, according to Forbes.
1. San Jose, Calif.
2. Cambridge, Mass.
3. Houston
4. San Francisco
5. Washington D.C.
Can we just cut loose the red states and be done with their populations of people determined to remain hard headed and poorly treated? I can be packed in like 24 hours.
At the core of California’s problem isn’t “libruhls” but the natural consequence of Proposition 13 which, in 1978, made it extremely difficult to sustain a viable taxing structure.
Further, California’s initiative system constitutes a failure of representative democracy. Anything silly can be passed by initiative by a 50%+1 vote, but it takes a super-majority (2/3rds or 3/4ths, something like that) to fund the mandates from initiatives.
The Red State agenda is a CON race to the bottom. If you advocate the Red State agenda, move to Mississippi or Alabama.
Monkey says California’s problem is that they can’t raise taxes enough.
Too little taxes in California!
Douthat Nails This Issue! And Libs here panic, trying to come up with some defense – but they can’t!
“the downturn has highlighted the weaknesses of liberal governance — the zeal for unsustainable social spending, the preference for regulation over job creation, the heavy reliance for tax revenue on the volatile incomes of the upper upper class.”
Well, that certainly nailed it.
But..but.. but there are Money Trees, right?
sniff-sniff
Socialism works as long as there are Money Trees.
(and you find one worker to pick the money)
Wow you certainly convinced me JimJones, what brilliant analysis!
Outlander, please. ONE liberal state is having major issues, the rest are fine.
Texas did well because of all of the oil revenue it received during the bush admin. So in essence we all paid for their success.
Three years ago the Repubic Party was talking about amending the Constitution so the Governator could run for President.
Monkey no republican party I know of ever advocated that this gov become prez.
Pmom what kind of juice do you drink in the morning? You might consider cutting back. Legal to shoot people in the street!
Maggot you think Texas has a lower living standard than California. When were you last in those states?
Phantom chimes in with ‘Texas did well because of its oil revenue’. Brilliant!
Pmom talks about Bush’s Washington not realizing that Obama now owns that town and is spending the country into oblivion.
Prop 13 was Californias downfall!
Republicans hate the disabled and elderly!
Bluejay can leave in 24 hours! Oh but will he?
What a bunch of whiners this morning. A bad day to wake up and be a democrat.
Where can I send a donation to help bj move to a “workers paradise”? That would be the best money I’ve spent all year and it would definitely raise the collective IQ of Kansas and whatever State thats lucky enough to add him/her to their welfare rolls.
Political_mama
Posted August 4, 2009 at 7:03 am | Permalink
I do want to know why the state funding for developmental disabilities and elderly care was cut drastically, and yet, nobody in the media has reported on it. How come cons get to skate on this? We who live and work with the disabled and elderly sure know it, yet nobody hears us.
__________________________________________________
Yes Republicans are in the majority. You can thank the cuts on the Senate, the House Dems (with a few republicans) and the Governor for the budget cuts. They cut a deal on the budget behind closed doors.
If you did a little research or followed the actions in Topeka you would know this. So call your dim friends and complain.
Political_mama
Posted August 4, 2009 at 7:40 am | Permalink
Wow you certainly convinced me JimJones, what brilliant analysis!
Outlander, please. ONE liberal state is having major issues, the rest are fine.
—————————————————-
Which ONE?
Michigan, Rhode Island, Oregon, California, Ohio and can throw in DC?
Blue-state meltdown?
===========================
Meltdown?
Hell, they’ve been boiling for years.
The idiots just keep turning up the heat.
“If you people would quit whining so much about paying a few taxes and pay for your own stuff, we wouldn’t owe China anything”
No truer words were spoken. Please begin immediately
“Part of the blame? Try ALL of the blame. Texas won’t pay out anything for social programs, which shows in how many mentally ill they have running the streets. But hey, at least you can legally shoot them. I guess they call that target practice”
Absurd statement, care to back that up?
PeeMom’s morning juice: anything advocating her as a victim.
Political_mama
Posted August 4, 2009 at 7:02 am | Permalink
If you people would quit whining so much about paying a few taxes and pay for your own stuff…
———–
And this coming from a woman who has demanded for years that the taxpayers provide her with health insurance.
