The Blue-State Meltdown and the Collapse of the Chicago Model - GoFuckYourself.com

DaddyHalbucks · 08-03-2009, 09:36 AM

The Blue-State Meltdown and the Collapse of the Chicago Model

By Joel Kotkin Wednesday, July 22, 2009

This should be the moment the Blue Man basks in glory. An urbane president sits in the White House and a San Francisco liberal runs the House. But blue states are undergoing a meltdown.

On the surface this should be the moment the Blue Man basks in glory. The most urbane president since John Kennedy sits in the White House. A San Francisco liberal runs the House of Representatives while the key committees are controlled by representatives of Boston, Manhattan, Beverly Hills, and the Bay Area—bastions of the gentry.

Despite his famous no-blue-states-no-red-states-just-the-United-States statement, more than 90 percent of the top 300 administration officials come from states carried last year by President Obama. The inner cabinet—the key officials—hail almost entirely from a handful of cities, starting with Chicago but also including New York, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco area.

This administration shares all the basic prejudices of the Blue Man including his instinctive distaste for “sprawl,” cars, and factories. In contrast, policy is tilting to favor all the basic blue-state economic food groups—public employees, university researchers, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, and the major urban land interests.

The administration’s skewed allocation of resources reflects its roots in contemporary Chicago. It derives from a pattern of rewarding core constituencies as opposed to lifting up the whole economy.

Yet despite all this, the blue states appear to be continuing their decades-long meltdown. “Hope” may still sell among media pundits and café society, but the bad economy, increasingly now Obama’s, is causing serious pain to millions of ordinary people who happen to live in the left-leaning part of America.

For example, while state and local budget crises have extended to some red states, the most severe fiscal and economic basket cases largely are concentrated in places such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, and, perhaps most vividly of all, California. The last three have among the highest unemployment rates in the country; all the aforementioned are deeply in debt and have been forced to impose employee cutbacks and higher taxes almost certain to blunt a strong recovery.

The East Coast–dominated media, of course, wants to claim that we have reached “the twilight” of Sunbelt growth. This observation seems a bit premature. Instead, traditional red-state strongholds such as the Dakotas, Idaho, Texas, Utah, and North Carolina, dominated the list of fastest-growing regions recently compiled for Forbes by my colleagues at www.newgeography.com.

When the recovery comes, job growth also is most likely to resurge first in the red states, while the blue states continue to lag behind. For reasons as diverse as regulatory policy, aging infrastructure, and high levels of taxation, blue states continue to be more susceptible to recessions than their red counterparts.

This assumption is borne out by an analysis of economic cycles by the website JobBait.com, which has found that since 1990 the states most vulnerable to economic downturns include the Great Lakes states of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and New York as well as Connecticut and California. Those most resistant have been generally red bastions such as the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Texas, and resource-rich states such as Alaska, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

This suggests that even the hardest-hit red states, notably Florida and Arizona, are likely better positioned in the long term for a recovery. A generation of out-migration may be slowing down temporarily due to the recession, but many people moved to places such as Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Georgia over the first seven years of the decade; in contrast, the high-tax blue states, including New York, New Jersey, and California, lost 1,100 people every day between 1998 and 2007. Most of them headed to the red states.

“When the economy comes back,” notes veteran California-based economist and forecaster Bill Watkins, “there will be a pent-up demand. People will compare and move to the places that are affordable and don’t have the fundamental tough tax and regulatory structures.”
...

Full article here:

http://www.american.com/archive/2009...-chicago-model

gwidomains · 08-03-2009, 10:02 AM

lol this person needs an editor -- hilarious b/c AEI is supposed to be a "premier" right-wing think tank.

A bit of a nit pick "urbane" != urban. Urbane means polished and sophisticated, it has nothing to do with urban environment which I presume the writer meant as most people would agree that Reagan was an urbane president.

As far as the "gentry" controlling the reigns of government -- that's pretty absurd on it's face. Obama like him or not, is self made, as was Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon -- and a long line of other presidents. George W. and H.W. where the quientissential gentried CT class of folks. (Prescott Bush was a U.S. senator and abotu as well connected as you could be)

1.) Large Blue states are net federal donors, while red states receive an influx of federal dollars -- especially in defense oriented jobs. So, comparing taxes is a losing comparison.

2.) California's problems mostly stem from having split governance and arcane rules that have promoted high services that no one wants to cut, and low taxes which no one wants to raise a Republican Governor had the ability to fix this and failed misrably.

Lastly, this is a very poor article from AEI, if your point is to try to compare Red states and blue states there is a much better article in the Economist (around July 15th edition or so) that compares both the governance and the economic trends.

But whatever this is gfy home of no facts necessary.

nation-x · 08-03-2009, 10:03 AM

His logic is completely bent... all of the states he mentioned have a very high population (blue states) and pure logic dictates that this is a major factor impacting recovery. Florida and Arizona are both retirement and tourist destinations that will see recovery quicker as those two events occur (higher tourism and retirement). It always amazes me how intellectually shallow these conservative pundits are...

DaddyHalbucks · 08-03-2009, 10:03 AM

Great article, read the whole thing.

gwidomains · 08-03-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Great article, read the whole thing.

It's an awful article using a foolish forced paradigm that doesn't even fit given the person's use of historical examples. Most of the "red" and "blue" states have shifted significantly over time, and the industrial bases are partially a function of natural resources / geographical features. That has very little to do with political systems.

Lastly, the person never deals with the huge federal subsidies every "red state" receives with the exception of Texas -- so if you are looking at a function of taxes etc... essentially the blue states consistently subsidize the red states "low tax" model.

This isn't a serious article -- the author should be embarrassed. You think it is "great" b/c it aligns with your bias.

SoloGirlsContent · 08-03-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Great article, read the whole thing.

how about if you read this....
OBAMA 2012

nation-x · 08-03-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwidomains

It's an awful article using a foolish forced paradigm that doesn't even fit given the person's use of historical examples. Most of the "red" and "blue" states have shifted significantly over time, and the industrial bases are partially a function of natural resources / geographical features. That has very little to do with political systems.

Lastly, the person never deals with the huge federal subsidies every "red state" receives with the exception of Texas -- so if you are looking at a function of taxes etc... essentially the blue states consistently subsidize the red states "low tax" model.

This isn't a serious article -- the author should be embarrassed. You think it is "great" b/c it aligns with your bias.

DaddyHalbucks · 08-03-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwidomains

You think it is "great" b/c it aligns with your bias.

Yes, I am heavily biased towards places without alot of corruption and government intervention.

DaddyHalbucks · 08-03-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonsyinister

how about if you read this....
OBAMA 2012

I sure hope not.

Jimmy Carter only served one term, and I hope the same will be true for Obama.

DaddyHalbucks · 08-03-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwidomains

lol this person needs an editor -- hilarious b/c AEI is supposed to be a "premier" right-wing think tank.

A bit of a nit pick "urbane" != urban. Urbane means polished and sophisticated, it has nothing to do with urban environment which I presume the writer meant as most people would agree that Reagan was an urbane president.

As far as the "gentry" controlling the reigns of government -- that's pretty absurd on it's face. Obama like him or not, is self made, as was Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon -- and a long line of other presidents. George W. and H.W. where the quientissential gentried CT class of folks. (Prescott Bush was a U.S. senator and abotu as well connected as you could be)

1.) Large Blue states are net federal donors, while red states receive an influx of federal dollars -- especially in defense oriented jobs. So, comparing taxes is a losing comparison.

2.) California's problems mostly stem from having split governance and arcane rules that have promoted high services that no one wants to cut, and low taxes which no one wants to raise a Republican Governor had the ability to fix this and failed misrably.

Lastly, this is a very poor article from AEI, if your point is to try to compare Red states and blue states there is a much better article in the Economist (around July 15th edition or so) that compares both the governance and the economic trends.

But whatever this is gfy home of no facts necessary.

You are wrong on many fronts.

Urban and Urbane both share the common root of the city.

Blue states are BIG net tax "takers" in that they consume federal dollars for infrastructure, government bureaucracy, and social programs.

Why do you blame the governor and give a free pass to the legislature? California is very similar to all the other blue states. Few legislators have the courage to cut the crazy social programs and public sector benefits. California has $200 billion in unfunded pensions --SWEET!!

kicks · 08-03-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Blue states are BIG net tax "takers" in that they consume federal dollars for infrastructure, government bureaucracy, and social programs.

