Monday, August 29, 2011
Give Me a T For Texas
Give Me a T For Texas
By Bruce Bialosky
Whoa, Nelly! Rick Perry announced that he was running for President and the dump truck hired by the left-wing media unloaded the next day. They rolled out their columns disparaging the “Texas miracle” quicker than a Nolan Ryan fastball. As always, the serious question is: How accurate are their stories?
Before we investigate, allow me to introduce some perspective. At a recent party, I was engaged by two gentlemen who were fascinated that I was a columnist. One of them works for a major East Coast university. When he found out that I regularly read the left-wing media, he asked my opinion of Paul Krugman’s writing, and, in particular, if I had ever found inaccuracies in his columns. I stated that the problem is not whether his facts are wrong; rather it is his selective choice of facts and the misguided conclusions he draws from them. That is certainly the case with the barrage of attacks on Texas.
Here is a recap of what the echo chamber from the left is claiming about Texas:
1. The jobs exist because of the oil and gas industry.
2. It has the fourth highest poverty rate of any state.
3. The state is tied for most jobs that are minimum wage.
4. Texas has the largest number of adults without a high school diploma.
5. 26% of Texans have no health insurance – highest percent in the nation.
If you listen to the echo chamber, it certainly seems like Texas is one rotten place to live. But there’s something missing here – the population of Texas grew by 20.6% between 2000 and 2010, and it’s not all because of childbirth. People are moving to Texas in droves, an American migration that’s been taking place for a long time.
In order to see the big picture, let’s compare Texas to a highly unionized state like Michigan. In 1970 Michigan had 9 million residents; in 2010 there were 10 million. In 1970 Texas had 11 million residents; now there are 25 million. Let’s look at it another way. In the 1970’s, Michigan had 21 electoral votes, New York had 27, and Texas had 26. In 2012, Michigan has 16, New York has 20 and Texas has 38. See a trend here?
People, and businesses, are moving in herds from high tax, heavily-unionized states like Michigan to states like Texas that have low taxes and few job-killing regulations. Even though the left-wing media thinks that all Texans are gun-slinging Neanderthals, no one has put a gun to the heads of the people now calling Texas their home. That bears repeating: no one has forced them to relocate. They are moving to escape over-regulated, over-taxed, union-burdened states in order to be able to make their own choices about their lives.
Here are some facts that the left-wingers won’t tell you. 50% of the jobs created in the country in the past decade have been in Texas, including 40% of all new jobs since 2008. Sure, Texas has an 8.2% unemployment rate, but it’s because people keep coming. New York has an 8% unemployment rate, but it’s because people keep leaving.
The left’s problem with energy jobs in Texas is ironic, because they’re the ones preventing the creation of real energy jobs throughout the United States. North Dakota is booming because of energy jobs and Pennsylvania has added thousands of jobs extracting natural gas. Liberal New York State, on the other hand, sits on its hands restricting exploration because of imaginary fears related to fracking. In fact, we could have a job boom in the energy industry throughout the country if it weren’t for the policies of the Obama Administration and their environmental extremist cronies. Just think how that would affect our balance of payments.
But that’s not the whole story on Texas jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that Texas is also numero uno in new manufacturing jobs, new aerospace jobs, new professional and business service jobs, new finance jobs, and new construction jobs. Low-tax Austin is now a booming high-tech area that competes with high-tax Silicon Valley. Incidentally, the Bureau also stated that median hourly wages in Texas are now 93% of the national average, and increased at a 3.4% clip in 2010. So much for being a low-wage haven.
How much of this is due to Governor Perry is for you to judge, however it’s clear that he did not stand in the way of enterprising businesspeople and investors. The same cannot be said about President Obama. Almost every one of his economic policies has drained the private sector of financing and smothered their incentive to grow and create jobs.
Harold Meyerson made a clear statement of what is really at issue here. In his New York Times column, he wrote “Perry wants to unravel the national social contract.” What national social contract? That is what socialists aspire for all of us – a government, run by Ivy League elitists, that takes care of us from cradle to grave. But Americans – who clearly understand this scam – are packing up and moving to states like Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia to escape their grasp.
