Does Rick perry have a plan to fix the US economy?

[Evo]

With the rise in Texas unemployment, the rise in Texas high school dropouts, one of the highest levels of workers being paid minimum wage and below due to the lack of education in Texas, does Perry have a plan to prevent this from happening to the US if he was elected?

With a track record like that, you'd think he'd want to avoid drawing attention to it.

I can't see any of the official employment figures (U3) in states without booming economies like Texas improving much before 2012. There is still a large pool of discouraged workers (reflected in U4). With continued slow growth, the discouraged all have to slowly come back into the labor market meaning there is a large amount of labor slack to be picked up by the economy before any fast improvements can occur in the official unemployment rate.

Edit: If employment rates do figure large in the 2012 election and I expect they will, drops of a point or so from 9-8% won't satisfy with the Texas record on display.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3463566&postcount=19

Texas doesn't have state income tax, I know it hasn't since I was born there, and there is a *slush* fund paying companies to relocate to Texas, unless Perry has a way of creating a slush fund for the entire country, it's pretty meaningless.

When it comes to offering state incentives for business to relocate and add jobs, it truly has been bigger in Texas under Gov. Rick Perry.

The Texas Enterprise Fund, created in 2003 to provide money to attract companies to Texas or help them expand, "is the envy of governors around the nation," said Terry Clower, director of the University of North Texas' Center for Economic Development and Research in Denton.

As of June 30, the Enterprise Fund had committed nearly $440 million to about 100 corporations, according to the governor's office. A separate Emerging Technology Fund has awarded $370.5 million to new ventures and university research programs since its formation in 2005.

Perry is trumpeting Texas' unmatched success in creating jobs on the presidential campaign trail, and spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said Perry believes the two incentive funds are "a very important tool to maintaining Texas' competitive edge."

But the funds also have come under fire for falling short of delivering on promised job gains and creating an appearance of political favoritism by accepting campaign contributions from companies that received taxpayer funds. There are also complaints that Perry exercises too much control over the funds.

"The governor's office pretty much runs the program as a deal-closing fund," Clower said of the Enterprise Fund.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/29/2380867/texas-incentive-funds-touted-by.html#ixzz1WkGaa55m

And those *jobs*.

Texas, however, still faces many challenges on the jobs front. Many of the positions that have been created are on the lower end of the pay scale. Some 550,000 workers last year were paid at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25, more than double the number making those wages in 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That's 9.5% of Texas' hourly workforce, which gives it the highest percentage of minimum-wage hourly workers in the nation -- a dubious title it shares with Mississippi.

"We have created jobs, but they are not jobs with good wages and benefits," said F. Scott McCown, executive director, Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income residents.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/news/economy/perry_texas_jobs/

Also, Texas ranks 27th in unemployment, not exactly stellar.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

 

[mheslep]

Texas doesn't have state income tax, I know it hasn't since I was born there,

Same was true when I worked there for several years. But saying this means what? That you grant low taxes are important for job growth?

...and there is a *slush* fund paying companies to relocate to Texas, unless Perry has a way of creating a slush fund for the entire country, it's pretty meaningless...

I know many states provides cash or tax incentives for companies to remain or relocate to their state; I imagine all of them do. The basket case states are mostly paying business to stay versus come.

Over the past year, [Gov of Illinois who raised taxes 66% recently] Quinn has put together a rash of incentive packages to entice companies to stay in Illinois.

On Friday, Quinn put up more than $100 million in financial incentives to persuade smartphone company Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. to keep its corporate headquarters in Libertyville — the largest package he has offered a company to date.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...-incentives-enterprise-zones-state-income-tax

 

[Evo]

Same was true when I worked there for several years. But saying this means what? That you grant low taxes are important for job growth?
I know many states provides cash or tax incentives for companies remain or relocate to their state; I imagine all of them do. The basket case states are mostly paying business to stay versus come.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...-incentives-enterprise-zones-state-income-tax

So, this has what to do with Perry's claims? It is obvious that the growth in Texas has nothing to do with Perry, but to do with financial incentives. He can't do this on a national basis any more than anyone else can. He brings nothing to the table, IMO. "Oh look, I can pay employers to come to my state!"

Seriously, explain to me how creating a slush fund to pay companies to move from other states is something that can be done on an international basis? I haven't heard anything from him on how he would bring business back to the US. If you have that plan, please post it here because I'd love to see it.

 

[mheslep]

So, this has what to do with Perry's claims?

You are the only poster that has mentioned Perry in this thread.

