Texas miracle Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, on Aug 19, 2011 at 10:47 am
Since announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination over the weekend, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has already raised eyebrows over a number of heated comments. One of the comment was, "Since June 2009, about 48 percent of all the jobs created in America were in Texas."
Perry's staff attributed the number to the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve. The fact-checking group PolitiFact questioned its legitimacy, saying different timeframes revealed Texas created a more modest percentage of national jobs. "Texas Miracle" is something that Perry has been campaigning on for quite a while. What lies beneath those numbers, however, is the fact that Texas has also created many, many more minimum-wage jobs and low-wage jobs than any other state. And, you know, that's the truth that lies beneath this "miracle."
Perry also has stripped away just about every strand of the social safety net in his 10 years as governor. Texas education has been stripped to the bone. High school graduation rates are the lowest in the country. The rate of insurance is the lowest in the country. It's a miracle for companies that want to exploit their workers; it's not a miracle for anybody else.
Posted by CA jobs to texas, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2011 at 10:54 am
even the sf comical, fishwrap that it is, noticed that Perry's economical miracle is fishy
"Rick Perry's jobs record - miracle or illusion?"
- "But last year, Texas tied with Mississippi for having the highest percentage of minimum-wage jobs in the nation, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics."
- "But on Feb. 18, 2009 - a day after the stimulus became law - Perry wrote a letter to President Obama saying that while "there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy," he would accept all federal stimulus dollars "and use them to promote economic growth."
Not only has the stimulus provided more than 45,000 jobs in Texas, according to federal recovery.gov statistics, but Coleman said that without it, Texas would have had a larger budget deficit this year."
Love the part that describes the fav libertarian point about Cali losing jobs to "pro-growth" states like Texas:
"Between 1992-2006, Kolko found that "the annual net employment change in California due to relocation - a loss of about 9,000 jobs - represents only 0.05 percent" of the state's total of 18 million jobs. And California ranks below the national average in relocation losses." Read more: Web Link
Cut taxes and cut regulation cuz texas is stealing our jobs and businesses, they say.
Posted by Yawn, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 10:52 am
Yawn....I would vote for my dog over Obama..I am not excited about Perry, but he would be oh so much better than our current POTUS. He is not a knee-jerk statist/socialist, or whatever you want to call his ideology ( I tend toward the M word..marxist..for the flat out govt takeover of oil drilling shut down to mortgages to student loans to financial markets and auto bankruptcy restructuring, and sneak Cap and Trade through the EPA..but hey, that is just me).
At least Perry would move in the right direction, which would be to get the govt boot off our necks.
BTW, the rest of you, I recommend you not believe the lies, more lies and statistics of Rudlow. Research yourself. I see a lot of lies without any links for any credibility. One missing "fact" that jumps out is between 30-50% of all new jobs created in the private sector IN THE NATION in the last 3 years have been ...in Texas. And that is WITH the oil drilling shut down by Obama. Which killed many thousands of jobs, sending them to Brazil with our tax money.
Posted by CA jobs to texas, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 1:02 pm
An appropriate name. You tell us not to listen to Rudlow, yet you spew claims without substantiation. At least those above offer links to facts.
You hate Obama, even though he has mostly been a moderate, leaning right. He supports cap and trade, just like McCain and Palin did in 2008 (want to see the video of sarah saying just that?) Obama offered up and passed Romney's GOP healthcare plan.
He bailed out American manufacturing to keep Americans employed. You are also conflating Obama's actions with Bush's TARP program for bailing out wall street.
Can you even define what a socialist or marxist is?
Also: You like Perry - do you support Rick Perry's statement in his book where he says Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?
"I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that."
It's an old book in Perry years - almost 8 months old. It's another Perry Texas miracle!
Posted by Yawn, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Actually, though I am not in love with Perry, he is correct. Those programs are NOT Constitutional, but hey, since when has that ever stopped a leftist? He is correct, "general welfare" did not refer to stealing from some to give to others. Which is what "social security" is, now, isn't it, since the massive Ponzi scheme is collapsing.
I would rather have the States work out what they want, and each of us responsible for ourselves and our families. I would rather have kept everything I have put into Social Security, and invested it myself..mine to do with as I wish, not be at the whim of a President threatening to not send me my check I earned, nor being stolen for programs that have nothing to do with my retirement, so that there is no there, there, when I get there. I would rather be able to buy health insurance at 21, and keep it for myself through all my life and all my jobs, not have my health care decided at the whim of some govt entity to decide what I do and do not get.
