This is Progress?

Of California, New Jersey, and New York:
So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.
We need look no further than CA, NJ, and NY for a foretelling of where our nation is headed economically. President Obama is pushing hard for a national welfare state. A dignity sapping nanny that will smile a wide, toothy grin, telling us in a syrupy, condescending voice that "it's for your good" that our freedoms are being limited, and choices being reduced and our money being stolen.
A decade ago all three states were among America's most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.
What was it that destroyed the economies of these states?
These states have been models of "progressive" policies that are supposed to create wealth: high tax rates on the rich, lots of government "investments," heavy unionization and a large government role in health care.
Read the entire article. The specific numbers are devastating, and ought to put an end to the "more government is good" arguments. These three states, and you could really add Michigan into that camp, are extremely good examples of what has always been true: Liberal/Progressive economic and social policies will invariably lead to economic and social decline.
History is crystal clear on this matter.

3 comments:
But they just didn't do it right. This time we'll get it right!
I am progressive, but i believe you can have it both ways, doom and gloom prognostication aside. The pundits are all about doom and gloom, they may be correct, or maybe they won't be. Time will tell.
Funny that these states take in more federal money.(in Billions, I think)
1. New Mexico, $2.03 2. Mississippi, $2.02, 3. Alaska, $1.84, 4. Louisiana, $1.78, 5. West Virginia, $1.76, 6. North Dakota, $1.68, 7. Alabama, $1.66, 8. South Dakota, $1.53, 9. Kentucky, $1.51, 10. Virginia, $1.51.
And these take in the least
50. New Jersey, $0.61, 49. Nevada, $0.65, 48. Connecticut, $0.69, 47. New Hampshire, $0.71, 46. Minnesota, $0.72, 45. Illinois, $0.75, 44. Delaware, $0.77, 43. California, $0.78, 42. New York, $0.79, 41. Colorado, $0.81.
So, some of teh most 'progressive' states, take in the least federal dollars, versus some of teh most non progressive states who take in the most.
Of course, it is just numbers and a whole lot more behind it than just the numbers, but interesting nonetheless.
The great thing about that WSJ article is that it is not prognostication. It is a report on real numbers, real data.
Our political system of independent states is really pretty cool when it comes to "testing" policy. The question becomes, will the results of the tests be ignored or not when those same policies are implemented at the federal level?
Which beings up once again the heart of any political debate, and that is: what is the role of government in our lives? Especially the federal government.
When are you guys going to have the PCPP route finalized? Need any help?
Post a Comment