It is obvious that the growth in Texas has nothing to do with Perry, but to do with financial incentives.

Yes that is your assertion.

 

[Evo]

You are the only poster that has mentioned Perry in this thread.

You brought up Texas.

Yes that is your assertion.

Yes, do you have anything to show it's wrong?

 

[mheslep]

Regarding wages in Texas, many of the earners http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2011/fs110817.cfm"

Texas has a younger workforce than the nation, further boosting the share of minimum wage earners in the state.

Indeed, Texas ranks highest the country for population of 18 year olds last I looked.

Also, Texas has a much lower cost of living than much of the country. A $150K home in Austin's 'Silicon Hills' would probably go for $750K in California's Silicon Valley.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I can't see any of the official employment figures (U3) in states without booming economies like Texas improving much before 2012

Define booming? Texas is in the lower half of states ranked by unemployment. Texas is creating jobs, but only enough to keep up with their population growth.

 

[Evo]

Indeed, Texas ranks highest the country for population of 18 year olds last I looked.

Where are you finding this? Also, the minimum wage workers information is a percent of the workforce, so we need to know what percent of the workforce would be in the 18 year old age range in order to compare apples to apples.

I would tend to think that the high number of minimum wage earners would correlate to the high number of uneducated workers in Texas.

 

[mheslep]

You brought up Texas.

Yes, do you have anything to show it's wrong?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...incentives-enterprise-zones-state-income-tax" than it might otherwise be.

By contrast http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST48000003" Texas and Illinois thus have very dissimilar job creation records, with roughly similar policies of business locating payments. To then dismiss all those Texas jobs as created by a "slush" fund doesn't make any sense.

Texas has made substantial improvements to tort law under Perry, which I suggest is a likely job creator, and especially likely to explain the recent inflow of doctors to Texas. Then, as you first mentioned as an explanation, there's no state income tax. Texas (and Perry) left that alone, while his peer in Illinois raised taxes sharply.

 

[mheslep]

Where are you finding this? Also, the minimum wage workers information is a percent of the workforce, so we need to know what percent of the workforce would be in the 18 year old age range in order to compare apples to apples.
...

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0016.xls
Texas % of population under 18 is 28% in 2009, second only to Utah. Workforce by age is around somewhere too in the BLS, misplacing it for the moment.

 

[mheslep]

Define booming? Texas is in the lower half of states ranked by unemployment. Texas is creating jobs, but only enough to keep up with their population growth.

Along with TX jobs, the http://i56.tinypic.com/34fk4zn.gif" which keeps their unemployment rates from looking even worse (Employment rate = employment / labor force).

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST48000003

 

[edward]

Location gives Texas an advantage that other states do not have. The Texas Mexico Automotive Super Cluster is one of the things they came up with and now are doing the same thing with other industries including silicon.

Toyota has a big presence in Texas with the Tundra and now their Tacoma trucks. Many vehicles must contain a certain percentage of American parts. (Even if they are assembled in the USA)

There is a tariff on trucks that don't meet this percentage. The Truck and Auto manufacturers get around the made in USA part requirement by buying from or owning factories in Mexico. Under NAFTA rules any part made in Canada or Mexico is considered to be made in the USA.

That is where the Cluster idea came in. The concept started in one county and then grew.

http://www.bexar.org/ED/Automotive.html

Yet still there had to be someone with the influence to get companies to relocate in Texas. Apparently there were.

 

[Evo]

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0016.xls
Texas % of population under 18 is 28% in 2009, second only to Utah. Workforce by age is around somewhere too in the BLS, misplacing it for the moment.

That doesn't work. Where are the figures for 18 year olds that you claimed to have?

 

[edward]

Not everyone in Texas is thriving. The Child poverty rate is %25.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/04/173771/perry-children/

 

[Evo]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...incentives-enterprise-zones-state-income-tax" than it might otherwise be.

By contrast http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST48000003" Texas and Illinois thus have very dissimilar job creation records, with roughly similar policies of business locating payments. To then dismiss all those Texas jobs as created by a "slush" fund doesn't make any sense.

Texas has made substantial improvements to tort law under Perry, which I suggest is a likely job creator, and especially likely to explain the recent inflow of doctors to Texas. Then, as you first mentioned as an explanation, there's no state income tax. Texas (and Perry) left that alone, while his peer in Illinois raised taxes sharply.

So you agree, any state can buy business depending on how much money they have. Goes back to what I already said, they're just giving financial incentives to companies to move from other states. How is that going to do any good for the country?

