Rick Perry: Economic Wizard?

The truth about job creation and government spending in the Lone Star state


Texas Gov. Rick Perry electrified liberal and conservative pundits by entering the GOP presidential primary. But both will be disappointed. Liberals because Perry's economic record—his main selling point—is more defensible than they want to believe, and conservatives because it is less than they do.

Compared with the rest of the country, Texas has been a job-creating machine. After Perry assumed office in 2000, Texas gained more than a million jobs, while the nation lost 1.5 million. Nearly 40 percent of all new jobs since the recession officially ended have been created in Texas. "We are home to one in 10 Americans, but four of 10 jobs are in our state," boasts Perry.

He attributes the job spurt to his commitment to low taxes, business-friendly regulations, controlling government spending, and tort reform. His liberal detractors credit the sun, the moon, and the tides.

They claim that Texas' job growth has little to do with Perry's policies and more to do with Texas' vast reserves of oil, the growing demand for which triggered an economic boom. But by that logic, California should be a jobs mecca, as it is the country's third-largest oil producer after Texas and Alaska. What's more, California is blessed with fertile soil and other natural resources that Texas lacks. Yet Texas has added 165,000 jobs in the last three years and California has lost 1.2 million.

The inconvenient truth is that the jobs boom in Texas has something to do with its being No. 1 in ease of doing business—and the job bust in California has a great deal to do with it being last. Indeed, in the first four months of this year, 70 businesses shut their doors in the Golden State, with 14 of them making a beeline for Texas.

What's true for businesses also is true for workers. Liberals sneer that many of Texas' new jobs pay minimum wage without benefits—jobs that no self-respecting American should have to accept, especially given the pathetic social services Texas provides. This may be true, but the 1,100 or so Americans who move to Texas daily don't give a fig.

Texas ranks rock-bottom in per capita social spending. But it also has one of the lightest personal tax burdens in the country and a low cost of living, which are hugely attractive to out-of-work Americans. Their flocking to the state has bumped up Texas' unemployment rate to 8 percent, prompting Rachel Maddow to jeer on the air that Perry's jobs record is not a whole lot better than many other states. What she refuses to see is that while in those states high unemployment is due to anemic job growth, in Texas it is due to robust population growth. If anything, Texas offers proof that people prefer jobs, even low-paying ones, to lavish social benefits—repudiating the liberal tax-and-spend economic model.

However, if liberals underestimate Perry's jobs record, conservatives overestimate his fiscal record. Perry boasts that he has plugged the recession-induced hole in the state budget three times without raising taxes. Still, for the 11 years Perry has been in office, overall government spending has gone up by 4.2 percent every two years, compared with 2.3 percent under George W. Bush, after controlling for inflation and population growth. Perry's supporters dismiss that comparison, noting that nearly half of this spending is tied up in federal programs he can't control. The general revenue spending that he does control, they claim, has gone down for the first time since World War II. 

But if Texas has lost control over its budget, the blame lies with Perry—and his Republican legislature—both of whom have aggressively scavenged for federal grant dollars. Indeed, Perry has habitually touted the great subsidies he has extracted from Uncle Sam for state programs ranging from homeland security to disaster relief. Even as Perry condemned President Obama's stimulus and bailout package, he actively courted these funds, plugging the $6 billion hole in his previous budget almost entirely with stimulus money. Moreover, Perry patched the 2011-2013 buget less with long term structural reforms and more with one-time fixes and budgetary gimmicks such as deferring payment to public schools by one day so that it isn't technically due till the next budget cycle.

Perry's problems extend beyond his mediocre fiscal performance. He also has a crony-capitalism problem. Grants from two funds he created, ostensibly to seed tech startups and lure companies, found their way into the pockets of his campaign contributors. This won't go down well with voters weary of government waste and abuse, especially since Perry had final authority over the funds, and not an independent agency as is usually the case. Worse, Perry refused to axe these programs even to plug the deficit.

There is something else that ought to miff Perry's conservative base about these funds: They legitimize an "industrial policy" economic approach that empowers government to pick economic winners and losers. Indeed, Perry defends these programs on grounds that they helped create jobs. But if he can use government money to generate jobs in Texas, can he credibly oppose Obama using stimulus money to generate jobs around the country?

