Posts Tagged ‘Texas’

On The Economy, Texas Kicks Lying Liberalism’s Ass

August 28, 2012

I received a great comment by Marie on an article on the fact that the US has the HIGHEST corporate tax rate on planet earth:

Look at Switzerland-they were doing terrible until they slashed their corporate tax rate and look at them now.  Unemployment at 4%,everyone is moving there from Facebook to Google …It is BOOM town there.
The USA is lucky to have a state like Texas with no state income tax and is very business friendly.If it wasn’t for Texas so many more companies would be overseas already.More and more businesses that want to stay in the USA move their company to Texas.  The US is so over taxed there is hardly anywhere for businesses to go.  It is too hard to compete globally if you are located here.

Half of all jobs created this year in the entire US originate from Texas.

It just proves keep your taxes low and everyone prospers!

The math is so simple but not everyone gets it?

She pretty much said it all, of course.  But I chimed in and tried to harmonize:

Very good points, all.

California has so many incredible advantages it is simply unreal. Only truly evil fools could possibly bankrupt it. But that is exactly what liberals did.

And, again with liberal California as an example, liberals are the type of hypocrites who are FINE with raising taxes – as long as they’re raising them on other people rather than on themselves.

It is rocket science to liberals to understand why states that have the highest taxes ALSO HAVE THE HIGHEST DEBTS. So they don’t bother to try to respond to that: they just like and demagogue and then lie some more.

And of course you are SO right to focus on Texas as an example of how conservative principles work and liberal “principles” utterly fail.

It is a documented fact that from June 2001 until June 2010, Texas added more jobs than the other 49 states combined. And since June 2009, Texas generated nearly 40 percent of ALL net jobs in America.

But liberals hate America, and so the success of Texas is clearly the last thing they want to replicate in the rest of America.

If you don’t like that last sentence, liberal, explain to me why your fellow ideologues refuse to do what clearly works and insist on doing what has failed every single time in every single place it has ever been tried.

Marie is right: tax cuts have worked every single time they have ever been tried.  They worked when Warren Harding tried them; they worked when John F. Kennedy tried them; they worked when Ronald Reagan tried them; and yes, they worked when George W. Bush tried them.  And they even work when European countries try them.

And the fact that European countries such as Switzerland and Germany ARE trying tax cuts and finding that tax cuts ACTUALLY WORK, it in fact WILL BE HARDER for America to compete if we stay with Obama and keep demonizing the people who create jobs and invest in the companies that have the ability to expand and create more jobs.

Vile Liberal Baby-Killing Group Planned Parenthood Accused Of Filing 87,000 False Claims To Steal Taxpayer Money

March 12, 2012

For the record, this isn’t the first time liberal-loved Planned Parenthood has proven that liberals love stealing taxpayer money: In 2008, NJ and NY Planned Parenthood clinics were ordered to repay Medicaid $597,496 and $17,151,156 respectively. The New Jersey OIG case specifically cited claims with no supporting documentation for services provided.

Liberals have murdered 54 million innocent human beings in America.  But please don’t just call them murderers; they’re thieving murderers.

Planned Parenthood accused of 87,000 fake claims
Lawsuit cites possible damages approaching $1 billion
by Bob Unruh
March 10, 2012

A lawsuit alleging that Planned Parenthood submitted more than 87,000 fraudulent claims – and pointing out that there could be an $11,000-plus penalty for each case – has been unveiled in a Texas dispute by attorneys representing former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson.

The case alleges the nation’s abortion industry giant submitted “repeated false, fraudulent, and ineligible claims for Medicaid reimbursements” through the Texas Women’s Health Program.

“Americans deserve to know if their hard-earned tax money is being funneled to groups that are misusing it,” said Michael J. Norton, an ADF senior counsel. “No matter where a person stands on abortion, everyone should agree that Planned Parenthood has to play by the same rules as everyone else.

“It certainly isn’t entitled to a penny of public funds, especially if it is committing Medicaid fraud,” he said.

The case was filed originally under a federal law that allows “whistleblowers” with inside information to expose fraudulent billing by government contractors. By law, the cases are filed under seal and may not be made public while state and federal governments decide whether to join the action,

The case originally was filed in 2010 and names the Houston and Southeast Texas affiliate office of the abortion business.

Read Abby Johnson’s own story of her years inside the abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood.

Johnson is the former director of the Planned Parenthood business in Bryan/College Station. She is bringing the claims against Planned Parenthood under the Federal False Claims Act and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act.

She fled the abortion business after she was summoned to help with an abortion and watched on a monitor as the unborn child fought for his life, and then died.

The claim is that Planned Parenthood knowingly committed Medicaid fraud from 2007 to 2009 by improperly seeking reimbursements from the Texas Women’s Health Program for billings that were not legally reimbursable by that program.

Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas, now called Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, according to the lawsuit, “filed at least 87,075 false, fraudulent, or ineligible claims with the Texas Women’s Health Program.”

“As a result,” the ADF explained, “Planned Parenthood wrongfully received and retained reimbursements totaling more than $5.7 million.”

The ADF said the money pipeline for Planned Parenthood recently was closed, when the state adopted a law that bans the state’s Medicaid agency from contracting with “affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions.”

The case explains that “any person who knowingly submits or causes to be submitted a false or fraudulent claim to the government for payment or approval is liable for civil penalty up to $11,000 for each such claim submitted or paid, plus three times the amount of the damages sustained by the government..”

“Liability attaches both when a defendant knowingly seeks payment that is unwarranted from the government and when false records or statements are knowingly created or caused to be used to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money to the government.”

In the case paperwork, it is explained that while Johnson worked for Planned Parenthood, she was responsible for entering data about individual cases, and was “able to view all patient billing information, including insurance information, charges and payments.”

It was there she became “aware of the billing practices of Planned Parenthood as described herein.”

“In 2007, Planned Parenthood claims to have provided medical services and reproductive health services to individuals participating in 82,513 patient visits from which Planned Parenthood received program service revenue in the amount of $9,230,230. … A substantial amount of said revenue was earned by provision of medical services by Planned Parenthood billed to Medicaid and [women's health] programs and thus paid for by … the United States government and/or the state of Texas.

“On information and belief, in SFY2008, Planned Parenthood recived $1,950,669 in [women's health] reimbursements from the United States government and/or the state of Texas government for treating 9,029 patients with 66,687 procedures. In SFY2009, Planned Parenthood received $3,071,727…”

But the case alleges Planned Parenthood and its employees “combined, conspired, and agreed together and with each other to defraud the United States government and the state of Texas government by knowingly submitting and causing to be submitted …. false, fraudulent and/or ineligible claims.”

The case explains that was done by submitting claims for services that were not covered because the patients “were not seeking or receiving medical services for family planning…”

That, the lawsuit alleges, was done because Planned Parenthood officials ordered workers to “turn every call and visit into a revenue-generating client.”

“Planned Parenthood intiatied a scheme of fraudulent billing to offset its operating losses. This fraudulent billing was accomplished by assigning a fraudulent purpose for a patient visit that would otherwise be non-billable,” the case explains. “For example, a woman with an infection would not be eligible for a follow-up examination paid by WHP, since the exam must be with regard to family planning services, not general obstetrical care. … As instructed by Planned Parenthood, Ms. Johnson and others falsely notated the patient’s chart with services not, in fact, provided to the patient so as to create an otherwise non-reimbursable service into a reimbursable family planning product or service.”

The Planned Parenthood employee then would notify another employee, Stephanie Shetler, “of the false chart notation, and … Shetler would further document the fraud by making an additional false notation reflecting a family planning purpose, such as, ‘Discussed birth control with patient – patient decided to retain current method.’ Planned Parenthood’s center would then bill the examination [$300] to the WHP program, as well as non-family planning services provided in conjunction with the family planning examination.”

Johnson alleges that her supervisors acknowledged the improper billing, but then directed workers not to disclose that to the government.

