Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 3, 2009

DOUTHAT, TEXAS, AND CALIFORNIA.... The New York Times' Ross Douthat devotes his latest column to arguing that there are key differences to governing in "blue" states and "red" states, and President Obama is "pushing a blue-state agenda during a recession that's exposed some of the blue-state model's weaknesses, and some of the red-state model's strengths."

Consider Texas and California. In the Bush years, liberal polemicists turned the president's home state -- pious, lightly regulated, stingy with public services and mad for sprawl -- into a symbol of everything that was barbaric about Republican America. Meanwhile, California, always liberalism's favorite laboratory, was passing global-warming legislation, pouring billions into stem-cell research, and seemed to be negotiating its way toward universal health care.

But flash forward to the current recession, and suddenly Texas looks like a model citizen. The Lone Star kept growing well after the country had dipped into recession. Its unemployment rate and foreclosure rate are both well below the national average. It's one of only six states that didn't run budget deficits in 2009.

Meanwhile, California, long a paradise for regulators and public-sector unions, has become a fiscal disaster area.

Let's peel back the layers a bit. We're in the midst of a major debate over health care policy, and Texas is anything but a "model citizen." It is easily the worst state in the nation for the uninsured, and stands to benefit greatly from the White House's "blue-state agenda." For that matter, its poverty rate is second only to Mississippi nationwide. If Texas is a "model citizen" for taxes and fiscal balance, it's also a disaster for those families who are struggling with less.

California is generally a reliable "blue" state, at least electorally, but to characterize it as "liberalism's favorite laboratory" strikes me as more than a little disingenuous. A variety of factors led to the state's condition as a "fiscal disaster area," but near the top of the list are the measures, pushed by the right and approved by voters, that severely restricted California's ability to raise more revenue.

Douthat added that blue-state governance has a "tendency toward political corruption," as if ideology contributed to the Blagojevich fiasco or the recent scandal in New Jersey. Are we to believe, then, that the series of breathtaking corruption scandals involving Republican officials throughout the Bush years are necessarily evidence of flaws in red-state governance?

Douthat concludes that Obama will have more success if the economy "start[s] performing more like Texas." Here's hoping the president ignores the suggestion.

Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Another problem with characterizing Texas as a typical red state is the strong like between its economy and the price of oil.

Posted by: Nate Levin on August 3, 2009 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

it's not like he's thinking: he's just moving labels around on a map. not worth grappling with.

Posted by: Travis on August 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Texas is doing well because it has mostly escaped the housing crash (so far). It escaped the housing crash for two reasons.

1) Texas didn't allow second mortgages or home equity lines of credit until 10-12 years ago, so it hadn't developed a culture of using houses as ATMS.

2) Geography - Texas has so much flat, usable land that it is very hard to push property prices up. If prices get to high, another field gets turned into a subdivision.

The lack of second mortgages would be considered a pro-regulation, anti-capitalist measure, so it goes against Douthat's thesis. Geography can't be helped.

Douthat just doesn't think before he writes, does he.

Posted by: Kineslaw on August 3, 2009 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

As a Native Californian - I Can Specially State that most of our problems started NOT under a Democratic Governor, but under the Very Republican Ronald Reagan and the Starve the Government, Don't Tax Us Republicans.
The Golden Years were the 60s under Democrats and Governor Pat Brown. When Schools from K-12 to University were Excellent, the roads well paved, and Government did what it was supposed to. Yep, the great fall started with our Next Governor Ronald Reagan. Really, we watched it crumble under his cruel hand.
Glad to see such Excellent Reporting by the Right Wing once again.

Posted by: Lisa Harrigan on August 3, 2009 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

The supermajority thing in CA is its stake through the heart, I think.

Kinda like 60 votes in the Senate ...

Posted by: zhak on August 3, 2009 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

It's obvious that he came up with his theory, and then cherry picked the data.