With President Obama out of ideas for an out-of-work nation, Perry's strong jobs record will appeal to voters. His challenge won't be convincing them that he has the right ideas—it will be convincing them he has the scruples to make the right calls.

Shikha Dalmia is a Reason Foundation senior analyst and a columnist at The Daily, where this column originally appeared.

NEXT: Don't Go Near the Water

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No one should ever work.

    Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.

    The Abolition of Work
    Bob Black

    1. The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other’s control techniques. A worker is a par-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called “insubordination,” just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who work?

      ~The Abolition of Work
      Bob Black

    2. creating home = work
      homelessness = suffering
      hunting and/or gathering = work
      starvation = suffering
      stupid is = stupid does

      1. The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, surveying the data on contemporary hunter-gatherers, exploded the Hobbesian myth in an article entitled “The Original Affluent Society.” They work a lot less than we do, and their work is hard to distinguish from what we regard as play. Sahlins concluded that “hunters and gatherers work less than we do; and rather than a continuous travail, the food quest is intermittent, leisure abundant, and there is a greater amount of sleep in the daytime per capita per year than in any other condition of society.” They worked an average of four hours a day, assuming they were “working” at all. Their “labor,” as it appears to us, was skilled labor which exercised their physical and intellectual capacities; unskilled labor on any large scale, as Sahlins says, is impossible except under industrialism. Thus it satisfied Friedrich Schiller’s definition of play, the only occasion on which man realizes his complete humanity by giving full “play” to both sides of his twofold nature, thinking and feeling.

        The Abolition of Work
        Bob Black

        1. How about a society that allows people like yourself to hunt and gather four hours a day but allows other people the option to do differently? Don’t we already have that? You can become homeless and hunt and gather four hours a day if you want.

          1. Nobody is allowed to live a Non-State lifestyle once the agricultural City-State has invaded and occupied a land. Game-wardens, sheriffs, privation property owners, police all have guns and keep people from living like Indians.

            So no, I can’t hunt and gather for a living. The “continual holiday” lifestyle was violently put to an end long ago.

            When does your occupation end, MNG? Am I free to go live a continual holiday now?

            1. Well, sure, you are going to be restricted to respecting those of us who go in for the private property continual work lifestyle (or whatever you want to call it), but there are alternatives for people who want to hunt and gather (that Into the Wild guy did it). Is what you want for the lifestyle we choose to be denied to us?

              1. I’ll not be banished to living on a marginal reservation that is unsuitable for occupation and resource depletion by your agricultural City-State.

                How about a Non-State sociopolitical typology* instead of the agricultural-City-Statism?

                …the lifestyle we choose to be denied to us?

                Should the lifestyle of an aggressor, a rapist, a dominator, be denied? You tell me.


                1. “Should the lifestyle of an aggressor, a rapist, a dominator, be denied? You tell me.”

                  Please, tell me who I, personally, have agressed against.

                  1. You are occupying land that was stolen by force from the First Families!!

                    1. “You are occupying land that was stolen by force from the First Families!!”

                      What property of being here at some point in the past entitles one to eternal ownership?

                  2. Enforcement of privation property rights requires constant aggression to maintain the occupation.

                    Premise Three: Our way of living?industrial civilization?is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence. ~Derrick Jensen, Endgame

                    Derrick Jensen on violence and civilization

                    1. “Enforcement of privation property rights requires constant aggression to maintain the occupation.”

                      Do you understand the difference between aggression and self-defense?

                    2. I understand the difference between aggression and self-defense. You don’t; you conflate them.

                      Invading, killing off, and occupying the First Families’ landbase is aggression.

                    3. First Families Genocide or WI or whatever name you go by next, I am done with you. Whether consciously or not you have demonstrated a level of intellectual dishonesty I have not seen on these boards before.

                2. I’ll not be banished to living on a marginal reservation that is unsuitable for occupation and resource depletion by your agricultural City-State.

                  Yeah ya will…

                  1. So this is how liberty dies, to the sound of thunderous applause from libertards who think the Non-Aggression Principle is just a proselytizing gimmick.

                3. I’ll not be banished to living on a marginal reservation that is unsuitable for occupation and resource depletion by your agricultural City-State.

                  Obviously, you are unacquainted with the millions of acres of state and national forests, parklands, and wilderness.