“If you people would quit whining so much about paying a few taxes and pay for your own stuff…”
Let;s see. I, thru my employer, paid for my own health insurance. Part of it as part of my overall salary/benefit package, part of it as required monthly premium. Let’s see, I paid $3900 of my own money for medical care. Let’s see, I paid for my own car, without a government handout. Let’s see I paid thousands in taxes. Let’s see, I paid my own way for some continuing education classes. Hmmm. Looks like I did.
AND YOU?
Wow Phillip!!! I must admit I am surprised you would run an honest thread that shows the failure of the ‘blue state’ socialist, entitlement, spend and tax model. Congratulations !!!
It’s funny how some criticize Texas yet, they are in fine shape compared to the ‘blue states’ model.
I have several friends that live in Texas and Oklahoma, two of the reddest states, I own some property in Texas as well, and though there are probably some, I have never met a person that doesn’t love Texas on the whole and are proud to live there.
“Where can I send a donation to help bj move to a “workers paradise”?”—Chrisfrommactown
Now there’s a man that knows a good investment and when to take a loss and unload the laggards.
“The Red State agenda is a CON race to the bottom. If you advocate the Red State agenda, move to Mississippi or Alabama.”
If you advocate the BLue state agenda, move to California.
There, fixed it for you.
I don;t advocate such a thing as telling people to move, but apparently you do. Just wanted to fix the wording for you
BlueJay
Posted August 4, 2009 at 7:10 am | Permalink
Can we just cut loose the red states and be done with their populations of people determined to remain hard headed and poorly treated? I can be packed in like 24 hours.
==================================
BlueJay,
You fool no one. In 20 years you will be in the same place you are now, b|tching and moaning about getting the schitty end of the stick, while barking Thomas Frank this and Thomas Frank that.
okob whines,
“Maggot you think Texas has a lower living standard than California. When were you last in those states?”
A year ago. So what’s your point?
Douthat’s column is carefully worded and thoughtful, but the conclusions drawn from it are still not warranted. In particular, using the “difference” between California and Texas to highlight the weaknesses of blue style governance versus red style governance is not warranted.
Both conservative and liberal “agendas” have their strengths (yes, I said strengths) as well as weaknesses. The unfortunate thing is that the weaknesses of “red” and “blue” tend to be the very aspects that are most appealing to voters.
California’s problem, as Monkeyhawk said, is their utterly insane referendum system that allows, and indeed requires, voters to vote themselves programs that sound good and yet also requires them to vote for revenue to pay for it. And there are all too many people who want to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury but make the other guy pay for it, or cut the other guy’s pet program to make up for the largesse they are getting. Plus, as again was pointed out by Monkeyhawk, initiatives in California take only a >50% of the vote to pass, but raising taxes requires a >66.7% of the vote to pass. The citizens of California have hamstrung their legislature from making difficult choices in the midst of a financial crisis (while simultaneously blaming them for it), and it is difficult enough to get legislators to deal honestly with budget crises as it is.
Texas has an ideal situation. Like California, it has a very strong tourist and even travel through economy, and that allows Texas to benefit from enormous sales taxes, without the referenda. It should be noted, however, that Texas is a HUGE state, and some areas of Texas are struggling quite severely. It would also be good to keep in mind WHERE the growth is occurring. Austin is practically Seattle south, a blue blot on a red state. Some of the other booming areas in Texas are the other blue blots on Texas.
As Douthat also admitted, the American south, now the primary stronghold of the modern Republican party, is also the hardest hit section of the country. Some of the other big states that are struggling as bad or worse than California include primarily red states like Arizona.
One of the reasons why several states (red or blue) are struggling so badly is that their legislatures, in an orgy of self imposed and yet at the time politically popular “fiscal responsibility”, passed balanced budget amendments to their constitutions. When this is combined with the twin irresponsible practices of increases in spending and giving back “surpluses” in tax cuts when times are good and revenues are high, this leaves states in a terrible bind when times are bad, the revenues dry up, and new program costs come due. This is why you see even Republican governors come to Washington with their hats in their hands, singing a very different tune from their congressional counterparts.
And lest we forget, the seeds of the current financial crisis came from a president and congress that pursued a “red state model” (despite faux fiscal conservatives attempts to now claim the contrary). The ugly reality is, however, that a purple style of governance may yet give us the worst of both worlds: Spending that is most easily sold but does not result in value, failures to raise revenue to pay for spending, and continued failure to deal with the looming entitlement crises. Moderate purple may give us the worst of the red and the blue, rather than the best.
