Running Against Success in Texas (Good Luck With That)
There’s lots of commentary out this morning about incumbent Rick Perry’s win over Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Texas GOP gubernatorial primary.
The general take-away seems to be that Governor Perry benefited from (as Jonathan Martin puts it at the Politico) “an anti-Washington message in an already volatile political environment”.
Considering the overwhelming wins yesterday by the incumbent congressional representatives, that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But it must be true, cuz nearly everybody’s saying so.
The Wall Street Journal:
DALLAS—Texas Gov. Rick Perry rode a wave of anti-Washington sentiment to victory Tuesday in the hard-fought Republican gubernatorial primary, beating U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
What Hutchison didn’t realize this time a year ago was that her fate may well have been sealed by Tax Day, April 15, 2009, when Perry spoke at tea party rallies in Houston, Dallas and Austin and suggested — merely suggested — that Texas might have reason to secede from the union. He never mentioned the word “secession,” but there was no mistaking his drift.
Signaling his sympathy with the wave of anti-Washington, anti-Obama animus sweeping Texas and the country — animus fueled by the tea partiers — Perry effectively tagged his fellow Republican as a creature of Washington after her 16 years in the Senate. She never recovered from the anti-Washington barrage. And she knew it.
I really don’t think so, folks.
I’m no fan of Rick Perry (known disparagingly by many as “Governor Goodhair” or even “Mr. Secession”), but I think the problem Kay Bailey Hutchison had in the primary is exactly the same problem Democratic candidate Bill White will face in the general: It’s really really hard to argue against success — even when that success is more perception than reality.
Fellow Texan Melissa Clouthier gives a great example of this (my emphasis):
It should not also be ignored that Texas is humming along economically. By Texas standards, the economy isn’t wonderful, but it’s doing so much better than the rest of the nation, citizens are wanting to keep a good thing going. Who can blame them?
Yup! Much better! In fact, I seriously don’t know a single person who, if asked how Texas is doing in the face of the recession, wouldn’t answer, “We’re doing better than everybody else!”
And if we were a nation of 30 or 35 states, “everybody” would be correct — but when Texas’ unemployment ranks 33rd out of 50? Or when foreclosures rank 28th? Not so much.
Yet everybody knows that Texas is doing much better… and perceptions matter. No, we’re not doing “the best”, but even allowing for some spin, the view from here is pretty good.
Therefore, I think that Rick Perry’s victory yesterday over Kay Bailey Hutchison hinged enormously on the fact that he’s who occupies the Governor’s chair currently. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his politics is nearly irrelevant, because he’s holding the biggest ace of all: perceived success while the rest of the country struggles.
So what’s Bill White got that will trump that?
White told supporters in Houston he expects Perry to try to “perpetuate” himself with politics of division and distraction to avoid talking about Texas issues, such as high unemployment, state government growth and unfunded mandates for local governments.
Looks to me like he’s got pretty much what Kay Bailey had. Good luck with that.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “Running Against Success in Texas (Good Luck With That)”
[...] I really don’t think so, folks — and the reason is at The Moderate Voice. [...]
It is somewhat ironic that if Texas is doing better it would be in no small part because they get more federal tax dollars coming into the state than they pay out.
That would indeed be ironic, if it were true. Alas, it is not. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2005 (the latest data available) Texas received $0.94 for every tax dollar sent to Washington (35 out of 51 including DC).
Lest you think it one-year anomaly, thislink shows the history of all 50 states plus DC from 1981 to 2005 of tax dollars collected versus federal dollars received. Texas's ratio ranges from $0.72 to $0.98–always a net donor, never a net recipient. It's place in the ranking ranges from 33 to 48th place. (California, btw, has also been a net donor since 1986, ranging from $0.99 in 1986 to $0.78 in 2005–and from 30th place to 44th place on the list).
Just as a sidebar, so who is the champion in the “received more dollars than sent to Washington” competition? Why, DC of course (ranges from $4.90 to $6.28) and that was before the massive expansion of the federal government in the last 12 months.
Who's got the silver medal? New Mexico at $2.03 for 2005.
Hmmm . . . . . must be because of all those electoral votes in New Mexico.
That's actually a funny thought, merkin. What on earth made you think that was likely?
I apologize. You are quite correct. I was relying on my memory and the fact that red states, on average, gain revenues from blue states. I see that this doesn't hold in the case of Texas. Many pardons.
Of course, Washington DC has the largest imbalance. It is the town with by far the largest number of federal employees, more than half of the workforce. Short of charging them a punitive tax rate I don't know how it could be otherwise.
Since we are verifying claims here I would like some support for the “massive expansion of the federal government in the last 12 months.” Just how many people do you think were added to the government? I can't find any statics more recent than March of 2009.
I apologize. I was relying on generalization that red states gain from blue states, due to higher incomes in the blue states and the progressive nature of the income taxes. . I see that is not the case with Texas.
I also think it's funny all the “changes” people try and campaign on here in Texas. It won't happen, can't happen, by the Gov. Our Gov is a purposely weak position. The big deal for the Gov is appointments, but the Legislature is the one with the big stick not the Gov.
Merkin–
The Tax Foundation (the site already linked to by The-Master) also has an interesting analysis of why rural states tend to get back more in taxes than they pay:
Plus, a cool map.
Yes, that's what I thought. Between my mea culpa to you and the same to Polimom I figured that out. See my response to Polimom above. I would also think that the majority of Corporate taxes are collected in a very few states.
I don't have the numbers to back this up, but my assumption is that Texas does so well because of its oil. It is a lot like the Saudi Arabia of the South.
[...] dear. Coming right on the heels of yesterday’s post about trying to run against success, this is not good news for Bill White and his planned campaign [...]
Here you go. According to the President's 2010 budget, the non-Department of Defense(DoD) Executive Branch FTE headcount (excluding the Post Office, for some reason) averaged 1,104,000 through the 1980s; it averaged 1,139,000 through the 1990s; it averaged 1,158,000 from 2001 through 2008.
In 2009 it averaged 1,288,000 (an 11% increase over the average during the GWB presidency, and a 7% increase over 2008). In 2010 it is projected to average 1,411,000, a 22% increase over the GWB presidency average and a 9.5% increase over the 2009 FTE headcount. That works out to a 10.4% compound annual growth rate in the non DoD Executive branch FTE headcount.
Note that we haven't staffed up yet for the headcount needed to run Cap & Trade or the President's proposed health care reengineering. It also does not consider the employees of GM, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, etc. as Government employees, even though the Government 'owns' them all.
It's not just the direct cost of all these people, it's that all of them are busy working on programs, rules, regulations, etc. to micromanage even more of the US economy. We just can't afford it, but it's happening anyway.
Be very afraid.
California is often touted as having the third largest economy in the world (really between 7&12) if it was its own nation, well in that line I believe Texas would be 15th. Oil (and gas) production is strong and helps but is much more diverse than oil. Texas is the largest international exporter of goods in the US. We have the highest number of fortune 500 companies in any state (58) and with such a large state have a surprising diversity in our economy. From timber, cotton, farming, ranching, medical (Houston medical center is the largest in the country), defence contracting, shipping, IT (Austin is still part of Texas), chemical, the list goes on and on. The diversity is part of the economic Strength of Texas and why it seems to just chug on.
Perhaps I can fill in a few blanks in your post. The 2009 budget was of course, Bush's . From 2007 (actual) to 2009 (est.) his budget increased manpower, non-DoD, non-Postal, FTE by 6.3% alone. to 1,247,007. Using your method of comparison to the average of 2001 to 2008 (the last Clinton budget to the next to last Bush budget). this represents an increase of 7.6%. As you said actual increased an additional 3.4%. Assuming Bush's estimate was close and none of the unbudgeted increase occurred under Bush's last three months, this 3.4% is the number you consider a massive increase over Bush's policies.
In Obama's defense I would point out that Bush's policies reflected his beliefs that; government is the problem-it doesn't work, the banks and financial markets are self-regulating and that the mortgage markets need the red tape cut to set them free. Translated into policies of government inaction these beliefs steered the United States into the largest financial system collapse and economic downturn since the Great Depression. I would accept some increase in government manpower to avoid a repeat of this .
Also Bush increased the use of contractors to do some of the government's work. I would assume the rational behind this would have been to decease the number of government employees. As you noted he increased them. By your method of comparison, that natural increases in population and the economy shouldn't need additional employees (which I believe is a good one considering productivity gains), this means that on a first order pass, Bush did less work with more employees.
Here are the Bush 2009 budget estimates.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/empl.html
I was very afraid 2001 to 2009. I remain very afraid that the mess left by 8 years of incompetence can't be straightened up in this political climate where so many refuse to acknowledge the problems, much less the solutions.
[...] Running Against Success in Texas (Good Luck With That) [...]