The case also alleges Planned Parenthood rigged its books for audits and billed for services not provided. Officials told Johnson it was such a “hassle” to refund the money, they “try not to do that.”

Planned Parenthood previously has been accused in California of overbilling, and actually faces criminal charges in Kansas over its operations there. The abortion business claims over $1 billion in assets and yearly gets hundreds of millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers.

The Planned Parenthood office Houston did not respond to a WND request for comment.

Shocking that an organization founded by a Nazi could go wrong like this.

It’s too bad this garbage didn’t come out back when Komen for the Cure was taking hell for wanting to distance themselves from this toxic baby murdering organization.

Obama Administration Spews Documented Lies To Slander Gov. Rick Perry’s Education Record

August 23, 2011

Barack Obama is a very, very frightened man right now.  And a very small and petty one wbh:

Robert Scott calls out Arne Duncan (with good reason)
By Rodger Jones/Editorial Writer
5:58 PM on Fri., Aug. 19, 2011

Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s insult to Texas public education was a politically motivated distortion that doesn’t become a federal official in his position.

What a load this guy is.

We shouldn’t hear lies come out of the mouth of the nation’s top education official when he discusses the record of millions of students and dedicated educators.
People work too hard to have their work dismissed with his pathetic statement about feeling “very, very badly for the children there.”

TEA Commissioner Robert Scott emailed Duncan a sharp response last night (keep reading for text), and I’m glad he did.

The tipoff that Duncan doesn’t care about facts was his statement about “massive increases in class size in Texas” during Rick Perry’s time in the governor’s office.

Does that sound right to you — considering the fact that the 22-1 class-size cap has been in place that whole time for primary grades?

I checked TEA records on statewide class size averages. Primary grades held steady, of course, while most secondary class averages went down during the Perry years.

Examples: Secondary math classes averaged 20.3 students in 2000-01 and dropped to 18.5 by last year. Average size of secondary English/language arts classes fell from 20.2 students in 2000-01 to 17.8 by last year.

Anybody could look this stuff up. It’s right there on the TEA website. Duncan surely has a few thousand employees who could help him find it.

…Here is the email from Scott to Duncan:

Mr. Secretary,
I have read your recent comments criticizing Texas public education, and I am disappointed that you have never raised your concerns during any of our personal conversations. If you had, I may have been able to correct any misunderstanding you have about Texas public schools and the efforts of the 333,000 teachers and the 4.8 million students who have been striving to meet increasing standards and graduation requirements.

Your pity is misplaced and demeans the hard work that is taking place in schools across Texas. Texas students are doing very well and in many cases outperforming their national peers. Since you appear to be misinformed about the achievements of Texas educators and students I would ask that you consider the following information:

– In 2009, Texas ranked 7th in a 26 state comparison of the only states reporting four-year on-time graduation rates. That year Texas’ on-time graduation rate was 80.6%. The Texas on-time graduation rate for 2010 is now 84.3%, an amazing 3.7 percentage point increase in a single year on the dropout indicator that you are now requiring all states to report to the Department.
– Texas is ranked 13th in Ed Week’s Quality Counts report. Quality Counts gave Texas an “A” in “Standards, Assessment and Accountability,” and an “A” in “Transitions and Alignment” of the Texas system with college and career readiness. This year’s graduating class is the first to graduate under Texas’ required 4×4 graduation requirements (four years of math, science, English language arts and social studies) and we are already seeing great things from the class of 2011.

– The Texas class of 2011 posted a record-high math score on the ACT college entrance exam. The Texas average math score was 21.5 and was higher than the national average of 21.1. ACT scores from 2007 to 2011 showed increases in all four subjects.

– The 2009 NAEP Science results were impressive, as well. Texas’ African American eighth-grade students earned the highest score in the nation and our Hispanic eighth-grade students were eighth. Only eighth-grade students attending the Department of Defense schools scored higher than Texas’ white students who were tied with white students in Massachusetts. On the fourth-grade test, Texas’ African American students out-performed their peers in every state accept Virginia and those students attending Department of Defense Schools. Texas’ fourth-grade white students were ranked third behind only Virginia and Massachusetts.

– We are also a leader in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) education. Texas has established 59 STEM schools, 7 STEM professional development centers and is a leading state in creating a national STEM network of states that want to pursue STEM education reform. Texas’ STEM reform began in 2005, long before your administration decided to model this and other aspects of your reform agenda on the efforts that have been taking place in Texas for nearly a decade.

Finally, I’m not sure where you are getting your information regarding class sizes in Texas public schools. Texas is experiencing a four-year trend of class sizes getting smaller across the board in both elementary grades and in core subjects in high school. If you would like to see the actual data, I would be more than happy to provide it for you.

As you can see, Texas has a strong record, and I am proud of the accomplishments of Texas educators and students. It is clear that they have risen to the challenge of higher standards and expectations placed before them.

Rather than simply talking about education reform, Texas policy makers, educators and students have delivered. I look forward to seeing the student performance results of your efforts to centralize more control of public education in Washington, D.C.

Robert Scott
Commissioner of Education

Not a lot more to add to that, is there?

Other than to quote Joe Wilson again: “YOU LIE OBAMA!!!”

And shame, as usual, on the mainstream media propagandists for allowing Obama’s goon to advance lies as ‘facts’ on their network.

As Hysterical Democrats Attack Rick Perry On Poverty And Education, Hit Them In The Mouth With Bill Clinton’s Arkansas Record

August 19, 2011

Governor Rick Perry has created 43% OF ALL THE JOBS IN AMERICA and Democrats won’t give him any credit whatsoever.  Because there is simply something morally and intellectually wrong with them.

To put it slightly differently, RICK PERRY CREATED 43% OF ALL THE JOBS THAT BARACK OBAMA HAS BEEN CLAIMING CREDIT FOR, but when the governor whose state created all those jobs enters the race, those wonderful jobs suddenly became terrible jobs.  Again, because there’s something morally and intellectually wrong with Democrats.

You have to laugh when shrill and frightened Democrats attribute the oil and gas industry for all the jobs that Perry created.  WHY DON’T THEY CONSIDER THE FACT THAT OBAMA HAS DONE EVERYTHING HE COULD TO DESTROY THOSE JOBS AND THAT INDUSTRY???  I mean, consider what Obama is trying to do to the oil industry as we speak.  It amounts to the insane argument that Rick Perry only created all those jobs because he’s not trying to destroy jobs the way Obama has.

Further, Democrats seriously need to get their lies straight.  One Democrat says Perry got all his job creation from the few oil jobs Obama couldn’t destroy.  Another Democrat says Perry got all his job creation from California’s liberal purge on businesses which then relocated to Texas to have a chance at success.  At some point Democrats are going to have to get together and decide which massive Democrat failure to blame on Perry’s huge success.

What might be most fascinating of all is how Democrats are rabidly refusing to give Governor Rick Perry any credit whatsoever for CREATING 51.5 PERCENT OF THE NET JOB GROWTH IN AMERICA while simultaneously blaming him completely for absolutely every single problem Texas has.  The same Rick Perry who deserves no credit whatsoever for all the good things that he “stumbled onto” should be blamed for every structural problem that Texas has dating back to 1846.

The big two attacks from the left against Perry center on Texas’ poverty and its ranking on education.

Take a look at this interactive map on poverty in the United States.  Texas ranks 9th in poverty.  But look at the states all around Texas: Louisiana ranks THIRD in poverty; New Mexico ranks fourth; Arkansas ranks fifth; Mississippi ranks first. Poverty and education are longstanding regional problems in the South Central United States that have existed for as long as America has been America.  They were problems when LBJ was in Texas; they were problems when Bill Clinton was in Arkansas.

In other words, unless Democrats are out lambasting Bill Clinton for his failed Arkansas policies, it is simply nothing short of hypocritical for them to go after Rick Perry for the same sort of “failures.”  Especially when they are at the same time hypocritically ignoring and trying to explain away Perry’s spectacular success at job-creation.

