When I was a youngster, still embroiled in the public education system that James Earl Carter turned into the non learning disaster it is today, during every election I heard the same mantra. Democrats want to get America working. They want to create jobs, jobs, jobs. Of course, Jimmy Carter failed so miserably in that endeavor, as well as every other thing he tried his hand at while President, that Ronald Reagan handed him the worst electoral defeat in history. (Two things of note here, one is that the electoral landslide record defeat suffered by Carter was eclipsed during the next election when Walter Mondale trotted out the very same policy ideas and asked Americans if they wouldn’t rather return to those glory days. The second thing to note is that as late as 1 week prior to Carter’s lambasting, he supposedly enjoyed a substantial lead in the polls of the day.)
Ronald Reagan was elected in November of 1980, he took the oath of office in January of 1981, and by the Summer of 1984, Americans were enjoying the beginnings of an economic boom that saw a net gain of over 5 Million jobs, the beginnings of our disastrous inflationary spiral being brought under control, and the greatest period of wealth creation in world history that lasted until the end of the Clinton Presidency some 20 years later. I use the term net jobs gained since our current President, while pointing to the failed economic policies of the past decade, somehow manages to miss the true historical perspective of calling them the wildly successful economic policies of the past 32 years or the past 236 years. While the current POTUS touts a number of 4 Million new hires or jobs created during his turn as our chief executive, he fails to mention that he only begins his time frame from after he’d been in office for 7 months already, and that many Americans also lost their jobs during the same period. We have had a net jobs loss during Obama’s time. In fact, the net jobs loss is so great that our labor force participation rate is lower than it was during the great depression.
So, is there a place in America where we can look at positive numbers concerning the jobs front? As it turns out, there is.
Kansas – 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%
Maine – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Michigan – 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%
New Mexico – 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%
Oklahoma – 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%
Pennsylvania – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%
Tennessee – 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%
Wisconsin – 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%
Wyoming – 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%
Alabama – 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%
Georgia – 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%
South Carolina – 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%
South Dakota – 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%
Florida – 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%
Nevada – 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%
Iowa – 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%
Ohio – 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%
What the above 17 states have in common, is that each of them elected a new Republican Governor less than two years ago. You may be asking about the converse argument. What about the 8 states who elected new Democrat Governors in 2010? Well, as luck would have it, we have those statistics as well.
Colorado – 8.8% to 8.1% = a decline of 0.7%
New York – 8.2% to 8.6% = an increase of 0.4%
Oregon – 9.9% to 8.4% = a decline of 1.5%
California – 12.1% to 10.8% = a decline of 1.3%
Connecticut – 9.3% to 7.8% = a decline of 1.5%
Hawaii – 6.7% to 6.3% = a decline of 0.4%
Minnesota – 6.8% to 5.6% = a decline of 1.2%
Vermont – 6.0% to 4.6% = a decline of 1.4%
The average drop in unemployment in the states with new Republican Governors is 1.35%. The average drop in states with new Democrat leadership is .95%. That represents a full 50% improvement in the results with GOP leadership. For those of you who argue that there is no difference between the two major political parties, here is the proof to the contrary.
One of the truly brilliant consequences of setting up a government that was made up of 50 individual states rather than a single nation which happened to contain 50 constituent geographic territories, is that we can see which programs work, which ones don’t. When Mitt Romney inflicted a socialized health system on the people of Massachusetts, along with 8 other states, those of us living in Ohio could look at the failure created there and say to ourselves, we’d rather not do that. This by the way has been Romney’s defense of his state insurance mandate in Massachusetts, and from a Constitutional perspective anyhow, he is correct.
Part of the reasoning I always hear from Liberals, Progressives, No Labels, or what ever in the heck the political left wants to call themselves these days is that we should judge them by their intentions and not their actual results. Their attempts to pass legislation which some what attempts to mitigate the disastrous results of some prior intrusion into the free market system, inflicted by leftists of the past, shows that they really care. At some point in time though, when you should realize that your policies cause the very things that you claim to care so much about, isn’t it time to change direction, and indeed truly cruel not to do so?