Red State - Blue State

Finally, some folks in the main stream media are starting to pick up on the differences between Red State and Blue State economics.

From the NY Post..... (HT Bizzyblog)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's so "progressive" about a crappy economy?