States that practice free-market principles out-perform big government states (Letter)

Danielle Favorite | By Danielle Favorite |
on September 04, 2012 at 7:00 AM
Romney Ryan 2012.JPGRepublican presidential candidate Mitt Romney

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) published a report in April titled, "Rich States, Poor States," showing the results of a detailed study, covering the decade ending in 2012, which compared the economic status of the 50 states. The conclusion: states (more often with Republican governors) that practice free-market principles out-performed those (more often with Democratic governors) that put their faith in big government.

The authors found that low-tax states had higher rates of GDP and population growth, and saw greater increases in tax revenues than did the more heavily taxed states and localities. And right-to-work states significantly out-performed those states with compulsory union membership, with greater rates of growth in the GDP, personal income and population.

In the assessment of the Center for Individual Freedom the evidence is clear. "No matter how you slice the numbers, the outcome is always the same: states that embrace conservative policies — low taxes, restrained regulation, free labor markets, a friendly business environment — consistently outperform states where big government carries the day."

One can look at "Rich States, Poor States" in one of two ways. It is either a flawed study put out by a racist tool of big corporations (a charge already made against ALEC), or, it is real-world evidence that conservative principles work. If the migration of people and businesses leaving, in droves, the high-tax states for the low-tax states is any indication, then the latter can be assumed to be the case.

Aldous Huxley in "Brave New World Revisited," wrote of "two kinds of propaganda," ration and non-rational. Rational propaganda "appeals to reason by means of logical arguments based upon the best available evidence fully and honestly set forth." Non-rational propaganda relies on "repetition of catchwords which (are meant) to be taken as true" and "the suppression of facts which they wish to be ignored." It uses language to manipulate, rather than to educate.

An example of non-rational propaganda can be found in Margaret Carlson's opinion piece published in the Kalamazoo Gazette on July 22. Carlson, referring to Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, wrote, "Romney piled companies with debt, extracted dividends and fees for himself and investors, and then walked away from the debt-laden carcasses as the jobs and pensions went bust." Only the ideologically blind or the willfully ignorant would accept this statement at face value. Carlson offers no proof, no facts, figures or examples to back up her assertions.

The private equity firm, Bain Capital, founded by Romney, invests private money in start-ups and/or struggling businesses, and attempts to grow them into thriving companies. Are all attempts successful? Are all jobs saved? Of course not. But what Carlson does not want you to know about Bain Capital is that Romney had far more success than failures, and the successes created or saved tens of thousands more jobs than were lost. The big-box office supply company, Staples, is just one example.

In contrast, President Obama invested millions of public, i.e. taxpayer, dollars in the solar company, Solyndra, which then promptly filed for bankruptcy. I would suggest that "debt-laden carcass," in Carlson's colorful phrase, better describes Solyndra than Staples.

This year's election is largely about economics, and whose vision is America's vision, the liberals with their dreams of ever higher taxes and an ever-growing government, or conservatives who believe in a more limited government and fiscal responsibility? Each candidate will do or say whatever he thinks it will take to get the voter to agree with his vision for America.

You be the judge. Be informed, learn to recognize rational propaganda from non-rational propaganda from either side, and then let us have an honest debate about what (whose) economic policy is best for the country, using "logical arguments based upon the best available evidence."


For more Kalamazoo Gazette opinion pieces and letters visit