Doesn’t that say it all?
Focus Folks, Its Obama
By Bruce Bialosky
As the field of Republican Presidential candidates becomes clear, the media continues to incite controversy among them. This became obvious with the back and forth at the Iowa debate. For the most part, the candidates kept their focus throughout – the problem is Obama and come November 2012 he must be defeated.
A friend of mine who is a major talk-radio host ended his show recently saying that he would rather lose the election than elect a RINO. Stunned by what this normally highly rational person had stated, I pulled over and emailed the show’s producer asking if the host had lost his marbles. Maybe Ron Paul would not be a rational choice, but, just because you do not agree with all the policies of a particular candidate, that is not justification for giving Obama another four years to destroy our country. I might sympathize a little if Arnold Schwarzenegger (a real RINO) or Michael Bloomberg (who never really was a Republican) were running, but none of the candidates approach either of those gentlemen in political philosophy or temperament.
So let’s focus on why this fine fellow (Obama) needs to be retired:
Lawless Attitude: The opposition can cite examples where prior Presidents have attempted to pick and choose laws to follow, but Obama and his cronies have raised this to a new level:
1. Ignoring a judicial ruling regarding Gulf drilling because of his desire to eliminate carbon-based fuels in favor of his delusional plan for green energy.
2. Refusing to defend a law, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by Congress and signed by a prior President of his own party, because he thinks it’s unconstitutional. Maybe Obama, who supposedly taught Constitutional law, forgot that the third part of our government – the courts – determine whether a law is constitutional or not.
3. Card Check, the attempt by organized labor to circumvent union elections, was defeated. So Obama and his union cronies on the National Labor Relations Board decide to enact Card Check-like procedures to provide unions with unfair advantages in order to screw private businesses.
EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Obama has become the single most destructive force in the American economy. The destruction of farming in California to protect the delta smelt is one example among many.
For clarity, no one wants dirty air or water. But there is proportionality in everything, and Obama’s EPA is run by a team of far-left zealots. Under Lisa Jackson, a career environmental regulator, any sense of balance has been lost. Another four years of Obama could turn America into a prison under EPA control.
Foreign Policy: Being the President when Bin Laden was killed is not enough to overcome Obama’s totally inept foreign policy. His practice of slapping down our friends and kissing up to our enemies is without a doubt the worst foreign policy in my lifetime – except perhaps for Jimmy Carter. (Talk about low standards!)
Dodd-Frank: Without a new President and a Congress willing to defund and/or repeal this law, our credit markets will be significantly impaired in the name of “consumer protection.” Elizabeth Warren and her horde of “we know better” Harvard elites will “protect” people completely out of the credit markets, thereby eliminating any hope of moving up the economic ladder.
Warren and her gang never learned from the overreaction of Sarbanes-Oxley, which in the name of “protecting” us drove capital formation markets to foreign countries. Sarbox has destroyed thousands of jobs, so why should we allow another omnibus bill – that doesn’t even consider the damaging effect on our economy – to take full force and effect? Give Obama four more years and you will see how destructive this law becomes.
And the granddaddy of them all:
ObamaCare: Need I say more? Yes, I do. All the controls and panels and invasive elements of the law go into effect during Obama’s second term. Unless we overturn this monstrosity and replace it with reasonable laws to reform our medical system, God help us.
There are policy differences among the Republican candidates, and certainly every one of us may disagree with some policy aspect of each of the candidates. But the irrefutable fact is that any GOP candidate is more experienced, better prepared, and a far better choice for the next four years than the incumbent and his crew of Harvard elitists and Chicago political thugs. Candidates do not have to spend their time attacking each other to build themselves up. Rick Perry does not need to rip down Mr. Romney (nor anyone else) to promote his achievements. They need to focus on why you decided to run – to replace the incumbent who is leading America in the wrong direction at almost every turn. Focus folks, its Obama.
To read another article by Bruce Bialosky, click here.
Posted by Brett at 11:50 AM