NC Media Watch

California misses the top ten of Best Cities

Russ Steele

Milken Institute has published it's Best-Performing Cities Index. California cities are not in top ten of the big cites or top ten of the little cities.

Leaders in this year's index, which ranks U.S. metros based on their ability to create and sustain jobs, are all metros that succeeded in avoiding the worst of the economic declines driven by falling housing markets and job losses in manufacturing and global trade. The 2009 Top 10 performers (with 2008 rankings) of the 200 largest metros are:
    1.    Austin-Round Rock, TX (4)
    2.    Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX (13)
    3.    Salt Lake City, UT (3)
    4.    McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX (7)
    5.    Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX (16)
    6.    Durham, NC (21)
    7.    Olympia, WA (9)
    8.    Huntsville, AL (5)
    9.    Lafayette, LA (14)
    10.    Raleigh-Cary, NC (2)

Regional economic factors also strongly influenced the rankings this year, with the oil and gas sector, technology and alternative energy providing stability among metros in Texas, North Carolina, Washington and Louisiana, which also benefited from low dependence on housing/construction. Austin in particular has been helped by its strong tech industry. It is the first metro to rank No. 1 twice on the index, the last time being in 2000.

The Milkin Institute has created an interactive tool that lets readers check there favorite cities ranking here.

Important Comment bumped to a Post

Russ Steele

Below is a comment by Steve Enos on Economy Trumps Green Jobs.  This is an issue being discussed on Fox News by economic experts - the solution recommended was cut spending!  But, many states are hoping for a Federal bailout. California is 12-14 Billion in the hold. We can expect more cuts, he has run out of accounting tricks.

Steve Enos wrote:

California is not alone... seems one of the states "barreling toward an economic disaster similar to California's ongoing fiscal crisis" is... FLORIDA... and Nevada and Arizona are on the list too!

Dixon, what's up with Florida? Who has been running Florida? Did Jeb set the stage or...? A study released Wednesday warns that nine states are barreling toward an economic disaster similar to California's ongoing fiscal crisis that has been marked by IOUs and budget-busting deficits. The budget woes could mean higher taxes, accelerated layoffs of government employees, more crowded classrooms and fewer services in the coming year for some of the nation's most populous states.

Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin join California as those most at risk of fiscal calamity, according to the report by the Pew Center on the States. Double-digit budget gaps, rising unemployment, high home foreclosure rates and built-in budget constraints are the key reasons. The analysis urged lawmakers and governors in those states to take quick action to head off a wider economic catastrophe. The 10 states account for more than one-third of America's population and economic output, according to the report.

"While California often takes the spotlight, other states are facing hardships just as daunting," said Susan Urahn, managing director of the Washington, D.C.-based center. "Decisions these states make as they try to navigate the recession will play a role in how quickly the entire nation recovers." California leads the most vulnerable states identified by Pew, which describes it as having poor money-management practices. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, California has made nearly $60 billion in budget adjustments _ in the form of cuts to education and social service programs, temporary tax hikes, one-time gimmicks and stimulus spending _ since February as tax revenues plunged. Many of those fixes aren't expected to last.

The state's temporary tax hikes will begin to expire at the end of 2010, while federal stimulus spending will begin to run out a year after that. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger estimates California will likely run a deficit of between $12.4 billion and $14.4 billion when he releases his next spending plan in January. The top estimate amounts to 17 percent of the state's $84.6 billion general fund budget, the main account for day-to-day spending. General fund spending in California has dropped nearly $20 billion over the past two years. The governor warned that the toughest cuts are ahead.

Leaderships counts

Russ Steele

Where is the leadership here?

The New York Twin Towers fell on 9/11/01, Kabul fell to American led forces on 11/14/01. That’s 65 days.

General  McChrystal, delivered his Afghanistan war plans to President Obama on 8/30/09, and President Obama hasn’t acted on his General’s recommendations as of today, 11/11/09. That’s 73 days, and waiting.