                  1. Obviously you’re not aware of people who have already tried it; I’ve read accounts. The City-State’s game wardens do not allow it. But why should a rapist have run of the mall, and demand a woman have to shop in a marginal part of town? Your City-State is the aggressor and occupier.

            2. I make my living as a building designer I consider that playing all day long since I did it before I even knew I could make a living doing. In the evenings I tinker on cars, motorcycles and other equipment, I’ve done that for a living as well, I consider it play. It’s all a matter of relativity. the activity of making a living brings me joy, If I wanted to be a sour puss I could tell you horror stories of some of the people and government entities I have to deal with but even that gives me pride in my work. It’s all in your outlook.

              1. Perhaps we self employed don’t fit his model as others do. Would you go work for someone else Ron? What really disturbs me is how scandalous the truth is today. We’re all good Germans, it seems. Many employers are threatened by the truth, rather, they demand we be cheerleaders; even to the point of patronizing our customers.

        2. Marshall Sahlins’s essay is flawed. Read up ‘The Road to Revolution’ by Theodore Kaczynski.

    3. White Idiot,
      There are currently 7 Billion people on this world. Your ‘solution’ would require that 6.9B die immediately in order to make your bizarro world come about. Put your money where your mouth is and suicide already.

      1. Your solution required that 90 Million people of the First Families be slaughtered in a genocide so you could mine the fertility and resources from their land.

        “[The Native Americans] didn’t have any rights to the land … Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.” ~Ayn Rand, March 6, 1974

        You’re a murderer and occupier, jacob.

        1. I’m going to break my long-standing policy of not feeding trolls.

          1) You have no proof that anybody on this board murdered anybody and/or occupied their land.

          2) It’s more than a little hypocritical to advocate primitivism using computer technology.

          1. JCR troll, I admire your campaign against casually calling people murderers; therefore, can you get your panties in a twist about jacob stating Your ‘solution’ would require that 6.9B die without proof?

            And no, my using a computer is no more hypocritical than a prisoner using the prison walls to tap out messages. I’d rather be out on a “continual holiday” like the Indians, but then you civilized industrial genociders killed them off with their Non-State lifestyle, which is now impossible to live. So here I am, in your prison of the City-State (civilization,) tapping.

            When does your City-State occupation end, JCR?

            1. There’s plenty of national forest lands where you could happily hunt and gather with little chance of detection. Have at it.

          2. I’m guessing it’s waffles/pancakes behind these shenanigans.

            Am I right?

            1. If you are right, I hope he gets a tomahawk shoved up his ass. This shit is tiresome.

              It is not an accomplishment to be an irritating moron.

              1. a tomahawk shoved up his ass

                Nice application of the Non-Aggression Principle. Why does it always gets zapped so rapidly? Is it a principle, or just tawdry proselytization gimmick?

                is tiresome

                The occupation is tiresome.

                1. Let’s raze Manhattan and give it back to the Lenape!

                  1. As long as we get our beads back, with interest.

                2. Again, Whidiot, anonymous non-threats against anonymous commentors.

                  You’re simply an idiot. But it’s fun to watch you struggle….till it’s just boring and irritating.

              2. Ah but Sugarfree you have to admire the raw determination this screwball brings. If he is right we all die and THE AGRICULTURAL CITY STATE goes with us….and he and Jean Jacques go happily gathering into the sunset. If we are right, we are forever subjected to his natterings and incessant links to his frat/nature boy buddies because THE AGRICULTURAL CITY STATE and its off shoot THE INDUSTRIAL CITY STATE in its current iteration THE POST INDUSTRiAL CITY STATE provided the OFF WHITE INDIAN (patent pending) a computer keyboard to bang on.

                We really can’t win.

                1. The only way to win is not to play.

                  1. Admit it….you did “the voice” when you typed your response.


                    (i did too)

          3. I’m going to break my long-standing policy of not feeding trolls.

            w/o Morning Links, what else is there to do. It’s like feeding ducks at the pond while you wait for the liquor store to open.

            1. Liquor stores close where you live? That sucks. New Orleans for the win!!

            2. It’s like feeding ducks at the pond while you wait for the liquor store to open.

              Sheer poetry.


              /MI summer destinations

        2. I will say that Rand quote demonstrates, like her quotes on Israel and the Arabs, that Rand was quite willing to embrace force in human relations when it served her prejudices.

