Conservative States Prosper, While Liberal States Decline

[lonestar]

The Results Are In: Conservative States Prosper, While Liberal States Decline Share Print
By Troy Senik
Thursday, April 26 2012
States that embrace free-market principles are beating jurisdictions that prefer big government to within an inch of their lives.


Advocates of federalism – the belief that, consistent with the Tenth Amendment, as much responsibility for public policy as possible should be given to the states rather than the federal government – have long embraced the notion of the states as “laboratories of democracy.” As originally enunciated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, this theory holds that, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Chalk up another victory for the Founding Fathers. In a nation now continental in scope and 50 states strong in composition, federalism is more useful than ever. It not only allows states to adjust to the specific cultural contours of their populace, but also allows competing visions of public policy to play out throughout the country, with the ultimate results documenting what works and what doesn’t.

Unfortunately, the results from the 50 state laboratories are not stacked up against each other nearly often enough. How are we to learn best practices for governing, after all, if a comprehensive process of comparing and contrasting public policy outcomes throughout the nation is never carried out?

Thankfully, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has remedied that deficiency with its study “Rich States, Poor States,” the fifth annual edition of which was released earlier this month. Authored by famed supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, Wall Street Journal economic guru Stephen Moore and ALEC’s own Jonathan Williams, the 100-plus page report looks at economic competitiveness among the 50 states in exacting detail.

The conclusion of the most recent edition: States that embrace free-market principles are beating jurisdictions that prefer big government to within an inch of their lives. As the authors themselves put it, “If we had to summarize the findings of this publication and our comparative analysis of state policy in one sentence, it would be this: Be more like Texas and less like California.”

Riddled with data, “Rich States, Poor States” gives striking testimony to the virtues of unobtrusive government on nearly every page. A comparison between the nine states with the highest and lowest tax burdens, for instance, shows remarkable disparities.

During the decade that ended in 2010, GDP in the low-tax states grew by 20 percent more than in the high-tax jurisdictions; Population growth in the low-tax states was nearly four times greater than in the high-tax states. And the low tax rates didn’t exactly make paupers out of the states that embraced them either; those jurisdictions actually realized substantially larger increases in the growth of state and local tax revenue than did their more confiscatory brethren.

Tax policy wasn’t the only variable that affected the capacity for human flourishing. The authors also compared and contrasted the performances of right-to-work states with states where union membership is compulsory. The results: GDP growth was more than 10 percentage points higher in right-to-work states. Personal income growth was higher by an almost identical margin. And population growth in the right-to-work states was nearly double.

Any time such disparities in performance are pointed out, liberals are quick to argue that non-political factors – weather or natural resources, for example – are the real culprits. But comparing the numbers in “Rich States, Poor States” gives the lie to that claim.

Warm-weather states throughout the Sunbelt (such as Florida, Texas, Arizona and Georgia) may have been among the top states for domestic immigration, but if climate were the dominant explanation one wouldn’t expect such a dismal performance from temperate California (which came in 49th in the category). Similarly, if frostbitten Massachusetts could blame its travails on the weather (the Bay State was 43rd for immigration), you’d expect neighboring New Hampshire (a low-tax paradise) to do a lot worse than number 22 in the rankings.

No matter how you slice the numbers, the outcome is always the same: states that embrace conservative policies – low taxes, restrained regulation, free labor markets, a friendly business environment – consistently outperform states where big government carries the day.

Consider this statistic: The 10 states that saw the biggest domestic immigration in the previous decade gave their electoral votes to the Republican candidate for president 76 percent of the time during those years; exclude Washington state (primarily the beneficiary of emigration from liberal basket case California) and the number increases to 85 percent.

On the flip side, the states that attracted the least new citizens gave their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate 83 percent of the time; exclude Louisiana, whose population loss owed primarily to Hurricane Katrina rather than economic policy, and the number jumps to an astonishing 93 percent.

Liberal Democrats are fond of touting themselves as believers in science, rationality and empiricism. With the results of “Rich States, Poor States” in hand, we now know that to be false. If it were true, they’d have to be conservatives.

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commenta...states-decline

[barryr]

But liberals do not live in the land of facts and reality. It is always about ideology and the way it should be no matter how it never works.