I love how he says things like "Rudy Giuliani, who has experience with blue-state crises, is pondering a run for the statehouse in New York."

Rudy Giuliani also did more than ponder a run for the White House. What does that have to do with anything?

I can't believe this guy gets paid to write this swill.

Posted by: DR on August 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Douthat grew up in Connecticut, went to Harvard, and has since lived in D.C. and Maryland. Like Brooks, Kristol, Tierney, and Safire -- all of the Times's recent rightwing voices -- he's never gone near a red state, and one suspects he never will. Next time the Gray Lady goes shopping for a "conservative" columnist, it should hire a true redneck who can really represent the GOP rank and file -- or would that somehow give the game away?

Posted by: penalcolony on August 3, 2009 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Your "rebuttals" are pretty weak Benen. Texas is doing well economically, but it sucks to be poor there! Well maybe the two are related? That is, if you don't soak your productive taxpayers for welfare payments to the poor and immigrants, maybe the the state will perform better economically? And California is not a liberal policy-oriented state?? Are you joking? If they'd only taxed more, they'd be just fine? If you are not the biggest hack on the internet, you're high in the running.

Posted by: Brad on August 3, 2009 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

If you are not the biggest hack on the internet, you're high in the running.

This is your charm offensive, I take it?

Posted by: Julia Grey on August 3, 2009 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Wait, Douthat has taken what was an insipid column in The Economist a few weeks ago, and made it even dumber? That's dim, anecdotal, unoriginal thinking.

Posted by: Scott on August 3, 2009 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

This is the worst column Douthat has produced so far, I think. Take this:

suddenly Texas looks like a model citizen.

So how might other states become model citizens? (That's the point of identifying model citizens--as exemplars.) Why, all they need to do is become the second biggest state in the union and base their economy on petroleum, for insulation against a housing downturn. That's not so hard, is it?

Posted by: RSA on August 3, 2009 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Between the Douthat and Goldberg colossi itz ehmazin' the restraint they employ , keeping us away from the Ayn Randian utopia they were aiming at .
In LA you know where its at
Trust fund babies are becoming a reality

Posted by: FRP on August 3, 2009 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

i was going to say that douthat is getting dumber, but i'm not sure it's possible.

sorta like brad there at 1:07.

Posted by: howard on August 3, 2009 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

It's insane to talk about Texas not running deficits. Close observers will note that Rick Perry first elected to decline millions of stimulus dollars then reversed himself in order to balance the budget. This constant blue state/red state devide that the media preaches is one of the worst myths out there. On top of that, few states can rival Texas for sheer injustice. Check texasobserver.org for more information.

Posted by: Tobias on August 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Texas is doing well economically, but it sucks to be poor there!

It sucks to be poor anywhere, genius. The point is that Texas has the second highest poverty rate in the nation and the highest amount of uninsured. If that's your idea of a healthy economy or society, well, you probably think that trickle down economics works and that the Bush years were a success. Unfortunately, the facts tell a completely different story--but when have facts ever gotten in your way?
I would say we need smarter wingnuts here, but there's no such thing.

Oh, and Douthat sounds like he comes from the same economic school as that idiot Megan McCardle--don't they both work for the Atlantic? It's becoming a real enclave of idiocy there.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on August 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Texas is below the national average in per capita gross state product - and well below California, Massachusetts and other blue states. That's even factoring in Texas' advantage in natural resources which is presumably reflected here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita_(nominal)

Posted by: Rob on August 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Brad gets my plexiglass window award this week.(needed in his stomach to see where he's going with his head so far up his ass).
Trying to compare state economies based on liberal or conservative politics takes ignorance and stupidity to new levels.
Massachusetts is one odf the highest ranked states ,economy wise. It's also easily the most liberal state politically in the country. Whats the connection. Nothing asswipe. The Cal situation is a direct result of incredibly shortsighted conservative ideas. Such as the supermajority in Cal govt to enact fiscally resposible revenue polcies.