          1. Rand was merely parroting the commonly held sentiments of most cultured/civilized people, hellbent on killing off a Continual Holiday Non-State sociopolitical typology lifestyle in favor of Work-Work-Working for the Man.

            That Non-Aggression Principle gets tossed aside (with elaborate syllogisms of rationalizations) at the first sign of more stuff to grab.

          2. Rand was convinced of one thing – that she was correct. I think it clouded her judgement and worldview.

        3. The sins of the fathers shall be visited on the sons!

        4. Finally somebody saw Waterwor…err….Dances with Wolves.

    4. go away.

    5. Fucking tool!

      Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

  2. Little to nothing that happens in Texas is because of Rick Perry.
    During Reconstruction, northern congressman made their cousins and brothers-in-law southern Governors so the state legislatures stripped the office of any real power; Texas more than most.
    Dubya managed to accomplish a few things because he was popular and had family connections.

    1. Governors in most states do very little that productively affects the state economy. In Texas, the effect is even less. Still, you have to give them some credit when they don’t make things worse. Wish we could say the same about the last two presidents.

      1. Perry made things worse. One factoid not mentioned in the article, he borrowed money at a faster rate than the Federal gov’t, adjusted for scale. And, he’s failed to invest in our infrastructure, selling off paid for assets to foreign firms. And, he’s beggared our cities, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio are 3 of the top ten in the country.

        Finally, our tax burden is higher than a silly checklist would indicate–first off consider that State income tax is tax deductible, whereas sales taxes are far more difficult to deduct. He’s “cut” property taxes, increasing taxes on businesses, also creating a $26 billion shortfall–as predicted by the comptroller.

        Perry hasn’t won and election, he’s always had at least a 3 way field, allowing him to win with about 40% gop support in their primaries and splitting the election. The GOP holds EVERY statewide office, being the next turd in the tunnel isn’t any great accomplishment.

  3. This article is a repeat and therefore cannot be counted against Reason‘s Rick Perry quota.

  4. My main problem with Perry is that he instituted a forced vaccination program.

    1. PIRS
      I think it was a condition for going to public schools, no? In that way it differs from the Obama mandate.

      1. The Obama health insurance mandate is a condition for not going to jail.

        1. Disobey the mandate in California.

          1. I hope that California is at least wise enough to release those who committed Malum prohibitum “crimes” rather than Malum in se crimes.

              1. Yes, California, it is probably a good idea to keep the murderers, rapists, spousal abusers, child abusers and thieves in jail but let go those people who didn’t actually hurt anyone.

                1. If a person is sufficiently anti-social to be in prison, he could potentially hurt someone.

                  1. “If a person is sufficiently anti-social to be in prison, he could potentially hurt someone.”

                    Do you think every law that is on the books should be?

                    1. Of course. One role of law enforcement is prioritization.

                    2. “Of course. One role of law enforcement is prioritization.”

                      Please tell me this is sarcasm. You seriously think EVERY SINGLE law on the books now is legitimate? You can’t think of a single law that is not as pure as the wind driven snow?

                    3. sure, that’s why they illegally search our cars, despite our refusal. Cops would far rather screw someone with a cracked tail light than fight crime in the ghetto.

    2. I don’t think he did, but he tried. I think his son had a job with the manufacturer. Perry has only been a career politico, currently earning about $100K yet, he’s a millionaire, anyone wanna investigate that?

      We have the highest electricity rates in the country, highest insurance rates…

      Perhaps funniest of all is his wife accuses him of liking his young male staffers more than he, even finding the Gov with one in their bed. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but for one who postures as a Christian conservative…

  5. Hmmm… let’s see… the imperfection of how it’s being done in Texas versus the imperfection of how it’s being done in DC or pretty much any other state… tough choice.

    Perry’s problem isn’t economics; there’s no real argument to make against Texas’ results compared to the rest of the country’s results. It would also strain credulity to suggest that Texas would be in the same position, or better, if someone like Obama held the relatively weak governorship in Texas.

    One of Perry’s main problems is that he can’t keep his socon piehole shut about the age of the earth, or whatever, when that has nothing to do with the actual issues at hand.