And by the way, the red and blue map at the head of the thread? Not so accurate anymore, now is it?
And on a side note to J. Wink: You keep referencing the money that the US is borrowing from China. Quick question. Where do you think much of that money is coming from?
Ok, several Libs have said California’s problem is they don’t collect enough taxes.
Several Libs have said Conservatives don’t want to pay their Fair Share of taxes, YET at the same time, you Libs can’t say what that Fair Share of taxes should be!
What is the Fair Share of Taxes?
If I make $1,000,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $250,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $100,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $75,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $50,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
If I make $25,000, then how many dollars should I pay in taxes?
The Spam Troll breaks out his one trick pony act again.
“Douthat’s column is carefully worded and thoughtful, but the conclusions drawn from it are still not warranted. In particular, using the “difference” between California and Texas to highlight the weaknesses of blue style governance versus red style governance is not warranted.”
Okay….look at the other blue states, they are all in trouble.
I’m sorry, Phillip?
As has already been mentioned, your electoral map in the header is inaccurate.
Here is link to the red blue electoral map from the 2008 election. You’ll want to correct your header.
Won’t you?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
We all pay and paid to support texas tax revenue base, is that over your head Okie? Alaska also benefitted greatly from the astronomical rise in oil/gas production (texas).
Oil and Gas Prices
At the end of August 2002, the price of oil was roughly $29 per barrel. Less than six years later, for reasons involving consumer demand, global politics, and dozens of additional factors, the price was about $140 per barrel.
The price of natural gas rose at a similar rate. In August 2002, the price was $2.76/Mcf. By June 2008, the price had increased the $10.82/Mcf.
The State Tax on Oil and Gas
Texas imposes a tax on the production of crude oil; the rate is 4.6 percent of market value. Texas also imposes a tax on the market value of gas produced and saved in Texas; the rate is 3.75 percent of market value
Because the market value of both oil and gas has risen dramatically in recent years, the state has benefited greatly from “energy price creep.” In fact, state revenue from oil and gas production taxes almost tripled, from $967 million in 2002 to $2.731 billion in 2007.
Instead of gloating, Texans should be ashamed.
The most Liberal states are in deep doo-doo. Hollyfornia is bankrupt and spiraling out of control.
So what do the Libs want to do when the U.S. is in debt?
Whip out the credit card and spend more…
Phantom,
Maybe you should buy your oil and gas from New York.
The Libs can’t say what the Fair Share tax should be for the upper income brackets.
They’d be ashamed to admit they want 95% of the income taken away from the evil rich people.
The Libs would rather btich about rich people not paying their Fair Share of taxes, instead of simply stating what their Fair Share should be.
Btich
Btich
Btich
Bad news, CONs.
That map the Brownlee posted as illustration is radically in error.
Only FIVE states in the Union have clear Republican majorities. Even Kansas is about evenly split between those who self-identify as RepubliCONs and Democrats.
Looks like the party of “no” needs to change its message.
Not according to the map from Wikipedia
According to the map for national elections.
Red or blue means each party majority won in the last 4 elections
Light red means 3 out of 4 for Republicans
Light blue means 3 out of 4 for Democrats
Purple means 50/50 split
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/7010/300pxredstatebluestates.png
I forgot to mention the oil revenues that Texas got through the recession as well.
“Okay….look at the other blue states, they are all in trouble.”
Actually, all but two of the states, red and blue, were “in trouble”. Those that did the best, red and blue, had unspent surpluses from good years and also made up for lost revenues with, wait for it, stimulus spending.
One of the states to do that, by the way?
Texas.
Like I said, Republican and Democratic governors both went cap in hand to Washington.
Capn America posts: “Bad news, CONs.
“That map the Brownlee posted as illustration is radically in error.
“Only FIVE states in the Union have clear Republican majorities. Even Kansas is about evenly split between those who self-identify as RepubliCONs and Democrats.”
Regular responds (non-trolishly): “Not according to the map from Wikipedia
“According to the map for national elections.