Posted by: Gangalf on August 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Right, Brad. That red state model, including Texas, has just been so successful. That's why red states like Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi lead the nation in every negative category you can think of from education, health, infant mortality, pollution, crime and divorce.

Texas is invulnerable to economic turmoil because of its staunch conservative values, right? Well, unless you lived there in the mid-80's when it crashed worse than anything that has happened in California. The saying in Texas back then was: "Thank heaven for Chapter 11".

Posted by: Pug on August 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

When I read Douthat this morning at breakfast it was one of those jaw-dropping moments where you aren't certain whether you've dropped down the rabbit hole or gone through the looking glass. My immediate reaction was that somehow Kristol was let back to ghost write a column. Not the style so much as the content, which was early-American irrational.

California's problems are very complex and trying to lay the blame for their problems on the liberal policies of the past is to totally ignore Proposition 13 and the legacy of the Reagan era. In Texas' case, there is an equal amount of complexity, but their fiscal rectitude has little to do with their relative comfort. The extent to which the energy sector still dominates the Texas economy (it is still the 600 pound gorilla in the room, even though slimmed down from the half ton gorilla of yesteryear), has a lot to do with their relative stability. If the price of oil drops below $50/barrel, watch Texas fall apart. Same goes for Alaska. Anyone who thinks that you can assign credit for success or failure in the states based on a R&B ideological view of the world is really seeing things in B&W.

Posted by: majun on August 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

i live in florida, by most measures a red state (legislature solidly republican, governor's office held by republicans for three terms). our economy sucks.

"That is, if you don't soak your productive taxpayers for welfare payments to the poor and immigrants, maybe the the state will perform better economically?" posted by brad.

Brad, texas does soak their taxpayers for welfare payments. it's just that the welfare recipients are named jerry jones and george w. bush et al.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on August 3, 2009 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Texas Monthly had their perspective on this very subject in June 2009. I'd have to look the article over again but I think they didn't have to cut much because they never provided it anyway and the stimulus was coming online.

Off topic but there is an article by Paul Burka on Rick Perry and Secession as well.

Posted by: Kevin on August 3, 2009 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

If Texas is a "model citizen" for taxes and fiscal balance

It's not even that. Perry's got a long list of instances of begging the feds for handouts, most recently after he turned down the stimulus. Texas fails on all fronts.

Douthat writes like someone who's read every third word of a few news stories and decided he's got enough to go on.

Posted by: shortstop on August 3, 2009 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

In the spirit of the MSM's stated desire to "present both sides of an issue" and not judge them on their merits (much less simply point out deliberate, obvious falsehoods), wouldn't it be grand if every editorialist had a counterpoint, written by someone from the 'other side' of an issue?

Certainly USA Today and others sometimes do this, but not for every editorial, only some of them.

Imagine for every article Douthat or Will pens, an identified movement progressive would be allowed to respond to it and both are printed? Say, for every warmongering article Kristol writes, there's a Glenn Greenwald counterpoint. For every 'look at the shiny object over here' article that Douthat pens, there's a Steve Benen counterpoint?

That'd be grand. And it meets the stated goal of the Village elders. But, alas, we must deal with carefully 'chosen' public comments, which rarely if ever eviscerate the issue or the writer.

Posted by: terraformer on August 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

Living in California, I'd say it's pretty obvious that our problems are a result of conservative policies, not liberal ones.

Posted by: BJ on August 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

I was living (although, fortunately, as a renter rather than a homeowner) in Texas from the middle to the late 1980's. Entire developments in the Houston area turned into vandalized, coyote-riddled ghost towns. Houses in San Antonio, which never had the huge runup in home prices that Dallas and Houston saw, were selling in 1989 for an average of $20K under their original purchase price. One of my co-workers and her husband moved to Atlanta because of a job transfer. It took them seven years to unload their house in San Antonio and they still took a financial beating.