Answer - it won't. It's meaningless smoke and mirrors meant to intentionally mislead those that don't know any better.

Texas is actually failing in the job market. Hate to call the guy a liar, since being a politician it's expected to some extent, but there it is.

But that doesn't mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits. Also, steep budget cuts are expected to result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs.

Perhaps most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average.

Factoring in that population growth means Texas would need to create another 629,000 jobs, or 5.6% more positions, just to reach its pre-recession employment level, according to the Economic Policy Institute.

"They have a long way to go before they get back to a positive place," said Doug Hall, director of the Economic Analysis and Research Network, an institute project.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/12/news/economy/perry_texas_jobs/

 

[mheslep]

That doesn't work. Where are the figures for 18 year olds that you claimed to have?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said:

Texas ranks highest the country for population of 18 year olds last I looked.

You have data supporting that (#2). In addition I posted the Dallas Fed Chairman's comments:

Texas has a younger workforce than the nation, further boosting the share of minimum wage earners in the state

http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2011/fs110817.cfm

 

[Evo]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said:

You have data supporting that (#2). In addition I posted the Dallas Fed Chairman's comments:

http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2011/fs110817.cfm

You said

Indeed, Texas ranks highest the country for population of 18 year olds last I looked.

and I'm still waiting to see that data. Do you actually have that data or not? It's not a trick question, I want to see the data. If you don't have it just say so.

 

[mheslep]

You said

and I'm still waiting to see that data. Do you actually have that data or not? It's not a trick question, I want to see the data. If you don't have it just say so.

From post 27:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0016.xls
Row 51, column AC

Ok?

 

[Evo]

From post 27:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0016.xls
Row 51, column AC

Ok?

State resident population age 15 to 19? No, but I'll agree they are more weighted toward a younger population, but I'm still wondering what that has to do with minimum wage earners, since that is what we were discussing. Do you have some statistics showing that age and not lack of education is the reason for the huge number of people working at or below minimum wage in Texas? Texas has, IIRC, one of the worst records for uneducated people. I asked that question previously.

 

[Evo]

More unemployment information for Texas.

Texas unemployment at highest level since 1987

The unemployment rate in Texas has jumped to 8.4 percent in July, the highest level since the state was reeling from an energy, real estate and banking crisis 24 years ago.

The Texas Workforce Commission said Friday the jobless rate was up from 8.2 percent in June. The increase came despite a 10th consecutive month of job growth. The agency says the state added 29,300 jobs in July.

The unemployment rate matched the figure from July 1987.

Commission Chairman Tom Pauken says the state "continues to feel the effects of a stagnant national economy." The U.S. jobless rate is 9.1 percent.

The trade, transportation and utility sector added 15,300 jobs last month, but that was offset by a combined loss of 15,400 jobs in the government and construction sectors.

 

[Evo]

Ah, here we go, lack of education cited as a major problem in Texas.

The jobs created also match the workforce, says Lavine, and he's concerned that the state needs to do a better job of educating and training its labor force. "Yes, it's better to have a job than not have a job, but as we move into the 21st century," he says, "it would be much better to have a highly skilled workforce that was able to compete in a service economy." He cites a study by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, which estimated that in 2018, Texas would rank first among the states in the proportion of jobs for high-school dropouts. The state would rank 31st, according to the study, in the proportion of jobs requiring a bachelor's degree.

Weinstein, too, says that Texas has a growing segment of the population that isn't prepared for high-wage work. "One of the big things facing Texas and a lot of other states," he says, is that "we have a rapidly growing population of under-educated workers."

http://factcheck.org/2011/08/texas-size-recovery/

Oh dear, Texas is projected to be #1 in jobs for high school dropouts by 2018. Rick, you actually have something to brag about!

Texas ranks 31st in terms of the proportion of its 2018 jobs that will require a Bachelor’s degree, and is 1st in jobs for high school dropouts.

These stats really don't look good for Texas, and this doesn't even take into consideration the new education cuts Perry just made.

Page 97 of the report, you have to scroll way, way down to find Texas.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/State-LevelAnalysis-web.pdf

Actually, I'm hijacking the thread. I will split these off, sorry.

 

[mheslep]

So you agree, any state can buy business depending on how much money they have.

That is not what I said, which was states give incentives across the board to business, but none the less the data show (which I provided) it does not create net jobs for most of them.

 

[Evo]

That is not what I said, which was states give incentives across the board to business, but none the less the data show (which I provided) it does not create net jobs for most of them.