“Red or blue means each party majority won in the last 4 elections
“Light red means 3 out of 4 for Republicans
“Light blue means 3 out of 4 for Democrats
“Purple means 50/50 split”
For the most part, I have to go with Regular on this one. That being said, there was a significant shift in the last two elections (and folks, it CAN shift back again and probably will to an extent).
The Democratic primary did inspire a shift in registration patterns, but that does not necessarily reflect (and it probably doesn’t) reflect any sort of permanent shift in voting patterns. Look at both the 2008 results in Kansas and the pathetic mess that is our legislature.
Having an (R) after your name in Kansas will, in most places, give you an advantage, and that is still a fact.
Capn,
I am sure you know how to read and use the internet.
There are nearly as many independents as Democrats in Kansas. Kansas will be red for the foreseeable future.
The most telling stat is population migration. What states are net recipients and which have net losses?
“The most telling stat is population migration. What states are net recipients and which have net losses?”
And where is that population going within the state, and what is the trend within the growing states.
Like I have said, there have been some shifts, some of which are probably temporary. However, one predictor of red versus blue is rural/outlying suburbs versus urban/established suburbs. Even in some of the reddest states, the blue blots are growing.
I don’t pretend to know what this means long term though.
FrankieF writes The most telling stat is population migration. What states are net recipients and which have net losses?
If only FF could read and use the internet, he could find out.
37 That’s the number of states that are either solidly or leaning Democratic in a series of Gallup tracking polls conducted over the first six months of 2009. Only eight states are solidly or leaning Republicans in that same data.
The numbers, which are based on party identification of adults in national tracking polls, paint a stark portrait of the challenge facing Republicans not just in the 2010 midterm election but also in the 2012 presidential race.
There are currently 29 states in which Democrats enjoy a 10-percentage point (or more) edge on party identification. Compare that to just four states where the Republican edge is ten points or higher (Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska) and one (Alabama) that leans toward the GOP.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/most-important-number/the-most-important-number-in-p-24.html
Agnatha
Posted August 4, 2009 at 11:24 am | Permalink
.
Having an (R) after your name in Kansas will, in most places, give you an advantage, and that is still a fact.
Probably true, but I would suggest having an (i) for incumbent gives you a near total advantage, in any state. Sad fact. Everybody hates politicians and Congressman, and Presidents, etc, except for their own. What do you think “pork” is all about?
I think one has to look at the Swing states in order to make a fairly accurate assumptions.
The map I referenced, closely matches the swing state vote in the 2008 elections.
I think the Capn is measuring output on the Presidential election alone. There are more types of elections than that. Congressional, Governor and State political offices.
Too narrow of view will give one an unrealistic projection.
The 2010 Census: A Gift for the GOP?
“Republicans may have a long-term ace in their pocket. Despite recent election setbacks for the GOP, they are poised to regain ground when it comes to gaining seats after the next national Census.
The 2010 Census is likely to lead to more congressional districts for many states that have been Republican-friendly in recent elections. Changes in House apportionment will be made before the 2012 elections.
Texas will come away with the big prize, adding four new House seats. Georgia will probably gain one more, and Florida will add two. Republicans have recently dominated these states’ legislatures. If that holds true in the next few years, as we expect, the GOP will have a large hand in drawing the lines of new districts, giving the party a renewed advantage.”…..
California, for the first time since gaining statehood in 1850, won’t pick up any new seats, a result largely of a leveling off in migration to the state and also due to scores of state residents and recent retirees moving to other parts of the southwest.
Several states will lose House seats, possibly hurting Democrats as legislatures and courts decide new lines for a smaller delegation. The states that will see these changes include Louisiana (mainly due to population displacement from Hurricane Katrina), Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Each will lose one seat, except for Ohio and New York, each of which will lose two. Also on the list of states to watch are Massachusetts and New Jersey. Both are in danger of losing a seat if population losses are not stemmed in the next two years.”
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/2010_Census_and_GOP_070914.html
little phillip takes another shot at them liberals.
you should hook-up with michelle makin you 2 think a lot alike.
phillip saves the newspaper industry all by himself.
“Probably true, but I would suggest having an (i) for incumbent gives you a near total advantage, in any state. Sad fact. Everybody hates politicians and Congressman, and Presidents, etc, except for their own. What do you think ‘pork’ is all about?”