So, yes, I agree with Perry. We would all be better off without relying on "govt" to take care of us...empty promises over which we have no control. Have you looked in your Social Security "lockbox" and seen the cobwebs yet?
I opposed TARP, and every action taken by our Feds since. Every one has destroyed our economy a little more. Every time the Feds have "changed" the rules, more of us are dislocated, lose our business, lose the employees we had... So, yes, I deplore what has happened to us.
However, I have confidence in the American spirit, it is coming alive again. We were sleepy from success, and had no idea what hit us in the last couple years. Those of us already adults and in our homes had no idea the rules had changed, and were about to bite us.
But, we are awake now. We need to depose the ideology that caused the mortgage crisis ( giving keys of houses to people with no "skin in the game", no money down, no track record of employment). We need to depose of the financial regulations that has DC folks deciding what banks in our Valley can and can't lend and for why. And that is just for starters.
So, again, I would vote for my dog over any Democrat at this point. At least my dog would do no more harm trying to "help" me.
Posted by Yawn, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Whether or not it is unconsitutional, your question, by the way, still begs the question, how do you propose to fix it? Both programs are broke. There will be nothing there in just a few years. What are our choices? Cut benefits....or take more from the youth. May as well cut off their fingers because we oldsters are hungry. Ever hear of eating your seed corn? I have no desire to be the burden on our kids' backs.
In my youth, I was a socialist. My naive youth that didn't understand how and why socialism and marxism kills societies, making the poor, poorer, and locking people into their lives with little opportunity to "go up the ladder", like we have had here until recently ( only 1% of people in poverty in the USA stay in poverty .. try reading anything by Sowell to begin to get an education.) I watched it happen in Europe, I watched the poverty grow, and the locking into an income level. I am watching it happen here. But, the difference is that here, I still have hope in an awake population with access to real news. Europe is, unfortunately, mainly governmment owned news stations..
Here is the best summary I have read of how folks like me think, from the American Thinker. We really don't want to be Europe, and we see ourselves heading down the Greek footpath. Europe, Greece, even Britain, have been steeped in "government is good" mythology, after thousands of years of being dependent in one way or another on their feudal landlords for largesse and beneficience. Thankfully, we are the USA, threw off that thinking a couple hundred years ago, and have to remind ourselves whence we get our strength.
I will never support "government' programs over individual hard work, saving and investment. I will never support stealing from some to give to others. I think it highly immoral, destructive not only to the human spirit of both the producers and the takers, but to the societal fabric.
In fact, our own culture has a deep acknowledgement of this belief, even in our tales of Robin Hood, who stole BACK from the 'government' what they had taken from the masses, and returned the goods back to the people.
Posted by CA jobs to texas, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2011 at 4:45 pm
One notes how you pivot off of declaring agreement with Perry on your opinion that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional.
Again: you and Perry are against Social Security and Medicare.
Lots of solutions have been posted before.
Medicare's a mess. Drive costs down. Remove Bushes prohibition from medicare to negotiate drug prices. There's lots of other solutions to drive costs down, but Perry Ryan and you guys want to dismantle Medicare anyway. Give seniors coupons. Such nice guys!
Social Security is fully funded for 25 years, with funding to make 80% of payments after that.
The fix? As has been posted many times, just remove the cap on payroll taxes that currently exists around $106k a year.
Boom. Done. Makes SS solvent darn near out to infinity.
Or as has been offered by Frankin, you can even have a payroll tax free donut hole form $100k to $250k. Boom. Done. No more threatening our seniors.
How's that for a Texas miracle?
Still waiting for your definition of socialist and marxist, not your stories about supposedly being one a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
2010–2020 Social Security spends more than it collects in taxes during eight of these 11 years, but the trust fund grows every year because it collects interest from the federal government.
2021-2037 Social Security spends more than it collects in taxes, and the trust fund shrinks every year.
2037-2084 The Social Security program runs annual deficits that accumulate to $44 trillion, which could be covered by (a) adding $5.4 trillion to the trust fund today, or (b) increasing payroll taxes by 28% starting in 2037, rising to a 33% increase by 2084, or (c) reducing benefits by 22% starting in 2037, rising to a 25% reduction by 2084.
(That's where I got the statement: "...with funding to make 80% of payments after that." So I was off by a pittance: 75 vs 80%)
2085 and beyond The Social Security Program runs deficits that could be covered by adding $10.7 trillion to the trust fund today"
- - - - - - -
All that can be cured by all levels of income paying the same payroll taxes - besides, aren't you cons always screaming about a flat tax?!?!?
So let's start with a flat, regressive payroll tax and cure Social Security FOREVER!