    1. My problem with Perry is that he’s a continuation of the existing Republicrat system. I do not see in his record or personality how he will be any different than what we have had for the last 11 years. The man’s principles only go so far as the direction of the prevailing winds.

      1. Yeah, that’s where the wheels rather come off. There’s no realistic good choice, only less bad ones. At least Perry hasn’t shown the affirmative desire to hurt business and introduce regulatory uncertainty. Faint praise, but outside of philosophical arguments regarding unelectable options it might be enough.

        1. Ron Paul is a realistic good choice. The latest Gallup Poll shows him within 1 percentage point of Obama.

          1. Yes, but the media will ignore his position as much as possible. They will damn him faintly and he will fade. We are doomed.

            The NATION STATE WILL COLLAPSE then we will and roaming gangs and widespread violence and Whidiot will call it good.

        2. perry raised taxes on businesses, instituting essentially a business income tax, without public vote. He did this to off-set property taxes, leaving the state with a $25 billion shortfall. This new budget JUST PASSED, we’ve yet to feel the effects. When the recession started he cut nothing, but grabbed all the stimulus funds he could, using them to paper over the problems, failing to make sensible cuts then. Perry is a clown who couldn’t win a majority of votes in any election in this state.

    2. Does he know how old? I thought nobody knows that.

  6. ideas for an out-of-work nation

    Holiday-enjoyin’ Non-State sociopolitical typology, anybody?

    “The life of an Indian is a continual holiday…” ~Thomas Paine

    1. My brain is on a continual holiday!

      1. Soma holiday?

      2. My whole life has been more like a continual holiday than that of my ancestors, thanks to the division of labor, the technological advances of a relatively free society, and the greed of capitalists and entrepreneurs of the past several centuries.

    2. “The life of an Indian is a continual holiday…” : Unless you are an Indian woman, then you gotta bust your ass hauling water, planting, hoeing, and harvesting the crops, build the hut, weave the cloth and sew the clothes (or tan the hides of the animals hubby dumps in your lap), gather the berries and clean, quarter, and preserve the game, cook the meals (in pots you made) over a fire you built using wood you gathered, and care for the [surviving] children. Fortunately, you’d only have to this for about 30 years – then you die.

  7. I think it is great that Perry denied AGW and evolution in the same week, because really, if you are going to invent wacky, fevered conspiracy theories to deny one branch of science because you don’t like the possible political implications thereof why not go all out and pick some other areas?

    1. Are you seriously comparing the two? There is actual evidence (and not in religious texts) that the Earth has had climate cycles long before humans.

      And how do you explain global warming on Mars? Are there little green men with SUV’s on Mars? Maybe it has something to do with … [gasp] …. the Sun?

      1. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

        There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.

        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

        1. Do you deny that between about 18,000 and 11,500 years ago the climate and environments of North America were changing rapidly? Was this due to the release of carbon from factories?


          1. Answer: Though some temperatures during that period were in the same range as today, they were confined to the northern hemisphere and the summer months.

            What’s more, the cause is understood (orbital forcing similar to what controlled the Ice Ages), just as today’s cause is understood (CO2 emissions), and these causes are very different. NOAA has a page on this that contains the following quote:

            In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

            1. Yes, I know people who receive large amounts of government funding to “study” this supposedly “know” these things. I hear it all the time. If I were paid large amounts of money to study ghosts I would probably stop receiving this funding if I was honest that ghosts do not, in fact, exist.

              1. Yes, I know people who receive large amounts of government funding to “study” this supposedly “know” these things.

                There’s nothing hypocritical about rejecting studies where the funding comes from greedy capitalist pigs who care only for profit, and embracing studies where the funding comes from power hungry politicians who care only for controlling things.

                Saying that scientists who depend on politicians for their funding might give results that please the politicians is conspiracy theory, while saying that scientists who depend on businessmen for their funding might give results that please the businessmen is a self evident fact.

                Nothing hypocritical here to see.

                Move along.

                1. here, unknowingly I suspect, sarcasmic basically admits AGW deniers are just involved in a version of what science denier in other areas do.

                  1. No MNG.
                    I am pointing out the hypocrisy of you and your fellow AGW followers who would reject a study based upon the source of the funding (business), and then accuse someone of being a conspiracy theorist if they reject a study based upon the source of the funding (government).

                    You are a hypocrite. That is all.