This is from the August 1, 1992 Los Angeles Times:

The Charge: The Bush campaign said on Friday that Gov. Bill Clinton “has made grand, false claims about the ineffective Arkansas welfare program he supervises. . . . After Clinton’s 12 years in office, Arkansas now suffers a state-welfare bureaucracy whose administrative costs have ballooned by 3,000% since 1983, and poverty that places the state at or near the bottom of the country in nearly every meaningful categoryA full 19.8% of all Arkansas residents live below the poverty line–up from 19% in 1980.”

The Response: The Clinton campaign contends that despite a slight increase in the poverty rate in Arkansas, the state compares favorably to surrounding states. “In the last decade, Texas had an increase (in poverty) of 12.2%, Oklahoma 13.3% and Louisiana 26.3%. The numbers are a testimony to our ability to hold the line on poverty,” the campaign said.

Okay.  So let’s praise Bill Clinton and revile Rick Perry.

And here’s a quote about Clinton’s educational “reforms”:

“In hindsight, however, just about all of those high-profile moves were cosmetic, superficial endeavors that didn’t begin to tackle the underlying problems and were quickly weakened or undone. For example, the state’s first set of statewide curricular standards – called course content guides – were developed in the 1980s but rapidly proved to be inadequate” (Education Reform In Arkansas: Past and Present, pg 35).

Democrats cheered wildly when Bill Clinton – who presided over an Arkansas that was the FOURTH poorest state in the nation and the FOURTH worst in the nation in terms of its hight school graduation rate – was elected president.  And that is simply dishonest of them.

Rick Perry is doing better in Texas than Bill Clinton did in Arkansas in terms of both poverty and education.  And then combine that with “the Texas miracle” of job creation, and Rick Perry sure looks a lot better than Democrats want to admit.

Want To Know How To Balance The Budget And Have Full Employment? Ask Republicans Who Are DOING It

July 18, 2011

Nebraska, a state governed by Republican conservative Dave Heineman.

First there’s the unemployment rate of 4.1%.  Second lowest in the entire nation (behind fellow Republican state North Dakota, for what that’s worth):

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Authorities say Nebraska’s unemployment rate dropped to 4.1 percent in May, a drop of a tenth of a point from April’s 4.2 percent.

Then there’s the fact that this Republican state has a balanced budget.  And how did it balance the budget and get low unemployment?

[M]aybe there is something Washington can learn from Nebraska. How did Nebraska, with an estimated budget shortfall of almost $1 billion November 2010, get to a unanimous decision May 2011 and approve a balanced biennial budget of $6.9 billion?  A balanced budget that does not raise taxes and leaves nearly $300 million in the state’s cash reserves.

Some might presume that life is difficult for Nebraskans, what with their state government required to balance the budget and not allowed to borrow.  Actually Nebraska  is ranked #10 by Lifestyle Statistics, it was 3rd in top jobs behind North Dakota and Texas, and to top it off, the unemployment rate for Nebraska is 4.1%.

How did it happen? Strong leadership. A state constitution that requires a balanced budget and doesn’t allow for borrowing. Tough decisions made during tough times, not delayed.  Priorities identified. Discussions. Debates. Negotiations…and the use of a red line.

An interesting quote from Gov. Dave Heineman occurs midway through this snippet from an article entitled, “Caterpillar Threatens To Leave Illinois Over Taxes“:

“If Illinois doesn’t want your business, Texas does,” wrote Rick Perry, the governor of that state.

The governor of Nebraska, Dave Heineman, wrote: “In Nebraska, we balance our budget by controlling spending, not by raising taxes.”

An official in the South Dakota governor’s office chimed in: “In South Dakota, you make a profit, and you keep your profit.”

The Illinois tax increase will cost Caterpillar’s 23,000 employees in the state about $40 million this year, said Jim Dugan, the company’s chief spokesman. Higher taxes make it harder for Caterpillar to attract and retain engineers, accountants and other employees, Dugan said. He added that Caterpillar’s corporate taxes in the state also will increase but provided no estimate on the added cost.

“The state unfortunately continues to put off the tough decisions” about potential reductions in government spending and pension costs, Dugan said. He said Caterpillar was offering to advise the governor on cost-cutting based on the company’s own experience chopping pay and laying off workers during the 2008-09 recession

First, liberal Democrat Illinois is a hellhole.  And that’s because Democrats own that state.  Some interesting figures: 4 out of the last 7 governors of Illinois are convicted felons.  It’s government union pension program is the biggest disaster in the nation.  It’s major city Chicago is so filled with gang violence that even Democrats have been pleading for the National Guard to come in.  And, if that isn’t bad enough, Democrats are so dishonest that they just altered their congressional map to undo the clear will of the people.  That’s what Democrats bring.

All over the nation we’ve got cities that have voted Democrat for a hundred years.  And they are all hell holes.  While a jackass is in many ways an accurate symbol of what it means to be a Democrat, it would really be far more fitting if the symbol of the Democrat Party was a black hole surrounded by the white-hot fires of hell.  Because “Democrat” is really a portmanteau for “Demonic Bureaucrat.”  And hell is what demonic bureaucrats invariably bring.  Along with socialism and totalitarian control.

And with that said, did someone say Texas?  Did someone say Rick Perry?  Oh, that’s right, I haven’t talked about Texas and Republican Rick Perry yet.

From a liberal writing in the Los Angeles Times:

For the last few weeks, I’ve been unable to get a startling statistic out of my head: Since the recession officially ended, Texas has created more than 4 of every 10 new jobs in America.

That’s right, Texas: the reddest of red states, home to gun lovers and school textbooks that openly question whether the Founding Fathers intended for the separation of church and state. I am no ideologue. Still, whenever I get political, I tend to tilt reflexively to the left, making the jobs figure a bit disconcerting at first.

But there’s no escaping it. The number is real. Which means that if you care about putting people back to work at a time when nearly 14 million in this country are unemployed, maybe Texas has something to teach us.

[...]

According to the Dallas Fed, Texas generated 43% of the net new jobs in the U.S. from June 2009 through May 2011 — an enormous share when you consider that the Lone Star State accounts for about 8% of the nation’s economy.

So let’s see.  Nebraksa is flyover country as far as liberals are concerned; they prefer their completely failed major metropolitan areas that their completely failed polices have turned into complete failures for a good solid century.  But Nebraska – with it’s 4.1% unemployment rate (second only to ANOTHER state governed by Republicans) and it’s balanced budget – has the last laugh.  It’s kind of like that “Annoy a Liberal – Work hard and be happy” bumper sticker – only with a whole entire STATE.  If you want to try to weasel your way out of contemplating Nebraska’s success by arguing that it’s a small state and it’s low tax, spend-on-a-budget ways wouldn’t translate to a large state, let’s consider Texas and the 43% of ALL U.S. JOBS it has created, instead.

Basically no matter how you slice it, conservatives rule and liberals drool.

We’re coming upon a major decision: do we want four more years of the hellhole of God damn America, or do we want to pursue the economic policies that actually have the advantage of WORKING???

[Update:] Oh, my goodness, I forgot to point out that – after all the unhinged rabid liberal HATE that came out in Wisconsin – Governor Scott Walker was able to sign a balanced budget with no business-hostile tax increases.

Hey, ‘Republicans Drove Us Into A Ditch’ Liberals, Put THIS Into Your Pipe and Smoke It: Conservative Economic Principles RULE In Texas

July 5, 2011

This isn’t a piece by conservative Jonah Goldberg saying what all conservatives already know.  This is a piece by a self-identified liberal writing in the Los Angeles Times acknowledging a FACT that is frankly the death knell of liberal economic policy.

43% of ALL jobs created in the United States since June of 2009 have come from a conservative state that represents 8% of the national economy.  And Barack Obama has taken credit for every single one of them even as he demonizes the policies that actually produced all of those jobs.

Now, notice how this liberal tries to give credit to the most successful job-engine in America, and then steal that credit away from the conservatives and the conservative policies that brought that job-engine about.