Not sure where you found your information, not trying to argue anything, just went looking for the information regarding what you say and can't find much to support it from the past. I might not be understanding what you were meaning.
2005 numbers
Another Source
taxfoundation.org

It's interesting, some states that seem to always be in the top ten of the takers, like New Mexico, I think it always takes the most.

gwidomains · 08-03-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

You are wrong on many fronts.

Urban and Urbane both share the common root of the city.

Blue states are BIG net tax "takers" in that they consume federal dollars for infrastructure, government bureaucracy, and social programs.

Why do you blame the governor and give a free pass to the legislature? California is very similar to all the other blue states. Few legislators have the courage to cut the crazy social programs and public sector benefits. California has $200 billion in unfunded pensions --SWEET!!

There is really no reason to respond beyond this
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/urbane

The same latin root !=> same meaning, as in the case of urbane.

I'm sure you looked the word up and read that the meaning of urbane has nothing to do with urban. All you could mount was a lame defense that the words share the same root, and that lack of critical examination is indicitive of the whole piece and even your weak rebuttals.

In this case it is a clear error amongst many basic errors in fact riddled through the opinion piece. It's poorly written and you can't bring yourself to admit the basic errors from a guy who gets PAID to write opinions from the "premier" conservative think thank -- the same one John Bolton is at.

On California, if YOU READ what I said, you would see that the Republican governor had the goodwill of the people to fix things as opposed to the fragmented legislature. He failed miserably to forge a way through the difficulties.

The governor has the bully pulpit, the buck stops there.

Here is an examination of net federal tax receipents.
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/211...ianomoney.html

Money Quote:

Quote:

But according to the Tax Foundation, the main reason so many blue states pay so much more than they get back is that their residents tend to earn more money and pay more income tax. William Ahern, the editor of the foundation's reports, argues that if blue-staters voted their self-interest, they'd join his group in supporting Bush's efforts to undo the United States' progressive tax structure and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, a backstop designed to catch upper-income tax avoiders. And red-staters, who are less well off, would stop supporting Bush and instead defend the progressive taxation that favors them. Not likely, Ahern concedes: "It appears they'll follow President Bush wherever he leads them" while Democrats will "obey their instinct" and battle Bush.

-- and yeah the Tax Foundation (taxfoundation.org) is the same org 12clicks was posting information from, you should have no issues with the source.

I have no problem bias until you use bias as a substitute for facts -- you simply are not well read in the material you are posting and it shows by your absurd assertions that are based solely on bias. There are numerous sources where you could make far better cases about the red state - blue state paradigm -- even though it really is not useful analysis.

1.) States shift dramatically, even large states.
e.g. Texas went from "blue" to "red" in the 90s and is going "blue" very soon.
the dems almost have the state legislature, and are likely to turn the state by 2012.

2.) Smaller pop. states are over represented in Congress
This has a whole host of federal benefits (pork!).

etc...

slapass · 08-03-2009, 03:43 PM

Save your breath. this guy drank the coolaid a long time ago.

directfiesta · 08-03-2009, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Yes, I am heavily biased towards places without alot of corruption and government intervention.

How come you haven't moved yet ??????