                    No, actually that is not all. You are also stupid.

                2. climate scientist reject data that doesn’t fit their models, cause their models are flawed. Not just from polluters.

                  The science is far from settled, you might google Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, as the “scientific” argument is far over-hyped here.

                  I am an organic landscaper by trade, and not for cynical reasons. I watch the weather patterns closer than you, I’m personally more engaged in protecting the environment than you, and I follow the facts more closely than you. I’m not a “denier” I am a follower of the facts.

              2. PIRS: Are you implying the climate does not exist or that it does not change?

                1. Highnumber,

                  Neither – I am implying that MANMADE climate change does not exist. The Giant Beever did not die out because of SUVs.

                  1. The Giant Beever is still around the bar at closing time, PIRS. I just saw her last Saturday…

              3. “, I know people who receive large amounts of government funding to “study” this supposedly “know” these things.”

                Creationists, and other science deniers like the anti-vaccine people make very similar arguments to dismiss the fact that a large, diverse group of people and institutions have findings contrary to their positions. It’s always some cabal or organization pulling the strings in some way to explain that.

                1. Mung, irrelevant to the instant argument. FOCUS!

                  1. It’s not irrelevant at all. Those who would deny numerous findings from various sources have to concoct these theories. And if you can deny one branch of science with em, why not all of them?

                    1. Consensus is not science.
                      Consensus is politics.
                      Science is not subject to a vote.
                      In science it takes only one experiment to prove something wrong.
                      That’s how science works.
                      Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Data -> Conclusion
                      There’s nothing in there about voting.
                      When there exist experiments and data that contradict the hypothesis, then the hypothesis needs to be reconsidered. Even if the source of the contradictory evidence is unpopular. That’s how science works.
                      Rejecting or refusing to consider contradictory evidence because it is unpopular, or putting it to a vote, that is politics.

                      AGW is not science. It is politics.

            2. How to talk to a climate skeptic: make stuff up.

            3. that doesn’t explain how Greenland was green. It doesn’t explain how they just announced that more heat is lost to space than previously estimated. If climate science knew what they were talking about they’d have a model.

              Funny, it’s hotter than ever, except 1980, 1955, 1937… Also, the measurements aren’t static. All have been enclosed in cities, where out-lying areas are much cooler, due to the “heat-island” effect of concrete cities.

              Finally, we don’t need Chicken Little fantasies to argue for efficiency, conservation and eco-system protection. So, stop it, this is not science, if you can’t develop a model to predict…

      2. I’m comparing the two in this sense: in both cases you and I don’t know what we are talking about but experts who’ve long looked at the subject likely do, and they tell us X and Y.

        In both cases you have people who don’t like what they see as the political implications of X and Y and so they deny. The tactics are remarkably similar. If you check out the Discovery Institute and other creationist groups they regularly make most of the same AGW-denial arguments you hear around here all the time (they point to dishonesty among some scientists to undermine the findings of many; they engage in amateur scientific critiques; they pick and choose quotes from debate to create the image of more dissent than there is, etc).

        1. “I’m comparing the two in this sense: in both cases you and I don’t know what we are talking about but experts who’ve long looked at the subject likely do, and they tell us X and Y.”

          And despite propaganda to the contrary, not all experts agree. Copernicus was once in the minority. Joseph Lister was once in the minority. Great minds often are in the minority at first. Noone is stopping you from buying mercury-filled Compact Florescent light bulbs if you believe this hogwash. It only becomes political when you try to force your beliefs on others?

          1. I don’t know why I added a question mark at the end there. Please replace it with a period.

          2. I agree, there are political claims made by AGW proponents and scientific ones. The former are not on firm ground, but the latter much more so. To believe otherwise you have to engage in the exact same kind of thinking that creationist, vaccine-deniers, etc., engage in to attempt to overcome the fact that they are arguing against the majority if findings by many, many scientists that know much more than they do on the subject.

        2. MNG, science has one pattern, it takes 150years for it to alight upon real, effective theories. We’ve just started this field of inquiry. We haven’t used the same metrics, nor controlled these measurements over time. Hence, there isn’t even enough data to draw these broad conclusions. I’m not a denier, we don’t need to cry “the sky is falling” to argue for efficiency, conservation and protections of eco-systems.