Texas, the jobs engine
Conservatives hail it and liberals dispute the story, but one thing is certain about the Lone Star State’s employment success: The number is real.

By Rick Wartzman
July 3, 2011

For the last few weeks, I’ve been unable to get a startling statistic out of my head: Since the recession officially ended, Texas has created more than 4 of every 10 new jobs in America.

That’s right, Texas: the reddest of red states, home to gun lovers and school textbooks that openly question whether the Founding Fathers intended for the separation of church and state. I am no ideologue. Still, whenever I get political, I tend to tilt reflexively to the left, making the jobs figure a bit disconcerting at first.

But there’s no escaping it. The number is real. Which means that if you care about putting people back to work at a time when nearly 14 million in this country are unemployed, maybe Texas has something to teach us.

Unfortunately, that’s not the posture many commentators have taken. Instead, when the data from Texas emerged — touted first by Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas — conservatives were quick to celebrate, embracing the jobs tally as powerful evidence of the superiority of Republican ideas as well as proof that Texas Gov. Rick Perry would make a good president. But that’s overly simplistic [me: yeah, that's right.  Let's keep re-analyzing this until we somehow we make it a victory for Obama liberalism in spite of the fact that Republicans have been running this state at every single political level].

Meanwhile, those on the liberal end of the spectrum immediately set out to shoot the numbers down. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, for instance, held up a giant bologna and mocked the notion of a “Texas miracle.” That view, however, is too cavalier.  [Me: yeah, you've got a better way to steal credit from conservatives, don't you, Wartzman?].

So what’s actually happening?

First, the basics. According to the Dallas Fed, Texas generated 43% of the net new jobs in the U.S. from June 2009 through May 2011 — an enormous share when you consider that the Lone Star State accounts for about 8% of the nation’s economy. (Critics, including Maddow, have been quick to note that the unemployment rate in Texas, at 8%, falls in the middle of the pack among the states. Yet total employment is a much more telling and reliable statistic than is the jobless rate.)

Aspects of the Texas economy are unusual, if not unique, and it will be difficult or impossible for other states to replicate them. For example, the energy industry is booming right now, as are agricultural commodities destined for export — a boon for a huge cotton and beef producer like Texas. [Me: Let's simply ignore the fact that MANY states have abundant oil resources, but THOSE states are refusing to drill for them because they have a particularly nasty species of vermin called "liberals" running them.  Meanwhile, Democrats in California have gutted what had been the most productive agricultural region in the entire world by shutting off their water and protecting a stupid little fish.  It's as if the other states are cutting their own throats and then pointing out that Texas is only doing so well because it hasn't cut it's own throat too].

What’s more, thorny tradeoffs surely exist. Texas is attracting businesses, in part, because it has low taxes. But that, in turn, makes for a smaller safety net, which is one reason Texas has a high incidence of poverty and, compared with every other state, the biggest proportion of its population without health insurance. There are also serious questions about the quality of jobs in Texas. A “right to work” state, it is tied with Mississippi for having the biggest percentage of workers paid at or below the minimum wage.  [Me: I'd rather have a job and make my own way than live off of a welfare state paid by other people's money until the safety net collapsed.  But that's just me.  This amounts to another way of saying, 'Yes, Texas is creating all the jobs; but we want socialism in America, not jobs.  Aside from that, the data shows that Texas shares higher poverty rates with every single other state in the southern region (which shows that poverty is a problem with the entire region rather than a problem with Texas).  But hey, we have to bash Texas for being successful, right?  You need to understand something: Democrats don't give a DAMN about creating jobs; they only care about leftwing UNION jobs, as what's going on in South Carolina over a Boeing plant amply demonstrates].

But even with these significant caveats, Texas has long been the most robust jobs engine in the country, and its policies and practices deserve deeper reflection. Some say, for example, that an increase in education funding 25 years ago lifted the quality of the workforce. “That set the table for job expansion,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist Mitchell Schnurman has asserted. (Budget pressures in Texas are now forcing education spending to go in the other direction.).  [Me: you heard right; let's give all the credit to what Democrats did 25 years ago so we don't have to give any credit at all to what Republicans have done ever since.  Because liberals must always get the credit no matter how far back you have to go to do it; and conversely, conservatives must always get the blame no matter how far back you have to go to do it].

Also deserving of further exploration are the strict lending guidelines that Texas banks instituted after the S&L crisis of the 1980s. Those standards spurred institutions to keep larger capital reserves and take on fewer problem mortgages than were seen elsewhere in the country. As a result, the state emerged relatively unscathed from the most recent real estate meltdown.  [Me: this is an quick reference to the Democrat-imposed Fannue and Freddie subprime lending policies that were supposed to make home ownership a right for minorities who couldn't repay their loans.  George Bush tried to reform these policies 17 times, but Democrats - who ran both the House and the Senate when our economy crashed - would have none of these common-sense Republican reforms.  Fortunately conservative Texas passed their own laws to protect them from the Community Reinvestment Act and all the other Democrat horrors].

At the same time — and this, of course, is the tough part for those on the left to swallow — it is clear that the state’s limits on taxes, regulations and lawsuits are contributing to the job machine. “The most important thing I think that’s happened to us is tort reform,” Fisher, the Dallas Fed president, has said. He added that when John Deere and other companies have decided to hire in Texas, they’ve been largely driven by steps the state has taken to cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits and to make it harder to bring product liability and class-action cases.

For those whose knee-jerk instinct is to dump on such logic, they would do well here to consider the source. Fisher served in President Carter’s Treasury Department and as a high-ranking trade official for President Clinton, and was a two-time Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. Although the former investment banker is certainly not an ardent leftie, he is no right-wing zealot either.

To be sure, Texas is not without lots of problems. And its remarkable employment growth is not without attendant concerns. But for those on the left to dismiss the state’s jobs story out of hand, just because Republicans have embraced it as a showpiece, is counterproductive and foolish.

Counterproductiveness and foolishness are two of the three hallmarks that define the left.  Hypocrisy is the third.

A lot of Californians are whining about the fact that many “Texas jobs” came at California’s expense.  And the whiny liberals are right; many of those employers DID escape from the liberal hellhole known as the People’s Soviet State of California.  But here’s the question: do you want America to be more like California – which among other things features a $500 billion black hole of economic death known as unfunded liabilities from state union pensions - or do you want a job?  Do you want a demagogic excuse for why all the jobs are going elsewhere, or do you want a job?  Do you want to sit on your fat pimply sweaty ass living on welfare until the system crashes and you starve to death, or do you want a system that actually produces something?

If you want the former vote for Obama, vote for Democrats, and then go to hell when you die.  If you want the latter, for God’s sakes, please vote for the Republicans who  are actually creating jobs in America.

Democrats look back at 2008 and blame “failed Republican policies.”  Basically, all they have to point at is the fact that George Bush was president when it happened.  They ignore the fact that Democrats had total control of the House and near total control of the Senate for nearly two years prior to the disaster happening.  They claim that Republicans refusing to regulate was what created the mess.  They ignore the fact that Democrats REPEATEDLY refused ANY regulation whatsover of Fannie and Freddie which had overwhelming control of the housing market that actually caused the meltdown.  Look at the actual facts:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/aei-article-how-fannie-and-freddie-blew-up-the-economy/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/barney-frank-and-democrat-party-most-responsible-for-2008-economic-collapse/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/barney-frank-video-proves-democrats-at-core-of-2008-economic-collapse/

http://hennessysview.com/business/franklin-raines-criminal-enterprise-and-barack-obama-his-accomplice/

http://politicsorpoppycock.com/2008/09/28/franks-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-financial-fiasco/

The last link above refers to a Boston Herald story which has since been scrubbed.  It’s amazing how articles that taint Democrats have a way of “vanishing.”  It’s one of the reasons I blog.  I want to preserve the record of what actually happened to this country.

All this to say that Democrats had a false demagogic narrative based on lies.