Since then, I've heard a lot of palaver about the Texas economy's diversification. I suppose time will tell if Cowboy Capitalism can create a sustainable 21st century prosperity in a poorly educated and poverty ridden state.

Posted by: Mandy Cat on August 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, let's not forget that Texas is about to go belly-up bigger than California has. Perry had to go ask for every penny of the stimulus package he sooo wanted to say "no" too, or Texas would be in an even-bigger mess than it is.

But Ross Douthat, like every other right wing moron, lives in Wingnut World, where facts are whatever he wants to say they are.

Posted by: TCinLA on August 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

California, always liberalism's favorite laboratory

[sarcasm]Yeah, Prop 13 was a classic example of wild-eyed liberal social engineering[/sarcasm]

Posted by: Chris L on August 3, 2009 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

It's amazing how Douthat is such an amazing economic mind that he can reduce extremely complex economic comparisons down to which president a state voted for. Were he a greedy man, I'm sure any Wall Street investment firm would gladly pay a king's ransom to have have him perform his god-like financial calculations on the markets, as he EASILY bests a schlub like Warren Buffet when it comes to seeing the true worth of any economic decision. Fortunately for us, Douthat has decided to share his awesome skillz with us, rather than cashing in on Wall Street.

Posted by: Doctor Biobrain on August 3, 2009 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Close observers will note that Rick Perry first elected to decline millions of stimulus dollars then reversed himself in order to balance the budget.

It's even worse that that -- Perry turned down the stimulus money which was a grant (i.e. it wouldn't have to be paid that) and then a few months later had to go begging hat in hand to the Feds for a loan (which would have to be paid back -- with interest). Here's how it went:

Obama: Here, take $100 free. It's a gift. You never have to pay it back.
Perry: No way! I refuse -- on principle!

A few months go by.

Perry: Hey, uh, that $100 -- can I have it now? Things are kind of tight.
Obama: Sure. If you pay it back with interest.
Perry: Um, uh, OK.

Posted by: Stefan on August 3, 2009 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry folks, but California's problems were caused by a Democrat not a Republican. When Sainted Ronnie was governor he actually raised taxes to deal with problems. He grumbled, but he did it.

Nope, the guy who gets the prize for allowing California to go down the tubes when he could have saved it with only the slightest effort goes to the son of California's greatest governor, none other than Little Jerry Brown.

In 1975-76, when Jerry had a Democratic majority in both Senate and Assembly (the result of the "Watergate election" of 1974 that flushed the Republicans), it was obvious to everyone in the statehouse (other than Jerry, who was busy traveling to Africa with rock star girlfriends and Ommming in the gubernatorial apartment with the Marin County Mafia) that the statewide system of property taxation needed some fixing. the obvious fix was to cap the tax on residential property, while maintaining the market rate on commercial property. Willie Brown even had the legislation all drawn up. All he needed from Little Jerry was for him to voice support for the legislation to carry along the conservative Dems for the necessary 2/3 vote. It didn't happen because Little Jerry's 10-second attention span didn't cover minor things like when he was busy having Big Thoughts.

The result was Proposition 13, and the final result of that is that the only property still being taxed at those nice low 1978 rates is the commercial property owned by the corporations. Homeowners are still paying high taxes due to the various real estate booms over that period, none of which has ever been enough tyo straighten out the problem.

And now this fool, this idiot who sank the state with his incompetence, wants to come back and finish the job of wrecking California.

I know all this because I worked with the people who drew up the legislation that would have fixed the problem - had Jerry been willing to listen.

Posted by: TCinLA on August 3, 2009 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Nope, the guy who gets the prize for allowing California to go down the tubes when he could have saved it with only the slightest effort goes to the son of California's greatest governor, none other than Little Jerry Brown.

It's definitely Jerry's fault that the legislation passed, but it didn't come from a Democratic policy. I think that's more the point. Prop 13 was definitely a conservative/libertarian idiocy from its birth. ("Hey, let's immunize corporations from property tax increases!" "Great idea!")