True to an extent. Things to think about:
Politicians are popular scapegoats in the general sense. The mere fact someone chooses to run for office therefore puts them under suspicion, then it becomes the devil you think you know versus some other politician. The fact is, there are people in public office, far more than any would like to think, who really set out to be public servants. However, honesty is punished. The reason why politicians have to hedge their words and speak so carefully is because they are punished severely by the voting public if they don’t. “We” like to think that the “politician” is inherently dishonest, when in fact it is “we” who punish honesty. There are a lot of would be Mr. and Ms. Smiths who all too quickly learn that the public will turn upon them, or that political opponents will distort or exaggerate the mildest faux paux, into a career ending mistake. Those Mr. and Ms. Smiths who survive, learn to adapt. But Pogo was right about who’s the real enemy.
There are always outrageous examples of ‘pork’, but there is a reason why “pork” is so popular. It works. It works for economic development in a district because pork builds things, and building things employs people, and the thing that is built employs people, or contributes to the infrastructure of an area, and that in turn generates economic activitity in a distric.
For example, complaining about “pork” in an economic stimulus package is just silly (I was very disappointed in “the three” moderate Republican senators during negotiations on the first stimulus bill, some of the potentially most effective programs were cut and unnecessary tax cuts were accepted just to get those three votes). “Pork” is something that you want in a stimulus package. The “good” pork is the pork that results in building things that have value and therefore will generate economic return beyond the money spent to build the thing.
That being said, there is also “bad” pork, which spends money to build something that then just sits there (like Bridges to Nowhere, or some stupid monument or other do-nothing memorial institute), hardly employs anyone and spends money just to build it, and then it’s over. That’s what the general public likes to think of as “pork”.
Re: Boxlock’s latest post.
In other words, the Republican controlled legislatures of growing southern states will gerrymander their new districts. That is what Texas did, to outrageous effect, after the 2000 census (Democrats in California arguably did the same thing after 2000). Texas is likely to do the same, or even worse, after the 2010 census. For would be gerrymanderers in Florida, however, the landscape may be a little more tricky. The third generation Cuban Americans (the grandchildren of rabid anti-communists) are becoming a bit more purple, and Florida as a whole is hardly solidly Republican in the way Texas is.
The flip side of the population growth in these states is that, at best, the immigrants are purple. In some cases, they tend to be downright blue.
The ‘jawless fish’ makes reference to the other white meat.
Agnatha-
It is true, the enemy is us. It is also true that we love our incumbents. Congress has a low, depending on which poll is your flavor, 20-30 percent approval rate. Incumbent reelection rate well over 90%. We the people are apparently lying to someone. Perhaps ourselves. There are indeed many, many people who run for office with the intent to “serve”. The system corrupts them. It corrupts them in the deals they must make to get anything done, it corrupts them in the fickleness of the voting public, it corrupts them in that people don;t want to hear the REAL TRUTH! California is a prime example. We want the governement to do this, we want the government to do that, we want….we want…..we want…. The only thing we do NOT WANT is to pay for it. We want some other poor bass turd to pay for it, or, for some, stupidly, they want “the government” to pay for it. Hence, like California, we spend our way into oblivion. That includes porkbarrel spending. I understand your point, but I suspect little of what is “good” pork compares with the dollars on “bad” pork. Infrastructure is probably a good bet for government, but on as local a level as possible. Only the feds can build an itnerstae system. If WIchita wants a nonstop road from 119th west to Rock, let Wichita pay for it. Just my opinion
Box predicts that the Census will create new CONgressional districts.
Two problems–
1. a lot of the population increase in Tx and Fla are from hispanics who tend Democratic
2. I can’t remember the exact number, but there’re some 450 members of the House, so a few more here or there aren’t going to make much difference
Okay, the number of Reps is 435.
Capn,
I know the answer. It is red states. States with lower tax burdens and generally less government intrusiveness.
In 2007, red state Texas gained 500,000 new residents.
Blue state California gained 300,000 new residents.
Apparently, more is going on than just state taxes and “gov’t intrusiveness” . . . whatever that is.
“I know the answer. It is red states. States with lower tax burdens and generally less government intrusiveness.”
That is waaaaay oversimplifying things.
The answer is states with booming urban areas and diversifying economies (and no, that is not accomplished primarily through “lower tax burdens” and “less government intrusiveness”). Primarily rural red states are still facing stagnant growth (aand even those that are reported to be doing very well, such as Montana and North Dakota) are doing well in part because, frankly, they don’t have that many people and they are getting revenues from resources.