I spent twenty years in the Air Force. I worked for a lot of Colonels and Generals in those twenty years. Some were leaders and the other were just occupying space, hoping to make it to retirement with our screwing up. It did not take long to figure out which were the leaders that I would follow without reservations. They were true leaders. On the other hand, I worked hard to make sure I was never in a position forcing me to make a decision to follow, or run the other way one, if these space occupiers called out "follow me..." Leadership is a recognizable trait. To bad our current President does not have it. He is a good speech reader, but he is not a leader. 

H/T to Instapundit

Are you an “Extremist?”

Russ Steele

The Heritage Foundation Morning Bell asks who is the President calling "extremist?"

Following last Tuesday’s election, the last thing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wanted to do was allow Members of Congress to go home and talk to their constituents about the $2.6 trillion health care bill she was marshaling through Congress. The centerpiece of Pelosi’s trap and pressure campaign was a Saturday address by President Barack Obama in the Cannon Office Building, where Obama warned Democrats:

“Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit [Democratic voters] and it will encourage the extremists.”

The President of the Unites States describes Americans who do not want to see the federal government have control over half of all health care extremists. Are you one of those extremist? Welcome to the club! 

Update: Could this be happening in California?

Russ Steele

Last month I asked if wealthy people could be leaving California for lower tax states like they are in New York here. There was some skepticism in the comments. The LA Times had an interesting article on the contrast between the cost of public services in California vs Texas and found that for the tax dollars spent Texan's were getting more for their money, while paying lower taxes.

In support of my original question, I found this buried in the LA article by William Voegeli contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books. Perhaps not all wealthy, but moving out.

Between April 1, 2000, and June 30, 2007, an average of 3,247 more people moved out of California than into it every week, according to the Census Bureau. Over the same period, Texas had a net weekly population increase of 1,544 as a result of people moving in from other states. During these years, more generally, 16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.

These folks pulling up stakes and driving U-Haul trucks across state lines understand a reality the defenders of the high-benefit/high-tax model must confront: All things being equal, everyone would rather pay low taxes than high ones. The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal -- if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.

Are CDC swine flu cases exaggerated?

Russ Steele

Why has the CDC stopped testing for N1H1?  Why are they lumping all flu case in to one category?

Are the number of swine flu cases reported by CDC exaggerated? Testing stopped in July. Yet the President has declared a national emergency for the swine flu, noting a "rapid increase in illness." Really, how did he know?  The CDC stopped testing flu cases in July for N1H1. How do they know the difference between the N1H1 and the regular seasonal flu?

The CDC ordered the states to stop counting so we have no way of making an accurate count now. Thus, the numbers being used by the media and fed to people like President Obama seem to have no reliable value.  CBS reports that the CDC has advised states to stop testing for swine flu, and to stop counting the number of swine flu cases. The CDC website explains that states are no longer differentiating between the regular flu and the swine flu, reporting instead all influenza and pneumonia-related hospitalizations and deaths in one count. Inflationary action?

Is there a H1N1 flu pandemic or not?  The flu season in the southern hemisphere, which has seasons opposite to the north, is now over, and the swine flu did not wreak havoc as predicted.

If the States are not testing and counting flu cases how would the CDC know. How would we know?  How would Nevada County's local health care professional know if they needed to prepare?  And, prepare for what?  Regular flu season, or a regular flu season plus the complications of N1H1 cases. 

Last Sunday I was watching Fox News's Sunday Housecall with Dr. Rosenfeld. He was asked how to determine the difference between the regular flu and swine flu? He suggested that regular seasonal flu did not produce diarrhea, where as swine flu does; along with the fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Seems to me the evidence would be quite pronounced.

What am I missing?

