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.
It is staggering how effective Sarah is! She turned around the entire economy in under 2 years when all the rest were heading for the cellar. Your lack of logic surpasses that of my 3 year old grandson.
Ping for
TX vs Alaska and
Perry vs Palin.
I sense a showdown on the horizon.
Hey it’s 104 in my part of Texas and we are burning up so I would not brag too much. Oh and Go Sarah!
great work Brices Crossroads! I’m saving this to pass around.
I See Palin’s plans have you worried to death as to whether or not she will run. Whats a matter your candidate has so much baggage several baggage handlers can’t handle it all? Don’t worry she won’t hurt you.
He Perry expert. That was the shortfall from the current year budget. If you read the whole article you posted, sigh, it shows the 2011-2012 budget has an estimated deficit of 15-27 BILLION.
They decided to cut 31 BILLION in spending back in January.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/19/news/economy/texas_budget_deficit/index.htm
“I don’t know, I got a hell of a lot of insight out of it. But I guess when Perry’s flaws are pointed out, someone needs to censor them.”
Just last week one of the Perry supporters was on threads telling people that we must all stop talking about the Al Gore associations, the TransTexas Corridor, Guardasil and every other issue that perry has to explain. We had to do that to ‘unite and get Rick Perry elected.”
Of course, the fact that these issues are far from settled, a serious concern and need to be dealt with “BEFORE” we unite behind anyone was lost on her and several others. I am still uncertain how that EXACT MINDSET was considered drooling cultlike behavior when Obama’s supporters did it and somehow ‘a good idea for Conservatives. Think “We have to pass the bill before we can see what’s in it.”
Perhaps some of the supporters here would explain it to me.
WELL SAID.
You and your Perrywinkle pals seem to be under the delusion that governing Alaska is much easier than governing Texas.
Let me pop this particular balloon for you:
1) Alaska is an enormous, resource rich state geographically, which could easily be it's own country.
2) Alaska's population is spread throughout the state in a variety of harsh climates with little infrastructure or communications capability.
3) Alaska is bordered by TWO foreign countries, one of which (Russia) is hostile to the U.S. and routinely runs recon and bomber training missions over Alaskan territory.
4) The federal government owns 65% of the land in Alaska, making it extremely difficult to navigate all the federal bull crap inherent in such a presence.
5) Natural disasters in Alaska are much greater in size and scope than in Texas because of the geography and climate up there---volcanoes, north Pacific typhoons, tsunamis, earthquakes, blizzards, and floods.
6) Alaska's Indian population requires special handling because of treaties and their recognized sovereignty and their government-to-government relationship with the U.S.
7) Alaska has a robust National Guard that has been deployed repeatedly to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the heavy military presence in Alaska (because of Russia and the Far East) requires a greater degree of coordination between the governor's office there and the Pentagon.
So spare me the false story about how easy Sarah had it as Alaska's governor from 2006 to 2009.
[Unsourced vanities aren’t usually considered news. They are opinions.]
Of course, the MSM is pretty much in collapse and this post was written as well as many articles. You’re just mad because some truth leaked out.
Excellent essay, BC. The time and effort you put into it is much appreciated and well worth it.
For me, one aspect of this election trumps all the other factors and make Palin the only truly acceptable choice: discounting vanity wannabees such as Ron Paul, etc., every single one of the other viable prospects, including Perry, are creatures of the establishment/Ruling Class/globalist elite.
Only Palin is not beholden to or controllable by them in varying degrees, and that is why she is the enemy of them all, the left, the GOP-Establishment, the globalists et al. and must be destroyed.
They have their preferences, of course. They’d prefer Romney, but they’ll take Perry because he’ll play ball. Only Palin will actually fight them, however.
Ignorant is not the word you are looking for.
Anybody repeating that meme at this date is either living under a rock (not applicable if they are registered posters here)or blatantly being disingenuous, because that is all they got, their last and best shot.
Pathetic might be a better word.
You must not have read the comment from years ago by our great Senator Phil Gramm “If we should vote next week on whether to begin producing cheese in a factory on the moon, I almost certainly would oppose it...On the other hand, if the government decided to institute the policy, it would be my objective to see that a Texas contractor builds this celestial cheese plant, that the milk comes from Texas cows, and that the Earth distribution center is located in Texas.”
I’m just pointing out that people usually whine about vanities and they are sent to bloggers or chat, not left in the news.
And Sarah accepted for the State of Alaska, about 60-70% of the several stimulus moneys offered while she was in office. (and then the Alaska legislature over-road part of that veto to take more)
So what?
Governors “take” the Tax payer’s own money back from the Feds??? Horrors!
Alaska and Texas chose to take some moneys and leave others on the table, so that we maintained the autonomy our State have and in order to avoid changing our laws or become truly dependent on the Feds.
You realize that the Stimulus money was going out, no matter what? That if Texas didn’t take it, it would go to New Jersey or New York?
Yes, Part of the apparent “deficit” touted by the Dems and taxers was the fact that the new baseline expectation of some included the numbers from 2009.
It was a false baseline and we didn”t cave.
What’s the source and date for this terribly inaccurate op-ed?
I get one of those "checks." It's a royalty/dividend check from investments made on behalf of Alaskans, who are the owners of the oil resources of the state. It is not federal money. And, it's a whole $1000 +- a year. woohoo.
LOL! Sorry, I lived in both places for years. Fifteen years in Minnesota made me DESPERATE to get back to Alaska. I would rather put up with Alaska's long winters than in Minneso-cold's miserable windy, bitter winters. Any day.
What matters is not the number of days you sat at your desk with a polished bronze "Governor" plaque on your door. What matters is "what did you get done?"
Sarah did more in her 34 months than Perry has done in 10 years. Or Romney in 4. She's the champ, and she is running.
Great graphic! I don’t know how many times I’ve wished I had it. Texas needs to watch out. Alaska may cut itself into two pieces and make Texas the THIRD largest state...
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.