“It includes porkbarrel spending. I understand your point, but I suspect little of what is ‘good’ pork compares with the dollars on ‘bad’ pork.”
I suspect that there is more “good” pork than popular wisdom would like to believe. It should be noted, when I say “good” pork, I do not mean necessarily that I think it is good policy, but rather that it generates good returns for the locality/district/state that it is located in. It can be infrastructure, but it can also be something that generates long term employment, particularly of the professional class, that in turn generates greater demand for service economy companies and jobs. Why do you think the fight over the bio-lab in Manhatten is so nasty? San Antonio and south-central Texas want it as badly as northeastern Kansas, because they know that the bio-lab, regardless of whether it is a good idea, will generate persistent economic activity and growth.
“do not mean necessarily that I think it is good policy, but rather that it generates good returns for the locality/district/state that it is located in”
I guess that is where we might differ. If it is not good policy, or inthe interest of the federal government as a whole, then it should be funded at a lower level, by those directly in line to benefit as a “good return” on investment
“Blue state California gained 300,000 new residents.
Apparently, more is going on than just state taxes and “gov’t intrusiveness”
“alifornia is experiencing something of a statistical anomaly — more people are moving out of the state than are moving in, but the population continues to grow.
It’s fairly easy to explain. Last year, 135,173 more people moved to other states than moved into California. During the same period, births and the arrival of immigrants pushed California’s population up by 1.16 percent.
So, while home prices, limited job opportunities and the ever-present combo of earthquakes and wildfires keep driving people out, California remains on track to be the nation’s first 50-million-person state within a few years.
Still, it’s kind of sad to see entire families loaded into their SUVs, towing trailers filled with furniture, clothes and toys, quietly heading east on I-10, or north on I-5.
They are, of course, searching for a better life, one in which home prices are not hopelessly out of reach — even with California’s rapidly deflating housing market — mortgages are even more difficult to get, and there are dwindling supply of jobs that provide the kind of income that allow someone to afford one of those homes.
For those folks, California represents just too great a struggle for survival. It is a situation that worries policy makers, and their concerns are exacerbated by California’s 8.2-percent unemployment rate, which is a full 1.5 percentage points higher than the national jobless rate.
A noted historian, Joel Kotkin, recently wrote that the net out-migration of residents indicates a state in deep trouble — trouble that will only get worse because of state government’s dysfunction, and the widening gap between California’s rich and poor.”
December 18, 2008
More are moving out of California than in
For a fourth year in a row, residents moving to other states outnumber arrivals from other states, a trend that underscores the sour economy.
For the fourth year in a row, more residents left the Golden State than moved here from other states, according to a report released Wednesday by the California Department of Finance.
The outflow — last seen during the economic and social struggles of the 1990s — started when it became too expensive for most people to buy homes in
the state, and has kept going throughout the bust with the loss of so many jobs.
The trend underscores the state’s sour economy as layoffs continue, the fiscal strain on government grows and home values continue to decline.
Though more births and rising international immigration helped boost California’s population a modest 1.16% last year, the state continued its steady stream of domestic out-migration — the movement to other states of people who live here.
During the last fiscal year
, 135,173 more people moved out of California than moved in from other states. Though just a drop in the bucket for a state of 38 million people, the trend remains significant because such declines usually occur when working Californians decide better opportunities lie elsewhere.
LA Times
American_Way,
And what is also very significant is that the population gains are to the inner city’s of Los Angeles and others, and the losses are to the suburbs and more affluent areas of the state.
Those with very limited, actually no, ability to help the state economy let alone to provide jobs, are moving in….and those with those abilities are moving OUT.
Sad….California used to be a wonderland of opportunity…not anymore.
According to Bush and cons, since Texas and Alaska have the oil, we should get to attack and invade them so we can get their resources. Isn’t it funny how cons think its aok to pilfer others for the good of the ole USA, but they demand others to keep away from their pocketbooks?
I’m not a socialist, but there are things we should ALL have to pay in for our society to function. I’m not a 100% capitalist, and I’m not a 100% socialist. Somewhere in the middle where we take care of those who can’t, pay for the things that benefit us all, and still allow private enterprise to flourish.
If everyone stopped being so darn greedy, we’d do fine. Unfortunatley that’s not going to happen. People have to be forced to be ethical.
“I guess that is where we might differ.”
Maybe not as much as you think.
“If it is not good policy, or in the interest of the federal government as a whole, then it should be funded at a lower level, by those directly in line to benefit as a ‘good return’ on investment.”
Agreed to an extent. However, “good policy” is often a subjective assessment (depending on multiple factors such as beliefs about what the proper role of government is). However, for something like a stimulus plan, I personally think “good policy” is something that generates good return on the investment, and advances policy aims that are in the public interest. For example, Republican whining to the contrary, I think “cash for clunkers” is overall good policy that will generate good return for several years (mainly through state property taxes, but also through transportation supported economic activity that will be cheaper, while also advancing public good by reducing emissions).
“Good pork”, for the definition I am using, is pork that brings return to a district, which is why pork is so popular locally even though it is despised as a corrupting influence by the nation as a whole.
Robert Byrd, for example, is known derisively as the king of pork nationwide (I personally despise the man), but he is popular with the chambers of commerce in West Virginia (probably even while they are simultaneously whining about excess gummit spending).
Nice discussion Littlejohn.
“If everyone stopped being so darn greedy, we’d do fine.”
That’s right. Get your democrat liberal demanding hand out of my back pocket.
You don’t have what I have? Go e-a-r-n it.
It’s not a god given right to steal it from me.
“when I say “good” pork, I do not mean necessarily that I think it is good policy, but rather that it generates good returns for the locality/district/state that it is located in.”
With all the pork Congress and presidents have spent – we should have all these good returns
and no longer be in recession.
Perhaps that’s part of the logic.
What we are lacking right now, is pork. If we spent more money on pork – we could spend our way out of recession. All this teaching a man to fish is just bull……!
Libs keep on keeping on believing they have a calling for change.
53% of the vote for president.
A dozen narrowly won senate seats.
Forget the independents. Forget the turncoat
republicans.
Republicans are not showing any new leadership or leaders stepping out, but democrats are going to make any candidate look more attractive.
Keep scaring people.
“I’m not a 100% capitalist, and I’m not a 100% socialist. “—P_mama
I hate to say it but it’s true, P_mama you aren’t 100% anything but….well, somewhat handicapped intellectually to say the least.
You think you have title to anyone’s assets and by your own tongue think think you can take what are others.
Sick!
The faux fiscal conservative fanatic SpamWay posts boilerplate rhetoric: “That’s right. Get your democrat liberal demanding hand out of my back pocket.
“You don’t have what I have? Go e-a-r-n it.
“It’s not a god given right to steal it from me.”
Right. Because public moneys automatically go from more deserving to less deserving people. Of course, that is simplified bullsh*t. Do you have any idea how much of the money you make actually came out of the public sector? More than likely, this is a rhetorical question, you probably don’t, and most people working in the “private sector” don’t. To the extent that people who whine about the gummit “stealing” from them have no idea whether they take in more money that came from public dollars than was taken from them. For example, I am always amused when I hear this rhetoric come from somebody who owns or works in retail in suburbs like Andover or Maize, where the largest employer, by far, is the public school system. Guarantee you that a large chunk, and probably the majority, of money supporting their business and the local economy is sort of money that was “taken” out of the business owner’s back pocket.
And that is where fanatic adherence to “principles” leads to blindness, and sometimes spamming the board with boilerplate rhetoric and any article or editorial one can find through google-fu that supports the poster’s pre-determined conclusions.
Jawless fish, you exhibit little more understanding than those foul little objects I dig out of the cat box.
The only “public money” is that that is printed or spent in deficit.
The government taxing entities take it from those private entities that have earned it.
If those private entities operated with the efficiency of most governmental ones they would go belly up, the government just spends money it doesn’t have or takes even more.
Re: Boxlock/Sandbox/Box ‘o Rocks/The Flame Troll
DNFTFT
“Republicans are not showing any new leadership or leaders stepping out, but democrats are going to make any candidate look more attractive.
“Keep scaring people.”
You mean like telling olds people that a “government” worker is going to show up at their house asking them how they want to die? That sort of scaring people?
BTW, you sure that post wasn’t meant for the AFP thread, or does it even matter any more?