Policy Matters

Russ Steele

The Milken Institute's 2009 State of the State Conference was held on  October 20 in Los Angeles.  More than 600 attendees were given an in-depth look at the many challenges facing the state, along with solutions for solving them, including economic recovery. They now have the Conference Videos on line of the panel sessions here (www.milkeninstitute.org/sos2009).

Given the Nevada County Economic Resource Council is working on a Comprehensive Economic Development Plan for Nevada County, I was very interested in the Panel on Keeping Companies and High-Paying Jobs in California. We need a vision for where we want our economy to be in five-ten years, and some of the panel's insights should be considered in crafting that vision.

Session Speakers were:

David Crane, Special Advisor for Jobs and Economic Growth, Office of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Eric McAfee, Chairman, McAfee Capital
John Watson, Vice Chairman, Chevron Corporation
Perry Wong, Senior Managing Economist, Milken Institute

The Moderator was Nancy McFadden, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs, PG&E Corp.

Below is a session summary, but it does not really capture the strong message from the panel in their own words -- we are over regulated. The most important discussion for Nevada County was the presentation and follow up by Perry Wong on the loss of high tech jobs in California. Below are some captured screen images from his presentation. The slides are only available to Millken Institute Members. My apology for the poor quality.

Now look at the peer states their high tech job loss was much less. Wong thinks many California high-tech jobs went to these states.

Could this be happening in California?

Russ Steele

From the New York Post

New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows.

More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out.

"The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said.
 
What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

People in the higher income brackets have the greatest flexibility to move. With modern communications may of the higher paid people can work from anywhere. The retried folks have even more flexibility to move to lower tax states. So where do the high income folks go?

While New York City and the state were the losers, the Sunshine and Garden States were winners. more than 250,000 New Yorkers who lived in and around the city fled to Florida. Another 172,000 city taxpayers ended up in New Jersey.

Could this be happening in California?  High income people and wealthy retired moving to lower cost states?  It will be interesting to see what the 2010 Census data has to say about our population shift. Income tax revenue is down significantly.

More insight on a jobless recovery

Russ Steele

James Cooke Writing at the American Thinker has some insights into our jobless recovery:

Past clues to the present jobless recovery

Why is this nation headed towards a jobless recovery? Simple. It's because our economy is undergoing a structural change that will make it more difficult for unemployed Americans to find work.

This is not the first time in our history an economic transformation has impacted the way Americans earn their livelihood. Our current economic downturn resembles the Long Depression of the 1880s, when the U.S. economy switched from farming to a manufacturing.

According to Cooke we are switching from manufacturing to services, which are being automated to reduce the labor content. Where automation will not work these service are sent off shore. Cooke suggests that until we invent new services that cannot be automated or sent off shore unemployment is going to remain high. If Cooke is right this is going to be a long long recovery for the unemployed.

The new normal - a recovery shedding jobs?

Russ Steele

The Sunday San Francisco Chronicle keeps shrinking, it is becoming almost painful to read every Sunday morning at the Flour Garden. However, this morning I found something interesting, yet very disturbing by Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau.

Experts see rebounding economy shedding jobs

Forget a jobless recovery. The economy may be entering a recovery with job losses.
Third-quarter estimates this week are expected to show that the economy grew for the first time since the quarter ending in June 2008. Despite the estimated 3 percent expansion and a stock market that has been on a tear since March, hundreds of thousands of people are still being laid off each month.

Eight million jobs have been lost nationwide since the recession began two years ago, and by some measures workers face the worst job market since the Depression. The average laid-off worker has been without a job for 61/2 months, a post-World War II record. Many of those workers will never recover financially.

California's hole, deepened by a state budget mess and volatile tax system, is far worse: Unemployment is at 12.2 percent, third highest in the nation; and adding discouraged and part-time workers puts it over 20 percent.

"It's not even a jobless recovery; it's a recovery with more job losses," said UCLA economist Lee Ohanian. "The idea of having essentially no net job creation after a remarkably severe recession is a real pathology for the U.S. economy."