My apologies then. Doesn't seem to helping Texas either when you take everything into consideration and look at the whole picture, their unemployment is going up, not down.

 

[daveb]

A few tidbits from http://factcheck.org/2011/08/texas-size-recovery/"

Perry's record is part of a long-term trend. Texas has done well in the jobs department for decades. "This point goes neglected," says Bernard L. Weinstein, professor of business economics in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "Yes, Texas has created more jobs than any other state" in the last two years. "But that’s been true since 1970. For the last 41 years Texas has added more jobs than any other state, and in most years, has led the nation in job creation," Weinstein told us. "So Gov. Perry can claim that these jobs were created on his watch, but they were created on everybody else’s watch too."

So Perry isn't telling a fib - he's also not explaining the whole story.

Perry's supporters will say that people from other states have moved to Texas because of job opportunities. And that's true for some. But a little more than half of the state's population growth, 54 percent, was natural — births and deaths — from 2000 to 2009. The rest was split between domestic and international immigration, with 21.6 percent of the growth coming from people moving from other states and 23.7 percent coming from international migrants. That's according to the Census Bureau and the Texas State Data Center.

So a maximum of 21.6% is people moving to Texas for jobs.

When one of your state's major industries is oil and gas, this is a no-brainer. "When the price of oil goes up, the Texas economy, which is a major oil producer, booms," Wial says. Or at least, it would not be as depressed as it was before. That, combined with new technology to extract natural gas from shale, has led to job growth.

Can Perry claim credit for a matter of geography?

Indeed, jobs in the mining and logging sector, which includes energy, have gone up by 25 percent since June 2009 in the state, an increase of 50,300 jobs. And the impact extends to other industries. "The energy sector has very strong linkages" to other parts of the economy, says Weinstein, and accounts for a healthy portion of tax revenue. "So it’s been a significant factor in helping the state."

Texas was largely spared from the major spike in housing prices that occurred in other states, followed by the bust that sent homeowners into foreclosure and left others owing more than their homes were worth. Weinstein says a housing bust in the 1980s left a sobering effect on developers. "This time we didn’t overbuild," he says. Plus, the state has tighter restrictions than other states on home equity loans and refinancing — homeowners can only borrow on 80 percent of the home's value. Elsewhere, subprime lenders were offering loans of up to 125 percent of home value. "Your home couldn't be a piggy bank" in Texas the way it could in other states, Weinstein says.

In the case of mortgages, Texas had stricter regulation than the nation as a whole. But the state also has fewer regulations compared with other states on construction. That also helped avoid a housing boom and bust.

This seems to support the idea that tighter regulation would have avoided the housing debacle.

Government was the largest industry in the state in 2010, as measured by a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It beat out mining, which was the state's second largest industry.

And Perry is for small government?

Perry also has used state money to encourage job growth outside government, giving grants to businesses to create jobs as part of the Texas Enterprise Fund. It's unclear exactly how many jobs have been created by the program. A Texas watchdog group, Texans for Public Justice, published a report in September 2010, saying that businesses had created 22,544 jobs — with evidence of another 8,147 indirect jobs — since 2003 under the program, while the Perry administration had claimed about 54,000 new jobs.

Isn't this what Obama (theoretically) will want to do in his speech next week? Wasn't that the purpose of the stimulus?

Texas has the highest percentage of residents lacking health insurance — 26 percent — among U.S. states.

So, all in all, Perry doesn't seem to be the anti-big government conservative he claims to be. Then again, with the exception of Ron Paul, I'm not sure any of the current crop of candidates can claim that either.

 

[mheslep]

At the moment, I'm only interested in the jobs portion of this story:

A few tidbits from http://factcheck.org/2011/08/texas-size-recovery/"

When one of your state's major industries is oil and gas, this is a no-brainer. "When the price of oil goes up, the Texas economy, which is a major oil producer, booms," Wial says. Or at least, it would not be as depressed as it was before. That, combined with new technology to extract natural gas from shale, has led to job growth.

Can Perry claim credit for a matter of geography?

I don't know about Perry per se, but TX government can claim credit for refraining from doing whatever might depress the industry, a task that seems beyond the ability of many of its peers. We can measure TX fairly, I think, by comparing it to other large oil and gas producers. http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_pet_pro-energy-oil-production", and about 14% of new jobs.

 

[mheslep]

Government was the largest industry in the state in 2010, as measured by a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. It beat out mining, which was the state's second largest industry.