"What’s the best way to solve Social Security’s long-range funding gap? Web Link
The cost of closing Social Security’s 75-year shortfall is equal to the revenue lost from the Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans. We can close Social Security’s entire funding gap and then some by scrapping the payroll tax cap. Currently, millionaires and billionaires only make payroll tax contributions on the first $106,800 they make in annual wages. Most people pay taxes on all of their wages. If the payroll tax cap was scrapped, which would affect just 6% of taxpayers, the modest funding gap could be closed."
It's a conservative's wet dream - a flat (payroll) tax on everyone!!!
Posted by CA jobs to texas, a resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Rick Perry and "yawn" want to end Social security and Medicare - they both think it's unconstitutional!
Above, we showed how a simple fix protects America's seniors. Let's see what our texas miracle worker wants to do to our Americans and Social Security:
Rick Perry, Aug 14, 2011, in Iowa:
"Look, the whole issue of—have you read my book, ‘Fed Up!’?
Get a copy of it and read it, because I talk about the entitlement programs in there.
And listen, how many people in here are less than 50 years old in this audience? All right, I got in trouble by asking that question right off the bat, there, but these young kids who are coming along, they know for a fact there’s not going to be a Social Security and Medicare program. They know that.
So we have to have an adult conversation with this country. We have to talk about how are we going to transfer over. How are we going to make the transformation."
Read the above solutions and decide who's the adult in the room: those that want to save Social security with a flat tax on all Americans, not just the middle class and poor, or "yawn" and Perry who want to end Social Security as we know it.
It's another texas miracle!
Why in the world would anyone want Bushes' Lt Governor int he White House?!!?
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on Aug 25, 2011 at 10:50 am
Nice links, good description. Love the flat tax line: "(Social Security) ...can be cured by all levels of income paying the same payroll taxes - besides, aren't you cons always screaming about a flat tax?!?!?"
Californians understand the Texas "miracle": Bush's assistant as President?
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
If the payroll tax were collected flat across the board, it would take about three sessions for the democrats to expand recipients and benefits until we were back in the hole again. As long as there is free income, the tax eaters will not rest.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on Aug 25, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Walter: that's the best you have? Americans offer a great fix for Social Security, a fair flat tax on all income levels, not just the poor and middle class working families, and all you have is:
"it would take about three sessions for the democrats to expand"
Walter: which president was the last one to cut spending virtually across the board and balance a budget, even offer America a budget surplus?
Democratic President Bill Clinton.
What happened to Clinton's surplus? Republicans went to unfunded, unending wars, created an unfunded Medicare drug program that isn't even allowed to negotiate drug prices with big Pharma, gave tax cuts for the billionaires and then they drove the economy into a ditch. While controlling the whole government for 4 years - the White House and both branches of Congress (arguably the courts as well.)
Bush never veto'd a spending bill in 8 years.
Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility. Republicans are the party of BORROW AND SPEND, until a Dem is in power, then the GOP is the party of Austerity. Cutting support for the poor and middle class while protecting corporate jets, while trying to get back in power.
The House passed budget does just that: coupons instead of Medicare, tax cuts for billionaires, debt limit extensions, tax cuts for oil companies, etc..
That isn't a Texas miracle. You may like Bush's assistant, his former Lt Governor, Rick Perry.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of Atherton, on Aug 26, 2011 at 11:38 am
Man, I thought I worded questions poorly...
"But do you disagree that any increase in tax revenue would result in even more government spending in short order?"
I believe that removing the cap on payroll taxes, making them a "flat" payroll tax rate for all income levels, will make Social Security at it's current level of benefits sustainable through the rest of the century.
This includes the existing cost of living increase structure written into the program. I have not heard a single politician even talk of raising benefits.
Regarding other tax rates besides the payroll tax? Bill Clinton raised the top rate a couple points, cut spending and created a budget surplus. I see no reason why we can't do that again, if a certain party of "no" was willing to follow the will of the people. (Lots of polls show America supports raising the top rates back to the 90's rates.)
Regarding "lots of words and talking points" - Thanks! I take it as a complement that you agree they are facts, otherwise you'd offer evidence to the contrary.
Since you can't disagree that Bill Clinton left us a surplus ten short years ago, it seems you resort to the phrase "talking points" to somehow belittle his great achievements.
What does the right have against the balanced budget and budget surplus of the 90's? Let's fix this economy and get back in balance!
Back to the topic : Texas
Walter and "Huh": do you agree with Rick Perry that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?
That's the expressed opinion of Rick (Bush's assistant) Perry where, later on, I think Perry is going to wish he had Karl Rove working for him earlier.