08-03-2009, 09:36 AM	#1
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	The Blue-State Meltdown and the Collapse of the Chicago Model The Blue-State Meltdown and the Collapse of the Chicago Model By Joel Kotkin Wednesday, July 22, 2009 This should be the moment the Blue Man basks in glory. An urbane president sits in the White House and a San Francisco liberal runs the House. But blue states are undergoing a meltdown. On the surface this should be the moment the Blue Man basks in glory. The most urbane president since John Kennedy sits in the White House. A San Francisco liberal runs the House of Representatives while the key committees are controlled by representatives of Boston, Manhattan, Beverly Hills, and the Bay Area—bastions of the gentry. Despite his famous no-blue-states-no-red-states-just-the-United-States statement, more than 90 percent of the top 300 administration officials come from states carried last year by President Obama. The inner cabinet—the key officials—hail almost entirely from a handful of cities, starting with Chicago but also including New York, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco area. This administration shares all the basic prejudices of the Blue Man including his instinctive distaste for “sprawl,” cars, and factories. In contrast, policy is tilting to favor all the basic blue-state economic food groups—public employees, university researchers, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, and the major urban land interests. The administration’s skewed allocation of resources reflects its roots in contemporary Chicago. It derives from a pattern of rewarding core constituencies as opposed to lifting up the whole economy. Yet despite all this, the blue states appear to be continuing their decades-long meltdown. “Hope” may still sell among media pundits and café society, but the bad economy, increasingly now Obama’s, is causing serious pain to millions of ordinary people who happen to live in the left-leaning part of America. For example, while state and local budget crises have extended to some red states, the most severe fiscal and economic basket cases largely are concentrated in places such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, and, perhaps most vividly of all, California. The last three have among the highest unemployment rates in the country; all the aforementioned are deeply in debt and have been forced to impose employee cutbacks and higher taxes almost certain to blunt a strong recovery. The East Coast–dominated media, of course, wants to claim that we have reached “the twilight” of Sunbelt growth. This observation seems a bit premature. Instead, traditional red-state strongholds such as the Dakotas, Idaho, Texas, Utah, and North Carolina, dominated the list of fastest-growing regions recently compiled for Forbes by my colleagues at www.newgeography.com. When the recovery comes, job growth also is most likely to resurge first in the red states, while the blue states continue to lag behind. For reasons as diverse as regulatory policy, aging infrastructure, and high levels of taxation, blue states continue to be more susceptible to recessions than their red counterparts. This assumption is borne out by an analysis of economic cycles by the website JobBait.com, which has found that since 1990 the states most vulnerable to economic downturns include the Great Lakes states of Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and New York as well as Connecticut and California. Those most resistant have been generally red bastions such as the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Texas, and resource-rich states such as Alaska, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming. This suggests that even the hardest-hit red states, notably Florida and Arizona, are likely better positioned in the long term for a recovery. A generation of out-migration may be slowing down temporarily due to the recession, but many people moved to places such as Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Georgia over the first seven years of the decade; in contrast, the high-tax blue states, including New York, New Jersey, and California, lost 1,100 people every day between 1998 and 2007. Most of them headed to the red states. “When the economy comes back,” notes veteran California-based economist and forecaster Bill Watkins, “there will be a pent-up demand. People will compare and move to the places that are affordable and don’t have the fundamental tough tax and regulatory structures.” ... Full article here: http://www.american.com/archive/2009...-chicago-model __________________ Boner Money

08-03-2009, 10:03 AM	#4
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	Great article, read the whole thing. __________________ Boner Money

08-03-2009, 10:02 AM	#2
gwidomains Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 426	lol this person needs an editor -- hilarious b/c AEI is supposed to be a "premier" right-wing think tank. A bit of a nit pick "urbane" != urban. Urbane means polished and sophisticated, it has nothing to do with urban environment which I presume the writer meant as most people would agree that Reagan was an urbane president. As far as the "gentry" controlling the reigns of government -- that's pretty absurd on it's face. Obama like him or not, is self made, as was Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon -- and a long line of other presidents. George W. and H.W. where the quientissential gentried CT class of folks. (Prescott Bush was a U.S. senator and abotu as well connected as you could be) 1.) Large Blue states are net federal donors, while red states receive an influx of federal dollars -- especially in defense oriented jobs. So, comparing taxes is a losing comparison. 2.) California's problems mostly stem from having split governance and arcane rules that have promoted high services that no one wants to cut, and low taxes which no one wants to raise a Republican Governor had the ability to fix this and failed misrably. Lastly, this is a very poor article from AEI, if your point is to try to compare Red states and blue states there is a much better article in the Economist (around July 15th edition or so) that compares both the governance and the economic trends. But whatever this is gfy home of no facts necessary.

08-03-2009, 10:03 AM	#3
nation-x Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,370	His logic is completely bent... all of the states he mentioned have a very high population (blue states) and pure logic dictates that this is a major factor impacting recovery. Florida and Arizona are both retirement and tourist destinations that will see recovery quicker as those two events occur (higher tourism and retirement). It always amazes me how intellectually shallow these conservative pundits are...

08-03-2009, 03:43 PM	#13
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,622	Save your breath. this guy drank the coolaid a long time ago.