[W*GS]

lonestar, the official bukkake boy of the proto-fascists of the Right.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Texassstar,the bestus speeler on the board and he's smarter than any leeberal eber was.

And official voice of Right Wingers here on the Mane

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by LoneNut

Conservative States Prosper, While Liberal States Decline

You left out "ignorance is strength" and "freedom is slavery."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Texassstar,the bestus speeler on the board and he's smarter than any leeberal eber was.

And official voice of Right Wingers here on the Mane

Sounds like Mr. Asimov has met LoneNut...

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by barryr

But liberals do not live in the land of facts and reality. It is always about ideology and the way it should be no matter how it never works.

better watch out they be coming for you

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

lonestar, the official bukkake boy of the proto-fascists of the Right.

I think it's an interesting rebuttal to the more common statistic which references the amount of federal tax dollars contributed vs received.

What's it hurt to embrace the conversation and make someone else show their colors as little more than a party parrot? If the source were completely absurd, that'd be one thing, but they seem to have used reasonable parameters here.

[snowspot66]

Republican leaning states tend to favor agriculture and natural resources for income. Is it a surprise to anybody that states like North Dakota are doing well?

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

Republican leaning states tend to favor agriculture and natural resources for income. Is it a surprise to anybody that states like North Dakota are doing well?

Not sure I get the point here.

I wouldn't usually correlate agricultural with real money making endeavors. I'd think Silicon Valley or Seattle, probably, for the computer people. Maybe Wall Street for the market. That kinda stuff.

Also, a big component of the study seemed to be domestic migration. Those agricultural lands can be prosperous for those whose families acquired the land many years ago and now have large plots but people moving to those areas surely wouldn't be moving to the country to make money in the farming boom. More commonly, families are losing farms these days.

I could see some like ND prospering due to the oil fields there just like Alaska and maybe Texas. I just wouldn't think of agriculture being the conduit.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by barryr

But liberals do not live in the land of facts and reality..

Man, look at those prosperous red states, you republicans sure know business!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ates_by_income

