ECONOMICS: RED STATE VS. BLUE STATE ECONOMICS

RED STATE VS. BLUE STATE ECONOMICS
By TOM BLUMER

After a tough week on Wall Street and in Washington, it's important to point out that all economic troubles are not created equal. And it is the red states that are better prepared to weather the crisis.

In Texas, Florida and Arizona, life doesn't seem so grim. As Phil Gramm and Mike Solon noted in a Sept. 13 Wall Street Journal column, those three large states gained 1.7 million, 1.4 million, and 600,000 jobs, respectively, from 1996-2006. That's one-third of all US jobs during that period. The states also had per-capita income growth that far outpaced the national averages.

Most other red states have done either fairly well or very well. Friday morning's Labor Department report shows at least 15 states that went for Bush in 2004 had seasonally adjusted August unemployment rates below 5%: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

But if you're looking for economic struggles, visit the blue states.

Begin with big kahuna California, which gave John Kerry a 10% margin in 2004. The now-misnamed Golden State, with its Democrat-dominated legislature and might-as-well-be-a-Democrat governor, had an August unemployment rate of 7.7%, up from just 5.5%, and over 400,000 more unemployed workers, in 12 months. Yet Arnold Schwarzenegger rejects the idea of offshore drilling, and the jobs it will create.

Then head east to Michigan (unemployment: 8.9%; 12-month job loss: 70,000). Things have gone from bad to very bad during the tenure of Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, with the help of a too-compliant GOP legislature. Wolverine State defenders point to its "unique" auto industry problems. Baloney - Gramm and Solon noted that while Michigan lost 83,000 auto-sector jobs in the past 15 years, eight Southeastern states, all of which went for Bush in 2004, gained 91,000.

Move on to Ohio (7.4% unemployment). Though it went for Bush in 2004, state government has mostly acted blue since the mid-1990s, thanks to alleged GOP governors George Voinovich and Bob Taft. The Buckeye State moved from pseudo-red to largely blue in 2006, electing a Democratic governor, who has been aided and abetted by a mostly complacent GOP legislature.

Finally, head west a bit to Obama's Illinois (7.3% unemployment). Its Democratic governor, legislature, big-city mayor, and US senators have all played a role in creating the Land of Lincoln's economic lousiness. Moving Democratic National Committee operations to Chicago, perhaps Obama's most noteworthy "jobs program," has made little difference.

Within certain states, the red-blue contrast is stark. In Ohio, you'll find foreclosures galore and general economic malaise in bluer-than-blue Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, Toledo, and Dayton. Meanwhile, Cincinnati and Columbus are hanging in there nicely, especially in the GOP-dominated ring suburbs. Similar comparisons apply between economically-distressed Southeastern Michigan against the rest of that state, and Metro Chicago versus much of the rest of Illinois.

If we're in a recession, blame it on the high-tax, high-regulation, high-giveaway environments of the blue states, blue regions, and blue cities. Red states, and the red regions within otherwise blue states, made the right decisions - but will be left holding the bag.

Sadly, the blue environs of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut will most likely vote for Barack Obama. The rest of the country is already paying $1 trillion to bail out Wall Street. Must we pay for the blue states' bad judgement as well?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09212008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/red_state_vs__blue_state_economics_130036.htm


What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level (from U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007 )

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%

2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%

3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%

4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%

5. Miami , FL 26.9%

5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%

7. El Paso , TX 26.4%

8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%

9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%

10. Newark , NJ 24.2%


What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;

St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;

Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.

So since ince it is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats--- why are they still disadvantaged... ? I really think this is what Obama has planned for America.


Did a bit of research on Forbes' article (below) and here's an interesting fact:

Code:
Canton, OH Mayor=D Governor=D
Youngstown, OH Mayor=I Governor=D
Flint, MI Mayor=D Governor=D
Scranton, PA Mayor=D Governor=D
Dayton, OH Mayor=D Governor=D
Cleveland, OH Mayor=D Governor=D
Springfield, MA Mayor=D Governor=D
Buffalo, NY Mayor=D Governor=D
Detroit, MI Mayor=D Governor=D
Charleston, WV Mayor=R Governor=D



I wonder what their tax rates are...


Anyway, here's the article.

America's Fastest-Dying Cities
Joshua Zumbrun 08.05.08, 6:00 AM ET


Washington, D.C. - The turmoil of the mortgage market granted a temporary reprieve from hearing about the woes of America's Rust Belt. That doesn't mean things are better. Despite a decade of national prosperity, the former manufacturing backbone of the U.S. is in rougher shape than ever, still searching for some way to replace its long-stilled smokestacks.

Where's it worst? Ohio, according to our analysis, which racked up four of the 10 cities on our list: Youngstown, Canton, Dayton and Cleveland. The runner-up is Michigan, with two cities--Detroit and Flint--making the ranking.

These, and four other metropolitan statistical areas, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, face fleeing populations, painful waves of unemployment and barely growing economies. By our measure, they've struggled the worst of any areas in the nation in the 21st century. And they face even bleaker futures.

It wasn't always this way. Despite years of economic decline, in the first years of the new century the employment situation did not look so bad--3% to 4% unemployment was the norm, along the lines of metropolitan areas elsewhere in the country. The rest of the decade was not so kind. Thanks to a crushing downturn for automakers like General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) and Ford (nyse: F - news - people ), Detroit and Flint, Mich., have seen unemployment approach 10%.

Another brutal statistic all the cities share is a diminishing population. So far this decade, 115,000 people have left Cleveland, for other climes. Smaller changes in other regions can be just as painful. Nearly 30,000 people have left Youngstown, Ohio, and they aren't being replaced by either new babies or new immigrants.

Still, the cities we found to be struggling don't vary widely by age, and this factor had little influence in the rankings. The oldest city in our top 10, Scranton, Pa., had 45% of its population over 45; the youngest, Flint had 38% over 45.

The worst news is, of course, economic. When we looked at the most recent gross domestic product estimates for 155 metropolitan statistical areas estimated to have $10 billion or more GDP in 2005--economies about the size of Asheville, N.C., or Tallahassee, Fla.--the news was predictably terrible for the Rust Belt.

In the fall of 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) published its GDP estimates from 2001 to 2005. Nearly every city in the country grew during this period (New Orleans, devastated from Hurricane Katrina, was the notable exception), but the struggling cities on our list grew more sluggishly. None of them grew more than 1.9% a year, versus a nationwide average of 2.7%. Canton, Ohio, managed to grow its economy just 0.7% annually. Flint was worse still at 0.4%.

None of these cities now face the huge declines in real estate prices seen by Phoenix, Miami or Las Vegas, where the Case-Shiller Home Price Index shows nearly 30% declines from a year ago. Detroit is off only about 15%, Cleveland only 8%. Don't call it a bright spot. Prices never went up in the first place.