But, yes, every Californian should be allowed to line up and kick Jerry Brown in the balls before his name goes on any statewide ballot ever again.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on August 3, 2009 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

TCinLA is such a goddam nimrod...


2 words for him and the idiot NY Times asshat: howard jarvis.

Posted by: neill on August 3, 2009 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Dougthat is peter stroking in print. Had he been a more intelligent professional individual rather than a sloppy do a half-assed job kind of man, he would have done an actual comparison of CA and TX on all relevant points.

Crap is crap and even the NY Times likes it share of crap.

Posted by: Silver Owl on August 3, 2009 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Your "rebuttals" are pretty weak Benen. Texas is Posted by: Brad on August 3, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Your "rebuttals" are pretty weak Benen. Texas is doing well economically, doing well economically, but it sucks to be poor there! Well maybe the two are related? That is, if you don't soak your productive taxpayers for welfare payments to the poor and immigrants, maybe the the state will perform better economically? And California is not a liberal policy-oriented state?? Are you joking? If they'd only taxed more, they'd be just fine? If you are not the biggest hack on the internet, you're high in the running.

Before the current economic crisis California had the 6th highest per capita GDP in the country, but only the 12th highest per capita spending. So why do they have the biggest budget crisis? And why do they have major showdowns, even up to the point of issuing I.O.U.s, every few years even when there is no crisis?

Not because it is too liberal, but because state and local property tax revenues are crippled by Proposition 13 and because initiatives only need a 50% + 1 vote margin to pass new mandates on the government but it requires a 2/3 supermajority to pass new taxes.

Posted by: tanstaafl on August 3, 2009 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Steve...PLEASE submit this as a NY Times letter to the editor. His false analysis needs this thoughtful response for those who read the paper, but don't read this blog.

Posted by: Peter on August 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

As someone who lives in Texas, let me tell ya; Douhat is an idiot. If I didn't have family support here, I would have gone under long ago (or migrated elsewhere). People here are so used to it being bad that they've made a religion of praising it, but that doesn't make it good. It's a state with potential, but the stupidity of our elected officials like Governor Goodhair and those who support them because they think Jesus wants them to is crippling us. My only hope is that our fast-growing, Dem-leaning Hispanic population will eventually unseat these mostly-white idiots.

Posted by: emjaybee on August 3, 2009 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

douthat is yet another asshole conservative that the Village Press puts up to keep the lower classes down. almost as bad as wa po.

Posted by: demoraptor on August 3, 2009 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

i want to thank all the commentors above me.['cept brad]...life was too short to plow thru drosshat's drek... cali's biggest problem isn't liberal/conservative, per say...it's that they allow govenment by prop [and their term limits don't help either]

Posted by: dj spellchecka on August 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

I was living (although, fortunately, as a renter rather than a homeowner) in Texas from the middle to the late 1980's. Entire developments in the Houston area turned into vandalized, coyote-riddled ghost towns.

I was living there then as well, except I was a homeowner. It was every bit the disaster that California, Las Vegas and Florida are today, and then some. The term "see-through building" was invented in Houston. It's hotter than Hell and humid, too.

Posted by: Pug on August 3, 2009 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

It's hotter than Hell and humid, too.

Yes, well, the problem in Texas is not the heat, it's the stupidity.

Posted by: Stefan on August 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

And the turgidity.

Posted by: shortstop on August 3, 2009 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Don't forget the S&L crises in the late 1980's. The majority of the bail out funds went to Texas. It was a "Texas bail out" as much as a S&L bail out. With out the 60 odd billion dollars provided by the U.S. taxpayer, Texas would still be in hock.

Posted by: J. Frank Parnell on August 3, 2009 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Since libertarian conservatives look forward to the day when governments will have to abandon social spending for lack of funds, they heap praise upon states like Texas that are ahead of the curve. They love Texas because they believe that someday the whole world will look like that, and there's nothing that anybody can do about it.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on August 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding Blagojevich, has Douthat really never heard of George Ryan? Illinois is the problem, not Democrats in the governor's seat.