Rank 	State 	Politics 	2009 	2008 	2007 	2004-2006
1 	Maryland 	Blue 	$69,272 	$70,545 	$68,080 	$62,372
2 	New Jersey 	Blue 	$68,342 	$70,378 	$67,035 	$64,169
3 	Connecticut 	Blue 	$67,034 	$68,595 	$65,967 	$59,972
4 	Alaska 	Red 	$66,953 	$68,460 	$64,333 	$57,639
5 	Hawaii 	Blue 	$64,098 	$67,214 	$63,746 	$60,681
6 	Massachusetts 	Blue 	$64,081 	$65,401 	$62,365 	$56,236
7 	New Hampshire 	Blue 	$60,567 	$63,731 	$62,369 	$60,489
8 	Virginia 	Red 	$59,330 	$61,233 	$59,562 	$55,108
	District of Columbia 	Blue 	$59,290 	$57,936 	$54,317 	$47,221 (2005)[3]PDF
9 	California 	Blue 	$58,931 	$61,021 	$59,948 	$53,770
10 	Delaware 	Blue 	$56,860 	$57,989 	$54,610 	$52,214
11 	Washington 	Blue 	$56,548 	$58,078 	$55,591 	$53,439
12 	Minnesota 	Blue 	$55,616 	$57,288 	$55,082 	$57,363
13 	Colorado 	Purple 	$55,430 	$56,993 	$55,212 	$54,039
14 	Utah 	Red 	$55,117 	$56,633 	$55,109 	$55,179
15 	New York 	Blue 	$54,659 	$56,033 	$53,514 	$48,201
16 	Rhode Island 	Blue 	$54,119 	$55,701 	$53,568 	$52,003
17 	Illinois 	Blue 	$53,966 	$56,235 	$54,124 	$49,280
18 	Nevada 	Purple 	$53,341 	$56,361 	$55,062 	$50,819
19 	Wyoming 	Red 	$52,664 	$53,207 	$51,731 	$47,227
20 	Vermont 	Blue 	$51,618 	$52,104 	$49,907 	$51,622
	United States 		$50,221 	$52,029 	$50,740 	$46,242 (2005) [4]PDF
21 	Wisconsin 	Blue 	$49,993 	$52,094 	$50,578 	$48,874
22 	Pennsylvania 	Blue 	$49,520 	$50,713 	$48,576 	$47,791
23 	Arizona 	Red 	$48,745 	$50,958 	$49,889 	$46,729
24 	Oregon 	Blue 	$48,457 	$50,169 	$48,730 	$45,485
25 	Texas 	Red 	$48,259 	$50,043 	$47,548 	$43,425
26 	Iowa 	Blue 	$48,044 	$48,980 	$47,292 	$47,489
27 	North Dakota 	Red 	$47,827 	$45,685 	$43,753 	$43,753
28 	Kansas 	Red 	$47,817 	$50,177 	$47,451 	$44,264
29 	Georgia 	Red 	$47,590 	$50,861 	$49,136 	$46,841
30 	Nebraska 	Red 	$47,357 	$49,693 	$47,085 	$48,126
31 	Maine 	Blue 	$45,734 	$46,581 	$45,888 	$45,040
32 	Indiana 	Red 	$45,424 	$47,966 	$47,448 	$44,806
33 	Ohio 	Purple 	$45,395 	$47,988 	$46,597 	$45,837
34 	Michigan 	Blue 	$45,255 	$48,591 	$47,950 	$47,064
35 	Missouri 	Red 	$45,229 	$46,867 	$45,114 	$44,651
36 	South Dakota 	Red 	$45,043 	$46,032 	$43,424 	$44,624
37 	Idaho 	Red 	$44,926 	$47,576 	$46,253 	$46,395
38 	Florida 	Purple 	$44,736 	$47,778 	$47,804 	$44,448
39 	North Carolina 	Red 	$43,674 	$46,549 	$44,670 	$42,061
40 	New Mexico 	Blue 	$43,028 	$43,508 	$41,452 	$40,827
41 	Louisiana 	Red 	$42,492 	$43,733 	$40,926 	$37,943
42 	South Carolina 	Red 	$42,442 	$44,625 	$43,329 	$40,822
43 	Montana 	Red 	$42,322 	$43,654 	$43,531 	$38,629
44 	Tennessee 	Red 	$41,725 	$43,614 	$42,367 	$40,676
45 	Oklahoma 	Red 	$41,664 	$42,822 	$41,567 	$40,001
46 	Alabama 	Red 	$40,489 	$42,666 	$40,554 	$38,473
47 	Kentucky 	Red 	$40,072 	$41,538 	$40,267 	$38,466
48 	Arkansas 	Red 	$37,823 	$38,815 	$38,134 	$37,420
49 	West Virginia 	Red 	$37,435 	$37,989 	$37,060 	$37,227
50 	Mississippi 	Red 	$36,646 	$37,790 	$36,338 	$35,261

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

L0L!

Ooops!

[chadta]

Originally Posted by snowspot66

Republican leaning states tend to favor agriculture and natural resources for income. Is it a surprise to anybody that states like North Dakota are doing well?

cuz agriculture isnt subsidized at all or anything

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Blart

Man, look at those prosperous red states, you republicans sure know business!

The only ones that cares if cost of living is high or low in an area are those collecting taxes from the area. If you make less but cost of living is less, the majority of your income is still going at the same rate for the same goods. Meats, produce, gas, housing, etc, were all much cheaper when I lived in Kentucky than now that I live in South Florida. We make substantially more down here than we did then and that counts if we go visit family back in the midwest but, overall, higher cost of living seems to basically amount to inflation.

[Blart]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

The only ones that cares if cost of living is high or low in an area are those collecting taxes from the area. If you make less but cost of living is less, the majority of your income is still going at the same rate for the same goods. Meats, produce, gas, housing, etc, were all much cheaper when I lived in Kentucky than now that I live in South Florida. We make substantially more down here than we did then and that counts if we go visit family back in the midwest but, overall, higher cost of living seems to basically amount to inflation.

So the quality of life in Mississippi is the same as Connecticut, one is just cheaper thanks to unfettered capitalism.



Living the high life, for less! Move to Mississippi.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Blart

So the quality of life in Mississippi is the same as Connecticut, one is just cheaper thanks to unfettered capitalism.
[/I]

True, there are differences, but they're not as pronounced as the statistics would lead you to believe.