And Perry is for small government?
...

Compared to who?
State spending as percent of GDP, 2009:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...ack=1&size=m&title=&state=TX&color=c&local=s"
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...ack=1&size=m&title=&state=MA&color=c&local=s"
IL: 8%
CA: 10%
NY: 10.5%
AZ: 8%
CT: 9%
ND: 10%

 

[mheslep]

Perry also has used state money to encourage job growth outside government, giving grants to businesses to create jobs as part of the Texas Enterprise Fund. It's unclear exactly how many jobs have been created by the program. A Texas watchdog group, Texans for Public Justice, published a report in September 2010, saying that businesses had created 22,544 jobs — with evidence of another 8,147 indirect jobs — since 2003 under the program, while the Perry administration had claimed about 54,000 new jobs.

Isn't this what Obama (theoretically) will want to do in his speech next week? Wasn't that the purpose of the stimulus?

Look at the scale. TX has created some one million jobs since 2001 and the the watchdob group credits 9K jobs since 2003. That's shuffling deck chairs, i.e. in the noise. At the national level things are different of course, as the proposed federal stimulus (and I don't know that the Tx incentives are the same thing) has been orders of magnitude larger, significantly impacting the debt load.

 

[Evo]

In Texas, government employees account for 1/6th of the workforce.

Perry’s Texas Jobs Boom: The Result of Big Government

Governor’s positive employment numbers largely due to growth in government and federal stimulus.

The disparity has grown sharper since the national recession hit. Between December 2007 and last June, private sector employment in Texas declined by 0.6 percent while public-sector jobs increased by 6.4 percent, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overall, government employees account for about one-sixth of the workforce in Texas. “

Thus far, some $25 billion in federal stimulus has been paid out to Texas—a number trumped only by funds given to California and New York.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/08/21/rick_perry_s_texas_jobs_boom_comes_from_big_government.html

 

[Evo]

Email purges, withheld documents shroud Governor’s Office from scrutiny

I don't even know where to start on this one.

Over the past decade, the Perry administration has withheld information in response to some 100 open-records requests, instead seeking review by the Texas Attorney General’s Office. In two cases in the past year, Perry’s office acknowledged it failed to meet legal deadlines for responding to the requests, or otherwise delayed in violation of well-established procedures outlined in the Texas Public Information Act.

Most of the withheld documents involved contracts, bidding and oversight of programs in which state money flows to entrepreneurs, privately held companies and universities from Perry’s two economic development funds, the Emerging Technology Fund and the Texas Enterprise Fund. In some cases, the requests involve entities headed by Perry campaign donors and political appointees.

Automated email purges

Previous Texas governors released their reviews of execution cases. Perry’s office has maintained that any documents showing his views or staff discussion are not public record. He has presided over more than 200 executions as governor

Public access blocked

Most of Perry’s travel is paid by campaign funds and detailed reports are not required to be disclosed. After the Bahamas trip, newspapers requested and got copies of the expenses paid for Perry’s Department of Public Safety security detail – and noted that the state picked up the tab for scuba equipment to accompany the governor. Since then, Perry has blocked public viewing of his security detail’s travel expense reports.

There is so much, you really need to read the entire article.

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/201...shroud-governors-office-from-public-scrutiny/

 

[CAC1001]

So, this has what to do with Perry's claims? It is obvious that the growth in Texas has nothing to do with Perry, but to do with financial incentives. He can't do this on a national basis any more than anyone else can. He brings nothing to the table, IMO. "Oh look, I can pay employers to come to my state!"

I'd say the growth in Texas has a lot to do with Perry considering he's been its governor for eleven years now. Texas has been developing into a first-rate economy as opposed to a southern backwater as it had been for many years. Of course the governor doesn't "create" the growth himself, the economy does that, but the question is, why is Texas so attractive a prospect for businesses? Businesses do not migrate to Texas because of any slush-fund, they migrate there because the state has a much more friendly business, regulatory, and tax climate than many other states. The state also has been smart with its finances. The critics are trying to point out about the state running a budget deficit now, they ignore that the state was running a surplus up until a few years ago, it's deficit began due to the recession occurring. It is normal to run a deficit during a recession, it's running them during prosperous times that is a problem (in fact, a government should run a deficit during a recession if the tax revenues decline to that point, it should not reduce its spending; where a government needs to reduce its spending is when the deficit is a structural problem, like what we have on the national level).

In his time as governor, Perry has not significantly increased regulations, taxes, spending, or any such things that would drive businesses away or out of the state.