But the American people bought those lies in 2008.  And Democrats had dictatorial control of the White House, the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof Senate for nearly two full years.  And they took their same failed policies which led to the economic collapse of 2008 and expanded them.  And they promised Americans that their godawful stimulus would work.  It not only failed; it completely failed even by the Obama White House’s own constantly-shifting standards.  And it cost us $3.27 TRILLION we didn’t have.

Now, amazingly, the fact that the president happens to be a Democrat – and the fact that that Democrat took bad news and made it far worse – no longer matters.  Now Democrats want to say that it’s the Republicans – who only control the House of Representatives – are blocking economic progress.  Even though it DIDN’T matter that Nancy Pelosi was running the House of Representatives into the ground in 2007 and 2008.  To go along with Harry Reid doing the same thing during the same time period in the US Senate.

Democrats don’t run on facts; they run on demagoguery.  Remember that the man who led Texas into the job-creating machine that it is not only has nothing to do with George Bush, he actually didn’t like Bush as a big spending and compromising “compassionate conservative.”  Because Democrats and their mainstream media propagandists are already starting to tell the demagogic lie that Rick Perry is somehow identical to George Bush simply because the two men were governors of the same state.

Remember This When Democrats Try To Morph Gov. Rick Perry Into A Clone Of George W. Bush

July 1, 2011

The Wall Street Journal has already reported that their inside sources say that Governor Rick Perry of Texas will run for president this year.  And I hope he does.  His record of having created 38% of all the jobs in the entire NATION since Obama’s “recovery” began will make this proven leader a very compelling candidate.

He will immediately head to the top of my list if he runs.  And nothing would make me more exited than to see him select Michelle Bachmann for his VP.

That said, I’ve already heard how the Democrat Party and the mainstream media intend to attack Perry and Bachmann.  In both cases, they will do everything they can to link these two candidates to other favorite liberal bogeymen.

For Michelle Bachmann, why, she’s just like Sarah Palin.  They’ve already tried to use the EXACT same narrative to demean her.  Like Palin, Bachmann is “Barbie with fangs.”

For Rick Perry, why, he’s from Texas.  And isn’t that the same state that George W. Bush came from?  And therefore isn’t Rick Perry just another George Bush?  And of course the American people are tired of having their presidents come from Texas.

As ridiculous and factually wrong as this line of “reasoning” is, it appears to be the Democrats’ primary campaign against Perry.

I said “factually wrong” because it is just plain factually wrong.  Not that that ever stopped Democrats before.

The LA Times sub-title says, “despite obvious similararities”  in its comparison of Perry and Bush.  Let’s look at how much they manage to back up these “similarities.”  In the entire half page article, this was the sum total of “differences”: “The two share some characteristics, sometimes unnervingly so. They have similar accents, the same cowboy gait and many of the same mannerisms.”  AND THAT’S IT.  Read it for yourself if you don’t believe me.

The rest of the article is ALL difference, and it’s what makes all the difference.  So with that said, see what completely different men these two truly are:

Rick Perry has a history of acrimony with George W. Bush
As he considers a presidential run, some have tried to tie the Texas governor to his predecessor. Despite obvious similarities, their considerable differences have left a lingering hostility between the two men.
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times
June 30, 2011

Reporting from Austin, Texas— Rick Perry was in Iowa three years ago, talking up a favored candidate, when the subject turned to George W. Bush, the president and a fellow Republican who preceded Perry as Texas governor.

Bush, or “George,” as Perry called him, was no fiscal conservative — “never was” — and his work on tort reform, a subject dear to Republican hearts, paled next to Perry’s achievements, the governor said.

“I mean, ’95, ’97, ’99,” Perry went on, elaborately ticking the years off on his fingers, “George Bush was spending money!”

Those are fighting words among Republicans — especially Texas Republicans, who pride themselves on their stinginess — and even more so to Bush loyalists who, years later, still simmer over Perry’s off-the-cuff remarks. (How dare he slap the president like that, the Bush faithful fume, and refer to the leader of the free world as George!)

If Perry runs for president, his critics hope to tie him to Bush and those who delivered the self-assured Texan from Austin to the Oval Office.

“Is America ready for a president who was George W. Bush’s lieutenant governor, who was George W. Bush’s successor as governor … and who, like George W. Bush, was also a Karl Rove puppet?” taunts Garry South, a Democratic consultant, referring to Bush’s strategist.

But that jibe ignores what has been, at best, a cool relationship between Bush and Perry, and a lingering hostility between their top political advisors.

The two share some characteristics, sometimes unnervingly so. They have similar accents, the same cowboy gait and many of the same mannerisms. But the two come from starkly different backgrounds, approach politics in utterly different fashions and even draw their support from different parts of the GOP. It is the difference, said a campaign consultant who has worked with both, between Yale and Texas A&M, between Phillips Academy Andover and Paint Creek High School.

To a certain upper crust of Republican, “Perry is the low-rent country cousin” who lacks Bush’s prep-school polish, said R.G. Ratcliffe, a longtime student of Texas politics who is writing a book about Perry. “They see him as a hick and are embarrassed having someone like that as governor.”

Privately, the former president has spoken of his successor as a political lightweight and someone not all that bright. Perry scoffs behind closed doors at Bush’s privileged background and popularity among country-club Republicans, suggesting the New England native is a faux Texan.

Perry’s story is the kind of up-by-his-bootstraps saga that Bush might have scripted for himself, had he been able.

He grew up in West Texas, in a farm town so small it literally was not on the state map until Perry, as governor, put it there. Life was austere; Perry was 6 before the family had indoor plumbing. His mother sewed his clothes, including the underwear Perry wore to college.

He graduated from Texas A&M with a degree in animal science, joined the Air Force, then returned to farming. On a whim he ran for state Legislature in 1984, as a Democrat, and won.

In 1990, under Rove’s tutelage, Perry switched parties and was elected agriculture commissioner. Eight years later, Perry ran for lieutenant governor. By then, Rove was working for Bush; the conflict between their political camps grew out of that year’s races.

Bush had been elected governor in 1994, and was already eyeing a run for president. Facing a weak opponent, he wanted to win reelection overwhelmingly and lift his numbers among blacks and Latinos to show crossover appeal. Perry faced the state’s popular Democratic controller, John Sharp, and had a much tougher time. The Bush and Perry teams squabbled over polling, voter targeting and the hard-edged tone of Perry’s campaign.

In the end, Bush won by 1.4 million votes. Perry scratched out victory by fewer than 70,000. Afterward, there were harsh words; today Rove and Dave Carney, a top Perry strategist, are bitter foes.

Perry took over as governor when Bush resigned to become president. (He did nothing to improve relations by hastening the Bush family’s exit from their living quarters.)

Both men hewed to the tenets of Texas Republicanism: low taxes, small government and limited regulation. But Bush prided himself on his ability to work with Democrats, while Perry took a much more partisan approach.

Bush also showed a greater willingness to spend on programs, especially education, with potential long-term benefits. Perry, by contrast, has cut billions from public education to help balance the state budget.

The governor has little use for the philosophy Bush dubbed “compassionate conservatism.” At a recent foray to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, he told a cheering crowd that conservatives should “stand up” and “stop apologizing” for their beliefs.

Perry has long been a favorite of Christian conservatives, embracing their issues with a zeal Bush lacked. He also has strong support in the “tea party” movement; Perry was at a local rally in 2009 when he broached the prospect of his state seceding from the union, a statement he later disavowed.

More recently, Perry used an emergency session of the Legislature to push for tighter restrictions on abortion and legislation to criminalize aggressive airport searches. The pat-down bill died Wednesday.

To supporters, Perry’s move demonstrated a fealty to fundamental principles, not least reining in what they consider the overly obtrusive federal government. To critics, including some in the Bush camp, it was another case of showmanship triumphing over substance.

For all of that, however, Carney said accounts of a Bush-Perry spat are overblown.

“They’re different people, bringing different experiences and philosophies to the process,” Carney said. “But they’re not at odds. That’s a silly, overblown urban myth that’s developed a life of its own.”