Posted by: Dale on August 3, 2009 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Texas has some genuine industry and even some innovation (e.g., in heart surgery) in the mix. But the roots of its economy strike me as third world -- extractive industries and and the exploitation of peasant farm labor.

And has been pointed out in an number of places, its actually not a very rich state in per capita terms. Median household income is, even this year, just 28th in the nation, $3K or 6% below the national average.

Posted by: larry birnbaum on August 3, 2009 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and California's median household income ranks 8th in the nation, $9K or 18% above the national average. Which means that California's median household income is 12K or about 23% higher than Texas's.

But, hey, when have facts mattered to conservative blowhards, even non-rabid ones like Douthat.

Posted by: larry birnbaum on August 3, 2009 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Douthat added that blue-state governance has a 'tendency toward political corruption',.."

That's because GOP politicians don't waste their energy on the minor-league corruption in the statehouse.

Instead, they work their way up to DC, where the major-league corruption is made.

Why knock over an ATM when you can rob the whole bank instead?

Posted by: 2Manchu on August 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Texas' growth may have something to do with tax abatements for corporations and the law that the State passed saying that local gov'ts (like San Antonio) that passed a "living wage" of around $7/hr years ago, had to nullify their legislation in favor of the federal minimum wage. Corporations loved that, real working poor, not so much.

Also, San Antonio is experiencing growth do to the BRAC closings, not necessarily anything that the State is pushing. It remains to be seen how the State handles the unregulated, unlimited growth that is taxing our water resources. They'll be begging for federal resources so we don't have to die of thirst before long.

Our policy of putting more people to death than any other state makes us a shining example? And the massive federal dollars for our corporate and state prisons that are holding ICE detainees? Yes, a real model.

Posted by: Always Hopeful on August 3, 2009 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

It should also be remembered that Enron, a corporate entity in "lightly-regulated" Texas, provoked an artificial energy crisis in California that led to the recall of the governor, Grey Davis. Without question, the crisis cannot be ascribed directly to the state of Texas, but the "lightly regulated" environment there allowed it to proceed with relative impunity, and damages any claim Texas might make for the status of "model citizen." Moreover, the initial refusal of the current governor of California who benefited from Davis's fall to negotiate in good faith with the California legislature helped put California in the parlous fiscal position it is now.

Posted by: Mike in Alabama on August 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

California could definitely take some pointers from Texas.

Institute an oil severance tax.
Eliminate 2/3 majority requirements.
Return to a normal property tax system.

Posted by: JeffF on August 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

larry birnbaum - California's median household income is 12K higher than Texas's

Income's only half the equation, expense is the other. In 99 when I bought my house in Houston, smaller homes in California were $400-500K more. That extra 12K a year isn't enough to cover the difference.

Kiplinger has a cost of living index for 2009: San Jose 158, Los Angeles 142, San Francisco 137, Austin 94, Dallas 92, Houston 89. Looking at the whole picture is probably a big factor in why Houston was their Best City for 2008.

But, hey, when have facts mattered?

Posted by: Darrell Spice, Jr. on August 4, 2009 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

TX (and other red states) looks good now because CA (and other blue states) got jacked up for eight lousy years by GWB and his confederate cronies (i.e., Enron, sub-prime mortgage crisis, $5/gal gas prices).

How can a state that produces losers for presidents (LBJ-Vietnam, Bush 41-failed to kill Saddam, Bush 43-Iraq) be rated the "best" economic model over the state that produced a winner for a president (i.e., RWR-stood up to Russians)? Easy...have these loser presidents pump up the TX economy while jacking up the economies of competing states like CA, NY, FL, IL, MI, NV so TX looks better in comparison.

Posted by: Joe on August 10, 2009 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly