-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
According to a Wall Street Journal article, Richard Fisher, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, found that since June 2009 37% of all net new jobs in America were created in Texas. Even though Texas is an energy state benefitting from high oil and natural gas prices, Fisher touts Texas’ business friendly environment, its right-to-work laws, and its “tort reform”– a $250,000 cap on punitive damages.
The WSJ article even calls Texas “fiscally responsible.” That’s the same Texas with a $27 billion budget shortfall. The WSJ article also uncritically cites Texas’ statutory limits on mortgage borrowing, a regulation of the financial industry they would decry if Obama proposed it.
While the 37% figure is accurate, the details are what’s interesting. Texas has the highest percentage of minimum wage worker in the country. As the chart below shows, the level of minimum wage jobs has increased during Perry’s reign.
The median hourly earnings for all hourly-paid wage and salary workers in Texas stood at $11.20 per hour in 2010; nationally, the median was $12.50.
Texas also ranks number one in the percentage of residents without health insurance. Texas’ percentage is almost 28%. Massachusetts, with Romneycare, has the lowest at 4.7%.
According to The Economist, the state-level Gross Domestic Product of Texas grew by 2.6% last year, equal to the national average. New York grew by 5.1% and California by 1.8%.
Here is a listing of the Perry economic portfolio touted as a model for the whole country:
- Highest percentage of minimum wage jobs.
- Highest percentage of residents with no health insurance.
- A budget deficit of $27 billion.
- Lower than average wages.
- Average growth in GDP.
So, if you want a low paying job with no health insurance, Texas is your choice.
Patty C. did not monopolize or hijack threads.
I would bet a nickel—well, times is tough, so how’s ‘bout a penny, that those sanctimonious Christians at the Perry rally would have given plenty—maybe a few pencils and box of 25 gold stick’em stars, if they had only been aware of those poor folks seeking handouts…some uppity Christians are generous that way, doncha know…
Blouise, I got on the blog shortly before Patty C left. She seemed to be very interesting. Soon the Perry in 2012 signs will start appearing. Saturday is the big day.
AY,
Thanks … I’ll do that
Blouise,
All you need to do it go back to any and all of the threads from late August/September 09…..Look for Buddha, Jill, Bryon, Moi and a few of the regular others…..
I seem to recall that Nal shut down a thread recently after the contentious exchanges went on for too long. Sometimes, things have to go too far before the management becomes annoyed enough to reel in the kiddies.
Great links Elaine!
Elaine,
What a sad, sad situation … a rather “let them eat cake” moment in Texas
It always seems when situations concerning posters and the etiquette of this site emerge the long time regulars refer to Patty C
I rather wish I had been around back then … she sounds interesting.
Prayer Rally Dwarfed By Texans Who Flock To Nearby Convention Center, Desperate For Free School Supplies
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/08/290973/prayer-rally-school-supplies/
Excerpt:
Houston’s biggest gathering on Saturday didn’t see national television news crews. It didn’t draw out protestors. It didn’t spark its own Twitter handle. And the event — which attracted an estimated 100,0000 people to a convention center just seven miles down the road from Gov. Rick Perry (R) and The Response prayer rally — had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with Texas families struggling through hard economic times:
“Some families camped out for hours to gain admittance into Houston’s first-ever, citywide back-to-school event at George R. Brown Convention Center, where free backpacks, school supplies, uniforms, haircut vouchers, immunizations, and fresh produce were provided.
Others were turned away.
“It was getting beyond capacity,” [Houstan Independent School District] spokesman Jason Spencer said. “If nothing else, it shows the need.”
Anti-Government Spending Crusader Rick Perry Accepted More Than $80,000 In Farm Subsidies
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/08/290830/perry-farm-subsidies/
Excerpt:
Falling into line with the Tea Party rhetoric against “out-of-control” government spending, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is now supporting a move away from direct subsidies to the agriculture industry in favor of an incentives-driven model. But Perry himself has benefited from over $80,000 in farm subsidies over the years and publicly declared his support for farm subsidies when running for Texas Agriculture Commissioner in 1990. After his opponent accused him of wanting to terminate price supports for farmers, Perry was quick to deny the claim:
“[Former Commissioner Jim Hightower] says I support eliminating our farm program payments. That’s not true. I’ve participated in the program as a producer. My neighbors participate. I know what would happen to rural areas of Texas if these programs were discontinued. I do not support such an action.”
Perry certainly has benefited from the nation’s proclivity toward farm payouts; his 40-acre farm — which he finally sold in 1998 — brought him $72,687 in farm payments between 1987 and 1989 and even made him an additional $9,624 for leaving his land lying fallow. Perry’s father has also received $6,443 from cotton and wheat subsidies in 2002 and 2003.
When asked to comment on the subsidies, Perry’s office defended his record. “The governor is proud of his years in the farming industry, which he believes is an important part of the nation’s overall economy,” spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said.
My Euro on the subject….
It is up to the professor who is or isn’t welcome to post….However, as I have discussed before….the only thing missing was the Christ Killer remark….The attacks were personal and to provoke….They would take a little remark you made, twist it, turn it and then spin it as your original ideal…..That is not free exchange that it a tacit assault on the very ideal of the so called freedom of speech….
I encourage the professor to allow Kde to post….freely…but within the bounds of protected speech….
The blawg was becoming wild while the parent was away…Someone had to step up and say or do something…and so far, when I have checked my phone…I do not have 150 waiting messages from this site…and the ones that
I read today are not tactile/tactual attacks….
FFLEO,
I forgot to mention, a good chunk of my motivation was to give the people who support the decision a voice (Plus I am curious, but understand if you don’t want to answer the question).
I’ve never doubted your honest motivations or reasoning.
Mespo,
Am I in a stylistic rut?
Possibly.
Hang in there Former Fed!
Gyges — a constant voice of reason using the classic method of quesion and answer. You don’t get that type of commentary on every blog. That’s why we keep coming back. Good on you there, old friend.
FFLEO,
🙂
Gyges & Blouise,
Let’s wait to see Professor Turley’s reply to my request for his new moderation policies. As friends here, I am completely okay that your views on this issue–along with Otteray Scribe and doubtless many other regulars–are vastly different from mine.
Thanks.
Hi everyone. I am still getting back in the saddle here. I just became aware of the controversy over comments viewed as uncivil or troll-like. When I left for Fcrance, I left the editors in full authority to maintain our strict civility rule as well as posting items. I believe that they did a magnificent job in their selection of topics and general commentary. That view is reinforced by the high traffic on the site in my absence.
We walk at times a difficult line between maintaining our commitment to civility while protecting free speech. For that reason, we have barred very few people and people should not be barred simply because they hold strong views. I believe that we have to err on the side of free speech even when commentators dwell on extraneous or obsessive subjects. The line is crossed when it becomes a personal attack.
Now that I am back, I can resume making the decision on whether a person should be barred or a comment put into moderation. Since I cannot keep up with all of the comments, I rely on folks to contact me if there is someone who refuses to avoid personal attacks. We like different views but we deeply value respectful and civil commentary — something that distinguishes us from other sites. Of course, we also value repentant sinners who agree to forego personal attacks. As I mentioned, I have not yet looked at the specific dispute in my absence, but I hope that we can move forward and focus on our various issues rather than personalities on the blog. I love having different voices and great passion on the blog. I do not want to lose a single voice. This is not supposed to be a chorus singing the same tune but a mosaic of different voices. I am not going to put a value on comments or exclude those who are not “moving the ball” in a discussion by dwelling on extraneous matters. I just ask that you show some respect for others who want to discuss the matter at hand.
On the issue of privacy (which I believe was also raised), the weekend guest bloggers do have access to posting information, as I do. When you post on a blog of this kind, you must understand that such information is shared with those who maintain the blog. It is quite common for larger blogs to have multiple editors. Our guest bloggers agree to protect the privacy and anonymity of our posters while also agreeing to give up their own anonymity. The requirement that guest bloggers post under their real names is to reinforce the responsibility that comes from blogging. If there is any allegation of an abuse of private information, I would want to be informed immediately and we will address it. I have a great deal of faith in our weekend bloggers and spoke with them at length on such issues before giving them access to the site. I remained deeply indebted to them for their work and commitment to the site.
I would love to move forward without rancor and I promise to resume the exclusive role of banning or moderating commentary, which I hope will remain a rarity on this site given its commitment to free speech.
I, respectfully, disagree with FFLEO’s characterization.
The blog was both brilliant and active in your absence.
One poster simply got carried away when he/she purposely assumed the identity of another poster. I believe the action taken was appropriate to the offense.
FFLEO,
I’m honestly curious. How is KDE’s behavior different than that which caused you to write:
“Professor Turley,
Since you continue to allow the insane Patty C to perpetually provoke other regulars for no reason and allow her spewing of foul language, then I will not continue to be part of this blawg. However, no loss, I never contributed much anyway”?
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/01/the-first-thing-we-do-kill-all-the-lawyer-blogs/#comment-76936
Granted, he never swore, but he certain made obscene jokes. He constantly provoked regulars, often his first comment on a topic was an attack on others here, generally not on topic. I for one have been put off from commenting, and I have suspicions that several others were as well.
All I’m asking is that you consider the possibility that as strong as you felt about Patty (and I happened to agree, you’ll remember), many of us felt the same way about KDE. Professor Turley was unable to address the situation, so the folks he put in charge used their best judgement. Also note, Gene didn’t ban him, or even block all of his comments, he just put a buffer between KDE and the rest of us.
I’m sure the Professor will address the situation, but I’d say that Gene’s behavior was far from excessive. In my opinion it was the best of several bad options (ban him outright, allow him to continue to cause huge disruptions in the blog, or what Gene did).