But last year’s gubernatorial contest was telling. Perry was bidding for an unprecedented third term. His opponent, in an unusual primary challenge, was U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Rove served as a Hutchison advisor, along with other Bush loyalists. Bush’s father, former President George H.W. Bush, endorsed Hutchison. (George W. Bush stayed neutral.) Even so, Perry came from far behind and not only beat Hutchison, but did so overwhelmingly.

Carney insists there are no hard feelings. If Perry decides to run for president, he said, he will not focus on his Republican rivals or the governor he followed in office.

“[President] Obama is the person we’re trying to defeat,” Carney said. “That’s what Republicans are looking for.”

Since I believe that Gov. Perry WILL run, and since I believe we’ve already seen the “Bush III” attack that will be used against him, it seemed to me that this article would be worth preserving.  I have learned from hard experience that liberal newspapers have a bizarre tendency to conveniently purge their archives of stories like this one.

Perry and Bush not only have gigantic differences between them, not only do they come from completely different set of key supporters, not only do they have vastly different visions of what it means to be “conservative,” but Perry’s clear disdain for many of Bush’s policies would make a comparison of the two completely off limits if either the Democrat Party or the mainstream media that serve as the propagandists for the Democrat Party were honest.  Only, of course, they aren’t honest, are they?

If Perry enters the race, you can bet that we’ll start seeing him “morphed” into George W. Bush.  Becuase George W. Bush is the “Emmanuel Goldstein” of the Democrat Party.  Democrats keep saying that George Bush was the one who drove the economy into a ditch.  And so, if Rick Perry is George Bush, he’ll do the same thing.  The fact that that is completely wrong, and the fact that Rick Perry has created 40% of the ENTIRE NATION’S new jobs, won’t matter to these lying demagogues.

Just remember they will be abject liars when they do it.  And that even the liberal Los Angeles Times recognized that it would be a lie in the body of its story about the so-called “similarities.”

One of the things that I’ve found about mainstream media is that they often WILL report a story that favors a conservative.  The major difference is that, when it favors the conservaitve, they will cover it once and drop it.  And that story just goes away.  But if if HURTS conservatives or favors liberals, they will run such stories again and again and again.

Don’t forget what the Los Angeles Times said about Rick Perry being a completely different candidate than George W. Bush.

Most Liberal State New York Is THE LEAST FREE IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY (Now Let’s Talk About Texas…)

June 15, 2011

This is what Democrats want for the entire country:

Slaves of New York
State is dead last in liberties
By CARL CAMPANILE
Posted: 1:16 AM, June 14, 2011

Unshackle New York!

New York’s notoriously high taxes and public spending, combined with restrictive “nanny” policies, make it the “least free” state in the country, a new study has found.

The Empire State ranked 50th in George Mason University’s biannual “Freedom in the States” rankings.

“New York has by far the highest taxes in the country,” the study reads, citing steep levies on property, income and corporations compared to other states.

The high taxes, in turn, fuel massive spending, according to the analysis by George Mason’s Mercatus Center, a libertarian think tank.

“Spending on public welfare, hospitals, electric power, transit, employee retirement . . . are well above national norms,” concludes the report, which covers the 2007-through-2009 period.

Ranking worst in the categories of economic freedom and fiscal policy, New York also landed near the bottom for the categories of personal freedom (48th) and regulatory policy (40th).

The study cites New York’s restrictive gun-control and anti-smoking laws and sky-high cigarette taxes and the Big Apple’s ban on trans fats.

The researchers also slam New York’s “excessive” home-schooling regulations and its strictest-in-the-nation health-insurance rules.

The authors rap New York for curbing the rights of individual property owners. “Eminent domain abuse,” the report says, “is rampant and unchecked.”

On the plus side, the report praises New York for relaxing its marijuana laws.

Co-author Jason Sorens said New York has the opportunity to improve its freedom rating, thanks to actions taken this year by Gov. Cuomo and the state Legislature.

“Cuomo insisted on balancing the budget through spending cuts rather than tax increases. It will help New York’s rating down the road,” said Sorens, a political-science professor at the University of Buffalo.

Sorens also said New York could move out of the cellar with across-the-board tax cuts and additional trims in spending and by reining in home-school regulations.

And he said New York will score significant points if Albany passes a law to legalize gay marriage, which he considers an advancement of personal freedoms.

“The most liberal state in the country can surely find the political will to legalize same-sex partnerships of some kind,” he said.

But for now, Sorens said, New York is a “nanny state” and “the least free state”

Joining New York near the bottom of the list are Massachusetts, Hawaii, California, and New Jersey.

The top five “freedom” states are New Hampshire, whose motto is fittingly “Live Free or Die,” South Carolina, Indiana, Idaho and Missouri.

It is no wonder that young people dream of fleeing New York the way young people used to dream of fleeing the communist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:

New Yorkers under 30 plan to flee city, says new poll; cite high taxes, few jobs as reasons
BY KENNETH LOVETT
DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF
Friday, May 13, 2011

ALBANY – Escape from New York is not just a movie – it’s also a state of mind.

A new Marist College poll shows that 36% of New Yorkers under the age of 30 are planning to leave New York within the next five years – and more than a quarter of all adults are planning to bolt the Empire State.

The New York City suburbs, with their high property values and taxes, are leading the exodus, the poll found.

Of those preparing to leave, 62% cite economic reasons like cost of living, taxes – and a lack of jobs.

“A lot of people are questioning the affordability of the state,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

An additional 38% cite climate, quality of life, overcrowding, a desire to be closer to family, retirement or schools.

The latest census showed New York’s overall population actually increased, though parts of upstate shed population and jobs.

A full 53% think the worst is yet to come for the state’s economy, while 44% say things should start improving.

And why is this exodus going on?

Because liberals run New York, and liberals are fascists.  And most people can’t WAIT to get away from this cancer on freedom and democracy:

For more than 15 years, New York state has led the country in domestic outmigration: For every American who comes here, roughly two depart for other states. This outmigration slowed briefly following the onset of the Great Recession. But a recent Marist poll suggests that the rate is likely to increase: 36 percent of New Yorkers under 30 plan to leave over the next five years. Why are all these people fleeing?

For one thing, according to a recent survey in Chief Executive, our state has the second-worst business climate in the country. (Only California ranks lower.) People go where the jobs are, so when a state repels businesses, it repels residents, too.

Indeed, the poll also found that 62 percent of New Yorkers planning to leave cited economic factors — including cost of living (30 percent), taxes (19 percent) and the job environment (10 percent) — as the main reason.

Upstate, a big part of the problem is extraordinarily high property taxes. New York has the country’s 15 highest-taxed counties, including Nassau and Westchester, which rank Nos. 1 and 2.

Most of the property tax goes toward paying the state’s Medicaid bill — which is unlikely to diminish, since the state’s most powerful lobby, the alliance of the hospital workers’ union and hospital management, has gone unchallenged by our new governor, Andrew Cuomo.

Of course, people shouldn’t be allowed to leave.  People who try to leave should be shot.  New York bureaucrats should follow other the examples of other commissars and build walls with barbed wire and machine gun nests to keep the proletariet in their proper places.

And, of course, if you make the ENTIRE NATION  like New York – which is exactly what Barry Hussein is trying to do – there will be no place left to flee to.

Meanwhile, conservative Texas is gaining enormously in population, and nearly forty percent of every single job created in the country the last two years was created in the state of Texas.

So just keep telling us about “failed Republican policies” while touting all your successes, you demonic liberal liars.

Proof That Republican Economic Policies Work Just FINE: Conservative-Friendly Texas Created 38% Of ALL U.S. Jobs In 2010

June 10, 2011

How’s THIS for a record to run for president on?

CNBC EXCERPTS: RICHARD FISHER, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS PRESIDENT AND CEO ON CNBC’S “SQUAWK BOX” TODAY
Published: Tuesday, 7 Jun 2011 | 10:51 AM ET Text Size By: Jennifer Dauble

[....]

