It's really amazing how you people love to divert the focus off the real issue and start talking about something that has nothing to do with the subject.
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's really amazing how you people love to divert the focus off the real issue and start talking about something that has nothing to do with the subject.
I don’t even check if they are new or not. Why should I. Can’t a troll roll in here and fake all that stuff? I just work off of what they posted. I remember reading here on FR that the questioner of Perry was a Paulbot. It made sense to me that if someone was using that as a rip of Perry, that they were of a like mind.
I have a very dim view of Ron Paul.
“after the termite infestation.”
ROFLOL
First off, who is "you people"? Secondly, I asked a very legitimate question in post 5 that was not answered. If you read through my posts here, I have answered my complaint with the original posters premise.
“I just would like Perry to get a fair shake in this election. He has warts, but so does every other candidate.”
One is perfect and may only be discussed in reverent tones.
I don’t know where you got the idea that the kid was pushy. I’ve seen the video of him asking the question. He was nothing of the sort. Check out the video for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RV9OhSkoeU
TY. I also like Sanotrum. I like all *thoroughly vetted* conservatives.
Time for me to call it a night.
Now, I know why Rick Perry got so aggressive with the Univ. of Iowa student a couple of weeks ago, who asked him about the Texas economy. Perry got in the kids face, poked him in the chest, then walked away as if the kid didn't give him a chance to answer. Rick Perry is a jerk. This is how he treats potential voters who have tough questions that he doesn't want to answer. Your true nature is coming out Perry.
We've had more than enough of the "jerk" type as president since Jan 89.
It's time we elected someone with brains, finesse, and integrity; someone with a record of fighting corruption, instead of promoting corruption.
And Alaska has enormous amounts of land controlled by the Federal Government. Could it be that accounts for much of the federal dollars spent there?
There is a good number of people here that think Rick is a piece of garbage RINO for the whole Spector thing. Every candidate has issues and there is nothing to do about it. I just want Romney destroyed and Obummer defeated. Simple goals in my mind.
Well there you go. See? I hadn’t seen the video, just read every news article I could on it. YOU are right. The kid was NOT pushy at all.
Well, Lord love a duck! That makes it even worse then, doesn’t it? Makes me MUCH less inclined to even HALF believe the perry apologists. Thank you. Adding that video to the others...like perry PROMISING G-d and the people of Texas in a debate he would serve out his term as governor if elected and NOT seek the presidency.
Well, just trying to get one honest answer from these folks. On that thread too. That thread...same as the last thread.
So what does "it come to light" mean? Nobody knew they used stimulus money for that? And has it yet "come to light" what percentage of the stimulus money was coughed up by Texans? They shouldn't take some of their own tax money back? I bet the Dems would love it if they never had to share federal money with red states.
“One is perfect and may only be discussed in reverent tones.”
When did G-d announce? I KNOW I would have heard it...and I haven’t, so....WHAT!!!
R any of them running for President?
Yes, it happens on Palin’s threads too. Primary season can be contentious with a lot of back and forth. As long as we all rally around the one who eventually wins (as long as it’s not Romney). Palin is my first choice if/when she gets in and so far Perry is my second though I’m still learning about him. I don’t seriously think size of state matters as much as how the person governed so the “my states bigger than yours” (whether talking people or land mass) are silly as far as I’m concerned. Each state has it’s own idiosyncrasies that showcase different strengths a candidate has. I’d like to see more polite but spirited debate but that’s just not the way humans are, I guess.
Cindie
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.