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.
Ace you just struck out!LOL LOL LOL.
Not directed at you personally gardencatz, but this is what happens on every Perry thread. Over and over ad nauseum. It's not an attempt to inform but to harass. To tear down Perry hoping to build up their candidate of choice, usually Palin, sometimes Paul. "Sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I am the same in reverse. I like Perry best, but I will vote for whomever the nominee is, anybody but Obama. I am not sure how much the states actually get for their own use either, but common sense tells me that getting more back is better for a state’s finances.
The kid who was poked was a Paulbot Commie. He just blathered on with his incessant diatribe and didn’t allow for an answer. At least some people can detect BS and move on.
http://adlibertad.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/rick-perry-afraid-of-rick-perry/
Are you a Paultard?
Certainly. the question is, if the Feds “Give back” money to “themselves” is it really going to the state?
Please note that it is being completely ignored in favor of arguing what’s really inarguable. Sarah Palin’s record in Alaska needs NO defense. She accomlished more in 2 years than perry has in....whatever, and she didn’t have to sell her soul to do it. That is really the whole point and nothing but the point.
What a rude and idiotic question to put to abcc2011 !!!
One look at abcc2011's forum page would have provided you your answer.
“Isn’t the intent of the thread to compare AK with TX? If that is the case, we should be giving Gov Parnell at least some credit for whatever stellar achievements they have achieved. He has been there for over 2 years now.”
Put a sock in it. Sean Parnell has done a great job of managing the state which was in great shape when it was bequeathed to him...by Sarah Palin. Parnell has done nothing to destroy the great situation he inherited. Kudos to him for that.
He has done a great job just as Sarah Palin predicted when she resigned. He is, after all, her hand picked successor. Her cuts and fiscal responsibility as well as ACES are the reason why Alaska is prospering today.
Neither Parnell nor anyone else would be doing a great job if they inherited the mess Perry has created in Texas.
Bringing up Sean Parnell is just another diversion. Pitiful.
Proves nothing but how bereft you are of cogent arguments.
This could have been a thread about Palin and they could have happily cheered for her and I wouldn’t have bothered to post.
But they are trying to compare Palin with Perry, making up all kinds of lies about Perry and if I point out a few FACTS, that is a problem?
Grant you the kid was pretty pushy, but you don’t stick your finger in someone’s chest, tell them to read your book for the answer, then have your spokesperson go in front of the press and say he didn’t really mean the answer was in his book. I mean, that is pathetic.
I don’t generally check peoples history on posting to see how they think. I work on what they posted. Defending the kid in that situation with Perry lead me to the conclusion I made.
Yep. Just ask this college kid who dared ask Perry a question about the economy. Perry got in his face, poked him in the chest and walked off accusing the kid of not letting him answer the question. Rick Perry is a thin-skinned bully. Who does that remind you of? Hint, hint he occupies our White House and has a dog named BO.
A forum page is not checking the posting history. The poster is new.
Nobody has to make up lies about perry. His record is in the public sphere...except what isn’t. And what isn’t is less pretty even than what is, yet you still defend him. Why?
Good post. Bookmarked. BTTT after the termite infestation.
I personally want someone as angry as I am to combat the biggest threat to our freedom as Obummer. I thought that the kid was being a wise@$$ when he went after Perry. After seeing who he was and what he believed, I thought Perry justified in his reaction. If you feel it was over the top, that is fine. This is just my personal feelings on the situation.
BTW, I am a Rick Santorum guy. I just would like Perry to get a fair shake in this election. He has warts, but so does every other candidate.
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.