FISHER ON CREATING RULES:

“WE’VE GOT TO CREATE RULES AND REGULATIONS HERE THAT ATTRACT CAPITAL AS WELL AS DEAL WITH OUR UNFUNDED LIABILITIES OUR DEFICIT PROBLEMS AND SO ON, JUST AS TEXAS HAS MANAGED TO DO SO RELATIVE TO OTHER STATES IN THE UNITED STATES.”

[...]

FISHER ON TEXAS JOBS:

“SINCE THE RECOVERY BEGAN, 38 PERCENT OF ALL JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA HAVE BEEN CREATED IN TEXAS, AND TEXAS IS BACK UP, IN FACT MY 11TH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT OF TEXAS, PARTS OF LOUISIANA, PARTS OF NEW MEXICO; OBVIOUSLY 96 PERCENT OF THAT PRODUCTION AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE IN TEXAS OF MY DISTRICT- HAS MORE EMPLOYMENT NOW THAN IT HAD WHEN THE CRISIS BEGAN.”

Obama and the Democrats have relied on a demagogic narrative that Republican policies failed and Democrats offer “hopey changey” for the last three years of what is now an increasingly obviously failed presidency.  The fact that it couldn’t be more false doesn’t stop them from telling and retelling the liberal fairy tale over and over and over again to a wide-eyed mainstream media and anyone else fool enough to believe them.

The difference between California (liberal Democrat) and Texas (conservative Republican) are the difference between long dark hopeless night and bright sunny optimistic morning.  Take for example restaurant chain Carl’s Junior:

Carl’s Jr. chief downplays Texas talk
Written by Henry Dubroff
Wednesday, 02 February 2011

CKE Restaurants CEO Andy Puzder sees advantages in moving the company’s headquarters from Carpinteria to Texas, but a move is not imminent, he told The Business Times.

In a Feb. 2 telephone interview from Houston, where he is looking at the  company’s fast-growing Carl’s Jr. operation, Puzder said he paid a  visit to Texas Gov. Rick Perry earlier in the week and discussed the  company’s growth in the Lone Star State.

But he said that CKE, the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardees,  won’t break its lease in Carpinteria or abandon the headquarters in the  near term. “We love California and we’d love to stay,” said Puzder. “Our  heart and soul is in California.”

But Puzder said that long delays in opening stores, California’s  byzantine rules on overtime pay and high personal income taxes could  make a move inevitable. “We feel more like we’re being pushed out,” he  said, adding that “economics may compel us to do so.”

CKE has been growing rapidly in Texas, where it now has 40 restaurants  and expects to have 300 by the end of the decade; in comparison, it has  700 stores in California. “The growth of this company is in Texas, and  the real big question for this company is, where are your restaurants  and where is the growth?” Puzder said.

Puzder also said that Californians leaving the state for jobs and  entrepreneurial opportunities in Texas are part of the reason for its  fast growth in that state. Carl’s Jr.’s brand familiarity is so high in  Texas that the two most recent store openings in the state, including a  unit in Houston, set records for revenue. “Jobs and consumers are in  Texas,” Puzder said. “Our customers beat us here.”

And, yes, CKE moved its operations to Texas.

And yes, a LOT of Californians have beaten them to the Lone Star State.  I showed previously the difference in cost between renting a truck to move from California to Texas versus moving from Texas to California.  At that time, it cost $900 to move from Texas to California, versus $3,000 to go the other way, because all the moving trucks were already in Texas.  That’s a 233 percent difference.

Which matches a national trend, as people are forced to move out of failed blue states to successful red states.

Thanks to the failure of liberalism.

Here’s some of the specific reasons why liberalism fails at job creation from another article:

Carl’s Jr. chewed up by California, Moving Corp HQ to Texas

[...]

Indeed, CKE Restaurants, parent of Carl’s Jr., is likely to move its headquarters from Carpinteria, near Ventura, to Texas and is undergoing a rapid expansion of restaurants in the Lone Star State. Right before the budget circus got going Wednesday, CKE CEO Andrew Puzder spoke at the California Chamber of Commerce, blocks from the Capitol dome. Like most of us, Puzder loves California and has no interest in leaving it, but he told harrowing tales about doing business in a state that has gone from an entrepreneurial heaven to a bureaucratic nightmare.

“It costs us $250,000 more to build one California restaurant than in Texas,” he said. “And once it is opened, we’re not allowed to run it.” This explains why Carl’s is opening 300 restaurants in Texas and only maintaining its presence in California. Texas has lower taxes than California, but the reason for the shift has more to do with regulation and with the attitude of the respective governments.

Puzder complained about the permitting process here, where it takes eight months to two years to open a new restaurant compared to an average of 1 1/2 months in Texas. In California, restaurants have to provide new curb cuts, new traffic lights, you name it. The company must endure so many requirements and must submit to so many inspections that it becomes excessively costly – and the bureaucrats are in charge of the project.

Once the restaurant is open, Puzder said, the store’s general managers are not allowed to run the business as if they own it. That’s the key to the company’s customer service approach – allowing general managers to do whatever it takes to make customers happy. But California’s inflexible, union-designed work rules, for instance, classify general managers as regular employees. They must be paid overtime for any work beyond an eight-hour day. They must take mandated breaks at specified times.

If a busload of customers comes to a store, these general managers must sit back and do nothing if they are on a break period. Most states have 40-hour workweek rules, meaning employees are paid overtime after exceeding 40 hours of work in a single week. In California it is based on the day, which limits the ability of managers to work, say, six hours one day and 10 hours the next day. Puzder complains about these industrial-era requirements that impede flexibility and harm customer service.

And California law encourages “private attorney general” lawsuits against private businesses over overtime and other regulatory rules, which has created a huge financial incentive for attorneys to file questionable legal actions against restaurants.

“It’s not like we have kids working in coal mines or women working in sweatshops,” Puzder said. It’s not as if his workers in other states, where these regulatory rules don’t exist, are oppressed, he added. “How does this help us instill entrepreneurial values?” He wonders how all these nonsensical rules teach people about being independent from the government rather than dependent on it.

I’d argue that the rules are designed specifically to impede private enterprise and to hobble entrepreneurship. After all, the unions, trial attorneys and liberal legislators writing these rules believe that government is the answer to most problems and that private industry is a cancer.

“People are just dying to get out there and make money,” Puzder said. “But California is setting a bar here. You can’t work smarter, harder, longer or better.” His company has had to fire hardworking store managers who insist on working longer hours than the state allows. He wants to tell these people, “Come to Texas, and we will hire you.”

The big debate at the Capitol has been whether to pass a budget with tax extensions. Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislators believe the only thing wrong with California is that people here don’t give the state enough of their paychecks. They believe this state has too-few government workers and too little oversight of business.

Democrats offer us a government of the Weiners, by the Weiners and for the Weiners.  They want the Anthony Weiners of the world to have control over your health care, over your pension, over your life.  They want government’s finger in every pie.  They want more taxes, taking a bigger and bigger share of earnings, savings and profits.  They want more regulations.  They want to be able to say who receives and who pays, who wins and who loses, even who lives and who dies.

The Democrat Party and Barack Obama are failing America – to the extent they even want “America” at all.

When you think Democrat policies versus Republican policies, don’t consider Obama’s way overused and frankly demagogic “Republicans drove us into a ditch” analogy; just consider Republican states like Texas and Democrat states like California.  The conclusion couldn’t be more clear.

Obama Continues To Reveal He Is The Lowest Form Of Demagogue

April 20, 2011

CBS News had the story:

President Obama invoked the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis while criticizing cuts to infrastructure in the Republican budget plan at a town hall meeting on Tuesday.

“According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third,” he said. “…You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it and there was a big hue and cry, how could this happen in America?”

Obama pointed at the Republican agenda to reign in the utterly out-of-control federal spending that will be absolutely 100% guaranteed to implode America’s economy unless that spending is reigned in, and then demonized the Republicans for a previous bridge collapse.

But as happens far too often in the mainstream media propaganda that often gets to pass for “news,” CBS didn’t fully report the facts.

You see, Obama lied.  Because that’s what he does.  And that collapsed bridge he demagogues to demonize Republicans for - claiming that their budget cuts would eliminate maintenance – didn’t actually have anything whatsoever to do with maintenance:

NTSB: Design errors caused Minn. bridge collapse

WASHINGTON (AP) — The deadly collapse of a Minneapolis bridge last year began at steel plates in a main truss, attributable to a design flaw and not corrosion, federal safety investigators said Thursday.

National Transportation Safety Board investigators said the bridge collapse was unavoidable once U-10 steel gusset plates failed at the U-10 connection, near the center of the bridge. Investigators also ruled out any pre-existing cracking as a factor in the accident.

A hearing into the collapse quickly focused on the U-10 gusset plates on the Interstate 35W bridge. The safety board as far back as January had identified design flaws in the plates as a critical factor in the collapse.

CNS actually does a little investigation and reports the facts in an article entitled, “Obama Misstates Cause of Minn. Bridge Collapse–Falsely Blames Insufficient Federal Spending“:

Contrary to Obama’s townhall speeech, the bridge did not collapse because of “deteriorating” infrastructure. According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the collapse was due to a design flaw, not to a lack of maintenance.

“The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, was the inadequate load capacity, due to a design error,” the NTSB states in its 2008 report on the incident.

In fact, the NTSB reported that on the day of the collapse, the bridge was in the process of being refurbished, further contradicting Obama’s claim that the collapse was evidence of a lack of infrastructure spending.

“On the day of the collapse, roadway work was underway on the I35W bridge, and four of the eight travel lanes (two outside lanes northbound and two inside lanes southbound) were closed to traffic,” reads the NTSB report.

If Obama were a halfway honest man, he would apologize for his vicious demonization that is entirely based on a lie.  But he’s not a halfway honest man.  And so he will count on the fact that the mainstream media will report his lies and not bother to correct them.  Because they are leftwing ideologue propagandists, and that’s how they roll.

You want to know something else I don’t understand?  It’s why we still need so much money for mainstenance projects.  Remember Obams’s so-called “stimulus” and how it was all going to go to such “shovel-ready projects”?  According to the CBO, Obama’s stimulus will cost $3.27 TRILLION.

Where did that money go, Barry Hussein?  Why is it that if Republicans cut so much as a dime, bridges across America will collapse?

Then there’s Obama’s demagogic remarks about border security and immigration:

“The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all instead of
using it as a political football?”

But Obama had total Democrat control of Congress for TWO YEARS.  And he utterly failed to make any kind of serious bipartisan overture whatsoever on immigration reform during a period when Republicans had little chance of stopping much of anything.  He is simply lying and blaming Republicans for his own failure.  Which is to say, the only one using this issue as a “political football” is the guy demonizing others for doing what he himself is clearly doing.

You can again see just how utterly and vindictively partisan and demagogic Obama is in this exchange over the fact that Obama had a major meeting on immigration reform, and refused to invite so much as a single governor from one of the border states:

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Did you hear what is  going on in Washington? President Obama is talking about immigration reform. The president held a meeting  today at the White House to discuss the broken immigration system. He met with a  bipartisan group. Guess what, he didn’t invite any governors from border states.  Why not?

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer joins us live from  Phoenix. Governor, did you miss your invitation? Did you decline your  invitation? Why weren’t you here at the White House to talk about immigration  reform?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ.: I wish I would have been  invited. No, I do not – I did not get an invite. You would have thought one of  the governors would have been invited since we are on the frontlines fighting  for security there. It was a little bit of a snub, if you will. I think that on  behalf of myself, I think I could have added insight to the situation that  Arizona certainly is facing.

VAN SUSTEREN: I looked at the White House press release. Of  the people who were invited — the category of those — it says stakeholders  expected to attend. I looked up stakeholders to see whether you might be a  stakeholder or Governor Rick Perry. It says a person or group that has  investment share or interest in something as in the business or industry. I  guess it is someone who has a strong interest in the topic. He must think you  don’t have any interest in the issue or you would have been invited.

BREWER: That is very unfortunate if that’s what he believes.  I feel Arizona, I believe I and Rick Perry and certainly the governors on the  border have been leading the fight. We’ve been bringing the message to America.  And I think that we should have been afforded that opportunity to be at the  table to help him understand the situation that we want straightened out.

VAN SUSTEREN: Let me tell you who he did think was a  stakeholder and has a huge interest in this partial list — Mayor Bloomberg, who  of course is the mayor who sent investigators down to Arizona to investigate you  about guns, your state, the former police chief of New York Bill Brown,  Secretary Michael Chertoff, former secretary of Homeland Security.

Then he invited Senator Mel Martinez, former United States senator. Here’s  another interesting one, Greg Page chairman and CEO of Cargill. I thought that’s  an odd one. I understand why, because Cargill was raided in 2007 by immigration  and ice for violations having to do with immigration. They probably have the  inside scoop on that one.

Al Sharpton was invited. The CEO of Facebook, another one. Arnold  Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California not the current governor, and  Richard Trumka, who is AFL-CIO union leader. Those are some of the people that  the president thinks has a greater interest than you do.

BREWER: That’s an unfortunate list as far as I’m concerned.  I didn’t know he had extended the invitation that this meeting was going to take  place.

But it seems by the list and what has been reported back to me this afternoon,  it is people that looking at that wonderful word “comprehensive immigration  reform.” It has nothing to do with what we really need to have done, and that is  to get our borders secured.

I think they are looking to try to talk about amnesty and all these other  issues and the dream act. None of these things in my opinion are going to take  place until we get our borders secured. I don’t think the American people want  to address anything until we feel secure. Our citizens need to feel secure in  their homes. It just continues to grow with the issue of people coming across  our borders illegal, the drug cartels.

VAN SUSTEREN: I may disagree with you a little bit. I would  like a solution that is complete and which protects our borders, protects  Americans and handles all the issues. I would like to see it put behind us. I to  the president’s speech at American university last summer to hear it. I did want  to hear what he said he was going to do.

We haven’t heard anything. He a Democratic house and Senate we don’t hear  anything until now as he gets ready to launch his campaign. And now things have  changed. Now we are hearing it again. I’m deeply disturbed. I think this is  talk. I think his guest list supports that because this is not bringing people  to the table who have real interests in this.

BREWER: I absolutely agree with you. The bottom line is that  he has a different agenda than what the American people have. Unfortunately, we  keep talking and we keep contacting him with our concerns, really no response,  no concern. Of course now we are in the election period so we now he’s going to  be standing up and talking about he’s going to do this and that. He’s had two  years to deliver what he promised two years ago and hasn’t delivered.

So we want our borders secured. I truly believe that the majority of us are  not going to discuss anything else in regards to what his agenda is, until we  get satisfaction with security at our borders.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/border-governors-not-invited-white-house-meeting-immigration-reform#ixzz1K3EvMeaH

This is beyond ridiculous.  If you have any intention whatsoever of coming to some kind of agreement, you invite the major decision makers.  But Obama doesn’t want solutions; he wants to prevent solutions and then blame Republicans for the well that Obama personally poisoned.

Last week Obama gave a hateful speech in which he blasted Republicans as the party that wanted to kill old people and children with autism.  During a point in the health care debate, when Obama needed to appear bi-partisan, Obama said:

We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s — the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”

And then he proceeded to do the very thing that he himself had said would undermine and poison the process.  Rep. Paul Ryan said correctly:

“What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.”

And, again, Obama doesn’t WANT to fix problems.  Obama wants to demonize and demagogue and lie and accuse and blame.

We can and should go back to 2006 remarks made by Obama when he personally demonized George Bush for raising the debt celing.  Obama demagogued:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Now the same weaselly demagogue is saying that anyone who acted like Obama himself acted would be an un-American traitor.

It just never ends with this guy.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 493 other followers