Seriously, explain to me how creating a slush fund to pay companies to move from other states is something that can be done on an international basis? I haven't heard anything from him on how he would bring business back to the US. If you have that plan, please post it here because I'd love to see it.

Me too, but I would imagine a good bit of it would be to dismantle and/or redo parts of the regulatory burden the Obama administration has placed on the economy via the EPA, financial regulations, and Obamacare. In addition, lowering the corporate tax rate while closing loopholes. Also, work up a plan for managing the debt.

 

[CAC1001]

This seems to support the idea that tighter regulation would have avoided the housing debacle.

Not really though, because it wasn't so much a lack of regulations on home loans that led to reckless loan-giving, it was perverted incentives that did so, along with some regulations requiring banks to make a certain number of loans to low-income people. If there were no regulations whatsoever on banks and home loans, no bank in their right mind would have given loans to people who could likely not pay them back, unless they could sell the loans to some other entity (which is part of what happened).

 

[mege]

In Texas, government employees account for 1/6th of the workforce.



http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/08/21/rick_perry_s_texas_jobs_boom_comes_from_big_government.html

That's a bit misleading - there's no qualification that the entire 1/6th of the Texas work force are state workers (which I think you're trying to imply given the discussion about government size). That's all levels of government. And being that the bulk of those are likely federal workers, then why isn't there an employement rebound in other states because of the Federal government bloat that's happening? That type of reasoning should wash out when compared to other states.

http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-oct08-govt-employees.pdf - a survey done by the state of California a few years ago lists state employees per 10,000. The national average for non-education state workers is 143 and Texas has 122. Definately not big government when compared to other states.

Also, on a different note - I think the argument that 'Gov Perry hasn't done anything to change his economy' is generally a good thing. He had the power and knew when to ride out success. He didn't come into a crisis and start blasting his ideology all over the place like are many of the indictments. I think his plan for the economy is to allow it mostly to heal naturally. He'd reduce the regulations and not dangle QE-eleventybillion in front of everyone creating a sense of uncertainty. Will he be the President to magically clean the sewers, roads and crumbling infrastructure? Na (neither will the current President), but I believe that his fairly predictable mindset will go a long way in easing the fears of many in the economy.

I think the important thing to do is look at this relativistically: ask all of these same questions about President Obama's few years in office. After all, that is really what this election will be about. And if you claim that Governor Perry just inherited his situation from former-Gov. Bush... you're partially absolving President Bush of wrongdoing (he's had success in the past) in the current crisis which further places the onus on President Obama to actually present policies (or lack of) for recovery. Campaign speeches and class-war rhetoric don't fix the economy, I think we've learned that already.

 

[Evo]

I'd say the growth in Texas has a lot to do with Perry considering he's been its governor for eleven years now.

I guess you missed this.

Perry's record is part of a long-term trend. Texas has done well in the jobs department for decades. "This point goes neglected," says Bernard L. Weinstein, professor of business economics in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "Yes, Texas has created more jobs than any other state" in the last two years. "But that’s been true since 1970. For the last 41 years Texas has added more jobs than any other state, and in most years, has led the nation in job creation," Weinstein told us. "So Gov. Perry can claim that these jobs were created on his watch, but they were created on everybody else’s watch too."

Perry didn't sink Texas, but hasn't improved it either, Texas actually did better under Bush.

The San Antonio-Express News recently pointed out that past Texas governors have done well in terms of job creation, too. The state did even better when George W. Bush was governor; jobs went up 20.3 percent, though Bush's 1995-2000 term also came during prosperous times. "A lot of what we’re doing is growing like we always grew," Dick Lavine, senior fiscal analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, a think tank that advocates for low- and moderate-income families, told us, referring to both jobs and the state's burgeoning population. "It’s a longer-term trend in Texas that’s just continuing."

http://factcheck.org/2011/08/texas-size-recovery/

 

[WhoWee]

Perry didn't sink Texas, but hasn't improved it either, Texas actually did better under Bush.

Some might attribute that to Ross Perot and Clinton (NAFTA)?

 

[CAC1001]

I guess you missed this.

Not at all. That's part of my point. A lot of times, a politician will make the argument: "We are one of the strongest economies, therefore there is no reason why we cannot enact (insert various regulatory, tax, and spending proposals that said politician has in mind)." The long-term effect of doing that, oftentimes, is to begin sinking the state or country economically, this is what happened to California. So far, Texas has remained smart enough to not start doing this (although they probably will given enough time).