    1. Informative, thank you.

  8. If you’re going to lure companies from one state (California) to another (Texas) with the promise of low wage employees who will work without benefits, of course you’re going to decrease your unemployment statistics, while increasing those statistics somewhere else.

    1. Since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation.

      1. you mean decreased less quickly

    2. Nothing wrong with luring away businesses, everyone wants businesses to move to their area. The question is why California is not doing the same.

      1. Forty acres and a mule!

  9. “Texas gained more than a million jobs, while the nation lost 1.5 million.”

    Theres the problem, dey took yer jerbs!

    1. Fucking beaners!

    2. Duh – Van Jones told us this WEEKS ago.

  10. I’ll vote for Perry if he can make the Morning Links run on time.

    1. Have you noticed that the Friday Funnies are never late?

      1. Right. I say put Bok or Payne in charge of ML.

    2. You know, the Morning Links were never late when Virginia Postrel was around….

      *cracks open fresh bottle of Stolichnaya*

  11. Texas received the 3rd most stimulus dollars of any state, and ALL job growth since 2007 has been in the public sector (private sector jobs have declined over the same period).

    There is no “strong jobs record.” There was a coincidence of Perry being governor while government money created jobs.

    1. So you are stating that stimulus creates no strong jobs growth ?

    2. ALL job growth since 2007 has been in the public sector (private sector jobs have declined over the same period)

      Linx or it didn’t happen.

    3. Texas received the 3rd most stimulus dollars of any state

      Is that absolute dollars or per capita?

    4. The second largest state received the 3rd most stimulus? Seems they got gypped.

  12. Wow OK man I never even thought about it liek that before. WOw.

  13. And, of course, while a race to the bottom model for creating jobs may temporarily serve a single state’s statistics, it doesn’t do anything for the overall picture except depress wages.

    Texas has horrible social metrics; it should not serve as a model economy for anyone. Having the cheapest labor around is nothing to be proud of.

    1. No doubt you see California as having better metrics, all those people leaving the place clearly do not know the superior social metrics they are leaving behind.

    2. Yes, horrible “social” metrics, yet 1000 people a day are moving there.

      BTW, Tony, thank god you’re back (haven’t seen you in a while). I thought White Indian would replace you as my favorite Troll, but turns out he’s a bigger pain in the ass than you are.

  14. [Of] course like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.

  15. “Still, for the 11 years Perry has been in office, overall government spending has gone up by 4.2 percent every two years”

    So roughly 2.1 percent a year? That’s got to be near the bottom in the country, and in a state that is growing. On a per capita basis, Texas’s rank probably improves. And on a Gross State Product, it probably even better.

    This was supposed to be a criticism?

    1. Actually it would be less than that if you consider compounding.

  16. California
    barrels of oil per day: 730K
    population: 36M
    .020 barrels per person

    barrels of oil per day: 1.2M
    population: 25M
    .048 barrels per person

    That’s more than double per capita.

    It’s the oil, stupid.

    Use Google and check your stats before you make false equivalencies.

  17. Also take into account that East Texas is a hotbed for shell companies to set up shop and litigate on overly-broad patents.

  18. Reminds of the politico from the Steven King movie.

  19. Pessimistic point of this idea: It may take years of effort to improve the economy like a pyramid, a problem difficult to be easily reversed.


    Perry is a cut and borrow conservative.

  21. Rick Perry is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life. He personally created my current job, made the pie higher, and put food on my family. Don’t misunderestimate or refudiate him. And don’t mess with Texas.
    Remember the Alamo, hook ’em Horns, gig ’em Aggies, and subvert the dominant paradigm. Wait, scratch that last one. In Texas, a paradigm is only twenty cents.

  22. Dalmia is cherry-picking the data. No mention is made of the fact that Texas has the highest % of uninsured in the nation. It is not honest to point out the positives of a low-tax, low-regulation state but not its negatives.

  23. You seem to omit a vital trend that discredits Perry.

    His ‘job creation’ is the only thing hes got going for him and seems to be his only talking point. Its also being taken out of context.

    What supporters seem to ignore is that job creation correlates with population growth.An thats exactly whats been going on here.

    Confer with any economist, sociologist, or statistician and you’ll get the same answer.

    TLDR; Rick Perry is no fiscal conservative. Perhaps just another empty suite/ career politician,

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.