Fiscal Conservatives

This is an excerpt from a comprehensive report detailing the difference between economically successful and growing states and comparing their policies to those of the economically failing and shrinking states.  It is well worth a hard look both as a resource for a businessman to determine where he wants to plant his business and for politicians to evaluate policies that work in comparison to policies the don't.  It doesn't have to be a corporation for a business to benefit by this information and it doesn't have to be a national or even a state politician to learn something about successful economic and social policies and the effect they have on the growth and tax revenue.  This is concrete proof that higher taxes mean less revenue.  See the original report here.
Excerpt begins here;

A recent Wall Street Journal article summarizes California’s obstacles quite elegantly:

…which gets to California’s potential
problem. That state already boasts some
of the highest energy prices, highest taxes,
and toughest regulatory regimes in the U.S.
Many of its businesses already depend on
lower-cost energy from nearby states, and
that practice will likely increase. Others
have been looking for an excuse to leave
the state for better business climates, and
a costly global warming mandate could be
the fi nal enticement. One irony is that those
companies that do depart for other states or
other countries, such as China or India, may
well be allowed to emit even more CO2 than
they do now.33

Another problem is the fact that California’s high tax rates don’t raise revenues.34 An A.B. Laffer Associates study indicates that when California raised its income tax to 11.2 percent under Gov. Pete Wilson, the tax hike incited one of the worst fiscal crises in the state’s history. As tax revenues cratered, the debt exploded, and high-income people fled the state never to return.  The Golden State’s soak-the-rich tax philosophy has become a godsend for the economic development offices of neighboring states. Republican Assemblyman Ray Haynes has noted that the average high-income individual can buy a newly built house in neighboring Nevada and pay for it just from the money saved in a year of not paying California taxes.35 There are scores of upscale housing developments in Las Vegas almost entirely filled with transplanted rich Californians, which no doubt explains why this is the fastest growing metro-area in the nation.
California, the fifth largest economy in the world—it just recently passed France—has the worst of all worlds: Taxes are sky-high and public services, most notably the roads and the public schools, are lousy. In 2006, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed $60 billion of new bonds in a state that is already the most indebted in the nation. The legislature in Sacramento refuses to save money by instituting common sense welfare reforms like strict work requirements and time restrictions—reforms that are standard practice in almost every other state. California political analyst Shawn Steel isn’t exaggerating when he says “The politicians in Sacramento are the most left-wing collection of people ever to gather in one place at one time in North America.”36 In 2004, in the midst of the state’s financial woes, the state Senate actually passed a bill that would impose fi nes of up to $150,000 on employers (including the Boy Scouts of America) if they “refuse to hire individuals on the basis of gender or perceived gender, which could include cross dressers, and transsexuals.”  So now California is experiencing the great reverse gold rush, which surely will accelerate.  In fact, one of us (Laffer) recently moved his home and business from Southern California to Nashville, Tennessee—where there is no income tax—in order to reduce his tax liability. And the Hollywood liberals are discovering the harsh reality that a state without businesses doesn’t have jobs, and a state without taxpayers doesn’t collect taxes.
The ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index

Of course, every state aspires to be a high-octane, high-growth state—a place of destination, not a place where people nostalgically say they are “from.” The economic performance ratings on page 20 didn’t just happen by chance. It is not a random occurrence that people move from Connecticut to Florida or from California to Nevada. They are driven by the law of supply and demand:  High-growth states supply jobs, high incomes, and opportunities that Americans are in demand of. In this ALEC study we investigate what policy levers state legislators control that can make their state a desired location.  Obviously, many important factors that make a place attractive—such as the climate, accessibility to beautiful beaches or mountains, or the mineral resources in the ground—are beyond the control of politicians. (Never mind that Al Gore and many other national politicians think that governments can actually change the global temperature.) And no one should think that Newark, New Jersey will ever compete on equal footing with Malibu, California, or that Flint, Michigan will ever be as desirable a destination as Palm Beach, Florida.

But the central premise of this publication is that the state economic policy decisions made by state legislators don’t just matter in terms of how a state performs financially—they matter a whole lot. State officials can influence these factors—the economic, fiscal, and social policy legislation that contribute to, or in all too many cases against, the livability of a state—just as national leaders can impact the desirability of living or investing in a nation. If you don’t believe that economic policies matter, then why is it that thousands upon thousands of people in East Germany risked their lives and fortunes every year to get through the Berlin Wall to move to West Germany? Or why the population of South Korea has increased four times faster than the population of North Korea? Why is it that Mexicans line up at the U.S. border to get into this nation to live and work here by whatever means they can, but not too many Americans sneak over the border to get into Mexico?

Now to get to the heart of my point in this article.  I'm ready to pick my candidate for president in election 2012.  Full article can be found here.

America's Most Conservative Governor

With Republicans on a national spending spree of historic proportions, it is reassuring to see a governor still fighting to limit the size and scope of government. Whereas the GOP majority in Washington has presided over an increase in domestic discretionary spending of eight percent per year, Mark Sanford of South Carolina has kept his state's increase to a mere one percent. In recent history, only one politician has done better. Ronald Reagan actually cut spending by an average of 1.3 percent per year over his two terms.

Gov. Sanford likes the Reagan comparison and, indeed, has set him as his model. Like President Reagan, he made control of spending, the bureaucracy, and waste his top goals from the first. He spent half of what his predecessor did on his official transition to office, disbanded his security detail and scrapped the traditional black tie fancy ball for a Bar-B-Q picnic open to all. But his actions once in office were hardly just symbolic.

If only Governor Shwartzen.. Schwartze... You know who I mean, had the cajones to walk into the California legislature with a squealing piglet under each arm to challenge pork barrel spending and wind up costing stubborn spenders their seats in the state legislature the next election cycle due to the popularity of that move which kept all the dissenting voices in the minds of the voters on election day.