Posted on 09/05/2011 9:32:08 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
As Rick Perry's record is beginning to be scrutinized, the budget mess in Texas has started to receive national attention. Apparently, there is a $31 billion deficit in the current fiscal year that will necessitate drastic cuts. It has also come to light that Perry, rather than making the necessary cuts in 2009, took Obama stimulus funds and used over $6 billion of the stimulus to plug his deficit. The deficit has now exploded, as they tend to do when not addressed early, and the stimulus money has dried up and blown away like a tumbleweed, leaving the state awash in a sea of red ink. By contrast, in Alaska, Governor Palin in 2009 made a deep cuts cuts and refused most of Obama's stimulus money, accepting only 45%--that portion which did not grow the government, or have strings attached that would swell the budget in the out years. Perry, by contrast, took 95% of the stimulus funds he was offered, a cool $16.5 billion.
Consequently, Palin's Alaska currently sports a $3.4 billion surplus and $12 billion in reserves, while Perry's Texas has a yawning deficit and will likely have to raid its $9 billion "rainy day fund", in addition to instituting draconian cuts, to close it. It is no wonder, some of us have observed, that Perry has taken his traveling medicine show on the road. Things must be pretty hot in Austin right about now.
The comparison between Palin's record and Perry's is pretty damning by any objective standard. Palin left her state with a huge surplus and in the pink of fiscal health, even in the middle of a recession. Perry has doubled state spending and tripled state debt during his decade in Austin, and Texas currently faces a gigantic, unprecedented deficit. It is pretty hard to argue with the figures. So what has been the recourse of the Perry supporters? Well, as the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Let me explain.
Alaska, they observe, has the second highest federal tax allotment per capita in the nation. What this means is Alaska receives about $5,150 more per capita in federal spending than the US average. (DC is first in per capita spending, Virginia is third, Maryland is fourth). This statistic is meant to conjure up an image of the average Alaskan stuffing his mattress with all the federal largesse or getting in his Cadillac and driving over to the welfare office to pick up his check. It is intended to convey the image of a state that is "propped up" by federal government spending. These images are, however, false and the use of the "per capita" argument is a canard. This "per capita" figure does not mean that the federal spending goes to state government or even necessarily to the people. It just means that the federal government spends x amount of dollars (over and above what it collects in federal taxes) in the state, and when you divide that amount by the number of residents of the state, you arrive at the per capita figure.
D.C. is the federal city and produces nothing, so it surprises no one that it is number one, since its local government and most of its residents' salaries are publicly funded. Virginia and Maryland, which envelop the capital, have by far the most federal employees of any of the other states. Vast numbers of their citizens work for the federal government. Little wonder that their per capita federal spending is higher as well.
And what of Alaska? Well, two thirds of the state, an area considerably larger than the state of Texas, is actually owned by the federal government, and the owner has to take care of and manage its property, which costs money. 87 million acres--an area more than half the size of Texas--is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, which spends huge amounts of money to manage and superintend such vast tracts. Another 16 million acres comprise the vast Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, the world's largest fish and wildlife refuge, which is managed by another federal agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Not surprisingly, the federal government spends a lot of money managing land it owns in Alaska.
Because of its strategic location, Alaska is home to nine large military bases and nearly 30,000 active duty troop, which is a number that is nearly 5% of its population. It has the largest number of bases per capita and the largest number of troops per capita of any state. The funds to maintain these bases and their operations, as well as the salaries and benefits for these troops, are part of the overall federal spending in the state. No doubt there is an indirect benefit for the state economy in this spending but it is far less direct than in Virginia and Maryland, which have state income taxes and tax the salaries of their federal employees (Alaska has no state income tax). The bottom line is that the federal government decided to put a lot of military bases in Alaska to protect the rest of us, not to help prop up Alaska. Yet these expenses, like the expenses to manage federal lands, are included in the phony "per capita" calculus.
And, on the other side of the equation, it is worth noting as well that the federal government doesn't just give money to Alaska. It costs Alaska money. A lot of it. Here's how. The Congress and the White House have taken unprecedented steps to impede Alaska's development of its natural resources, specifically its moratorium on exploration in the ANWR, and its many regulations and restrictions on exploration elsewhere in the state. Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope produces 400,000 barrels a day (8% of U.S. production), the largest field in the United States. It is suspected that ANWR has reserves comparable in size to the North Slope, but the federal government refuses to permit the exploration. It seems to me a bad bargain for Alaska to get a few measly federal dollars for military bases and federal land management, which benefit the entire country, only to have the same federal leviathan with its boot on the neck of Alaska's ability to develop its own God given natural wealth.
Imagine how devastating it would have been in the early part of the 20th Century, during the great Texas Oil boom, if the federal government had slapped a moratorium on drilling in East Texas, killing in their crib the great oil strikes at Spindletop, Humble, Goose Creek and Ranger. Texas would never have overtaken California and Oklahoma to become the largest oil producing state, and one of the richest, in the Union. Its booming economy would have been strangled and the cause of death would have been listed as federal regulation. I for one am thankful that Texas did not suffer this fate, and I am just as anxious that the boot of the Interior Department and the EPA be removed from Alaska's throat as well.
Incidentally, in spite of these large federal handcuffs Sarah Palin managed to do a remarkable job in spurring energy production, both oil and gas, in Alaska through ACES and AGIA. And these policies, coupled with her firm control of spending, have placed Alaska on a sound fiscal footing.
Context is everything. Statistics, particularly those as deceptive as per capita calculations, are generally a diversion tactic. But when one's record is as weak as Rick Perry's, it is preferable to divert attention from that record rather than than to try to defend it. As an old lawyer once said, if you have the facts on your side argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, confuse the issue.
Actually, Gov. Terry Branstad of Iowa has much more time in office than Gov. Perry does. Google it.
Are you counting Mexico? Then again you might have a little advantage in the weather over Alaska. Takes a real Man to tough it out in Alaska. I spent three winters outside Chicago on a Nike Missile base, believe me I know what a cold winter is, and I sure wouldn’t want to winter in Alaska.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/love-hate-thing-stimulus-money/print/
Using the article's numbers, without the above three factors, total budget deficits for all three periods would be at least $14.8 billion.
These facts are not as stellar as Perry portrays, but still seem to represent reasonable fiscal management.
Here is a opinion that I will claim as fact. Perry would not get the nomination, if he is were as conservative as you try to paint him.
I would much rather the people got a fair shake in this election, but if the permanent political class has their way, the people will again do the BOHICA dance.
“710,000 vs. 25,000,000 people. You do the math.
Yeah. I don’t remember running into a gazillion mexican restaurants the last time I was in Juneau.”
You Palin fans are so mind-blowingly obnoxious. Nor, no matter what facts people give to you, will you ever admit that you’ve been...what’s the word...reFudiated?
http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1DXCS_enUS421US422&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=refudiated
I can’t wait till the moment when she finally announces she’s not running. I’m going going to come here immediately, and due to the miracle of the iPhone, i’ll be able to do that wherever I am.
Indeed, I’ll enjoy the weeping. It’ll be like the night the lights went out in Georgia.
Texas is a "donor state" its residents pay MORE in federal income taxes than it gets back in spending. $1 out for 94 cents back. The disparity for one year alone amounted to $14 BILLION, nearly equal to the claimed stimulus infusion.
Alaska? Alaska is a MASSIVE WELFARE STATE. It takes $1.84 in federal spending for every $1 paid in federal taxes.
That's right. Sarah Palin's Alaska is a WELFARE STATE.
Check with the Tax Foundation or the U.S. Census Bureau's Consolidated Federal Funds Report.
Branstad came out of retirement and back into the governor’s office like Jerry Brown in CA. Perry’s the longest continuously serving governor.
What about the fact that they say that the Governor of Texas has the least amount of power than any governor in the country.
A quick look at the data shows even in a single year that can be $14 billion or more difference for Texans.
Alaska, in stark contrast, is one of the biggest abusers in the nation. $1.84 in federal spending for $1 in taxes.
Palin's fanatics won't talk about that inconvenient truth.
bkmk
It’s Palin or forget 2012
Source? Date?
This article has to be prior to May, most likely last January. Even then, it was extremely inaccurate.
Our budget was balanced in the regular session, the Bill was filibustered by a Dem Senator to run out time at the end of May, and we came back with even better numbers at the end of the Special Session at the end of June.
We balance our budget by State Constitution.
The so-called deficit was never anywhere near $30 million, in large part due to cuts Perry initiated last fall.
We used half of the Rainy Day fund to clear debt this year (from a budget written in 2009), but did not touch it for the 2012-2013 budget.
As Governor Palin’s Alaska did, Governor Perry took the Stimulus money with less onerous strings. She took the unemployment funds, but not some of the education funds (I don’t know the reasoning). We Texans did not take the unemployment funds and only took some of the education money tied to the “Race to the Top,” but fought and won a battle against specifically-only-for-Texas-written language for other education funds.
She did raise taxes on oil and gas industry and bid out the contracts to Canada.
Cindie
Cindie--that was so good it was worth repeating.
Of course you would since it’s your favorite being given kudos.
Unsourced vanities aren’t usually considered news. They are opinions.
He’s also been the Lt. Gov, state ag commissioner, a state representative so some of those offices are in positions that have some power. You know it’s called EXPERIENCE.
As far as my understanding goes the idea of the power structure in Texas is to have a decentralized government. Isn’t that what we desperately need at the fed level?
Remember we are supposed to be looking at ousting the dictator in chief who has abused his executive power to the point he wants to bypass congress whenever he doesn’t get his way.
Liberal
For someone who calls themself "Clairrity," you sure don't live up to your phonetic namesake.
;^\
No, venal, deceitful oversimplification never sounds presidential. Why, does your candidate share your third-grade perspective and prediliction for blatant falsehoods?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.