The Paul Krugman–led chorus trying to discredit Texas’s economic model has been claiming that Texas relied more heavily than any other state on federal stimulus money to close its budget gap. And there is an element of truth to that: Stimulus funds, they point out, covered 97 percent of Texas’s shortfall. Is that because Texas is, in the words of Jason Kuznicki (who should know better), a “welfare queen?” Or is it because Texas had a fairly small gap to begin with, so the federal funds went a lot further in covering it?
That 97 percent figure got retailed all over the place — CNN, Jon Chait at The New Republic, etc. But it is basically meaningless to say that “Texas was the state that depended most” on stimulus funds without taking into account the size of the gap covered. Texas’s was just $6.6 billion. For comparison, California’s deficit in 2009 was more than $26 billion.
The fact is that Texas, at $985 per capita, received less stimulus funding than almost any other state. (Virginia and Nebraska were lower.)
It is no surprise to find Paul Krugman manipulating figures, but I am surprised by the number of people who fell for this storyline.
— Kevin D. Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, just published by Regnery. You can buy an autographed copy through National Review Online here.
So let's see if I've got this right, Kevin.
When a state doesn't want to take federal gravy at all, a la Mark Sanford in 2009 in South Carolina, you get indirectly called a "racist" for not caring for your most vulnerable citizens. You do as you suggest and not leave free money on the table, you're a "welfare queen."
I like to think we on the right don't follow this process of desperately wanting to arrive at some sort of insult, then doing the mental gymnastics required to get us there, consistency be damned.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat? Paul Krugman manipulating facts to fit his liberal vision? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you!!!
It's kind of a silly statistic ("covered 97% of its budget shortfall with stimulus funds") to mention, no? Let's assume the federal Gobermint had an infinite money supply to solve the State's probelms (oh wait, "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke already thinks that way with QE2!), then wouldn't it follow that all States would cover 100% of their budget gaps with their alloted stimulus dollars?
And as you point out, TX's gap was much smaller than the other liberal welfare states out there (CA, NY, IL) so doesn't that really imply that they did a better job managing their state's finances before and during the crisis?
Leave it to Paul Krugman to state that 1+1=4 and demand everyone believe it...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, if I understand Krugman's position correctly, if Texas' budget gap had been a smaller $6.4 billion, Texas would've covered 100% of the gap with the stimulus money and this smaller gap would have provided even MORE evidence that Texas was failing because it was covered 100%. Right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be willing to bet that I could find $6.6 billion in waste (even in Texas)to cut from that budget before taking one dime of taxpayer funded "stimulus" money. Really dumb - who ever made the decision to accept the money. They should have remembered the evilness of liberal news and what their response would be. God Bless Texas anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseit's easy to fool people when they can't do math.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLeftists lie, even when they tell the truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne thing that a lot of people outside the state don't know is that the state comptroller of Texas is legally required to use pessimistic assumptions when calculating our budget deficit. That means that we often have quite a bit of vapor deficit that disappears during the actual budgeting process.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy in the world would you use Per Capita for this? It's not like the Federal Government is writing out checks "Per Capita"
I do think the 97% is misleading, however, 6.6 billion is a LOT of money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin,
Federal stimulus funds weren't awarded per capita. Saying that Texas "received less stimulus funding than almost any other state" on a per capita basis is itself a bit of statistical chicanery, because it's an irrelevant statistic. It would be a little bit like comparing the number of points scored in the Super Bowl to the size of the crowd watching on TV.
Here are the latest figures from recovery.gov: (External Link
)
Total funds awarded, by state (top 5):
CA $27,141,322,038
TX $16,358,374,457
NY $15,463,599,958
FL $10,927,325,990
IL $10,221,721,014
Total funds received, by state (top 5):
CA $12,835,257,474
TX $6,657,840,875
NY $6,056,116,146
IL $5,270,060,095
FL $4,269,090,238
Texas is far from the bottom of the list. In fact, it's second, both in terms of funds awarded and funds received.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUmm . . . I would make so bold as to suggest that anyone out there who DOESN'T start with the premise that Krugman is a cheap, tawdry, intellectually dishonest, partisan streetwalker is someone who shares his affinity for Keynesian Kool-Aid.
Like that given to the Obamateur, his Nobel is FAR more about his politics, and his criticism of the EVVIILLLLL Bush, than about his economic analysis.
Still, in his day, Krugman was capable of parsing his way through the brier patch of economics - which makes his calculated whoring of Keynesianism even MORE reprehensible - he knows better; he just doesn't give a darn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTexas spends less per capita than any other state. Isn't the relevant measure some percentage of government spending covered by stimulus funds?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would you be surprised that Leftards believe the lie that fits their narrative? These people are so fundamentally dishonest that you can't live with them in any society that involves trust.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin,
Federal stimulus funds weren't awarded per capita. Saying that Texas "received less stimulus funding than almost any other state" on a per capita basis is itself a bit of statistical chicanery, because it's an irrelevant statistic. It would be a little bit like comparing the number of points scored in the Super Bowl to the size of the crowd watching on TV.
Here are the latest figures from recovery.gov: (External Link
)
Total funds awarded, by state (top 5):
CA $27,141,322,038
TX $16,358,374,457
NY $15,463,599,958
FL $10,927,325,990
IL $10,221,721,014
Total funds received, by state (top 5):
CA $12,835,257,474
TX $6,657,840,875
NY $6,056,116,146
IL $5,270,060,095
FL $4,269,090,238
Texas is far from the bottom of the list. In fact, it's second, both in terms of funds awarded and funds received.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. 3Tac:
No, the funds were not awarded per cap, but that is the sensible way to compare large and small states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"because it's an irrelevant statistic. It would be a little bit like comparing the number of points scored in the Super Bowl to the size of the crowd watching on TV"
Irrelevant?
Sort of like saying the amount of people in your family is irrelevant to how much it costs you to purchase groceries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusei think Krugman used more than just the federal funds used in 2009-10 to show how the Texas economic model is not working. Texas currently has a structural deficit. Look at the front of the Austin American Statesman. The Leg today heard testimony that the shortfall is structural. This means there is a bad set up. Using sales tax for the majority of the funding is too volatile and regressive. Texas took $8 billion in the last budget from the feds. Instead of using this for 1 time costs, they used this for continuing costs. So on top of the structural shortfall, Texas has to make up for these lost federal funds. There was a clear lack of foresight in the past years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse