You would rather GOPers lose and be ideologically pure, than win, compromise and control the agenda.

Speaking for myself what politicians actually do is important to me. I don’t get satisfaction just because “my team” wins an election.

Certainly you don’t get everything you want in politics, but when our guy acts just like the other side it’s a huge problem.

Up until the hillary-care lite SCHIP plan that Hoeven supported and Bush vetoed I would probably have held my nose and voted for the guy. Now I’m not sure. If the Dems came up with a guy that was ok on the gun control issue I very well may vote for him.

Robert108:

Your simplistic idea of infrastructure just doesn’t fit reality.

“Simplistic”? How do you know they’re
simplistic? I’ve hardly touched the subject, so you don’t know enough
about “my idea” (not mine, to give proper credit) to know whether it’s
simplistic or not. However, it’s nice of you to assume they were
simplistic though, even if they were never articulated. Notice I said “idea”, not “ideas”. I was speaking to what you articulated, not what you didn’t articulate.
The example you gave of the developer was not “infrastructure” by the
way, but “investment”. He developed a property with the presupposition
that if he built it, people would come. In engineering, this is sometimes
called “a product looking for a customer.” No; I apologize for not specifically mentioning the streets, which were built to accomodate the development that didn’t get built for thirty years. We used to use them for road racing. I didn’t make that clear, so I apologize. The development didn’t cost the taxpayers, but the unneeded infrastructure did. Once again, when supply and demand are reversed, bad things happen.

That is a very different thing than infrastructure, of which not all is
even material things that are marketable in any usual sense. The topic of this thread isn’t about that kind of infrastructure. For example a
river could be part of a community’s infrastructure, even though it
occurred naturally. A river qualifies because if you look at the technical
definition of infrastructure, you find it goes something like “permanent
resources serving society’s needs, including roads, sewers, schools,
hospitals, railways, communication networks etc.” Once again, those items other than natural ones, which do draw people to a specific location in the beginning(due to the demand for good land, easy access by river, etc), are still a matter of supplying a demand for said infrastructure. The market should decide, not the govt. After that decision is made by the market, the question of funding becomes germane.

Generally for it to be infrastructure it needs to be a resource, whether it
be a road system that can be exploited, or a technically trained workforce
that can be hired. Both are resources, neither are “marketable items”.
Note a trained individual is a marketable “item”, but not the pool of
skill laborers, generically speaking. It is the duty of a business entering an area to do the research to find out what resources are available in that area. If the politicians in that area want to spend taxpayer money to anticipate such a demand, they are gambling with other peoples’ money. The fact that they guess right sometimes doesn’t justify that gamble, IMO.

Since infrastructural items like roads aren’t marketable items, but rather
community resources, it’s wrong to try and describe them in terms of a
supply and demand process. That’s just Econ 101.

It’s always supply and demand, in the big picture. People come to where there are natural resources(obviously), if there is a demand for those resources. Otherwise, they go somewhere else. As far as the other type of resources are concerned, there still has to be a demand for them to justify the spending to create them in the first place. Refer to my previous comment about gambling with taxpayers’ money.

Robert108:

Your simplistic idea of infrastructure just doesn’t fit reality.

“Simplistic”? How do you know they’re simplistic? I’ve hardly touched the subject, so you don’t know enough about “my idea” (not mine, to give proper credit) to know whether it’s simplistic or not. However, it’s nice of you to assume they were simplistic though, even if they were never articulated.

The example you gave of the developer was not “infrastructure” by the way, but “investment”. He developed a property with the presupposition that if he built it, people would come. In engineering, this is sometimes called “a product looking for a customer.”

That is a very different thing than infrastructure, of which not all is even material things that are marketable in any usual sense. For example a river could be part of a community’s infrastructure, even though it occurred naturally. A river qualifies because if you look at the technical definition of infrastructure, you find it goes something like “permanent resources serving society’s needs, including roads, sewers, schools, hospitals, railways, communication networks etc.”

Generally for it to be infrastructure it needs to be a resource, whether it be a road system that can be exploited, or a technically trained workforce that can be hired. Both are resources, neither are “marketable items”. Note a trained individual is a marketable “item”, but not the pool of skill laborers, generically speaking.

Since infrastructural items like roads aren’t marketable items, but rather community resources, it’s wrong to try and describe them in terms of a supply and demand process. That’s just Econ 101.

Rob, I realize there’s some difference of opinion here at the philosophically level. If we were talking Massachusetts, or any other area that already has a concentration of technically qualified people, you wouldn’t get much change by bringing in a “seed group” of people in some particular area.

But in primarily agrarian cultures like North Dakota and Mississippi, getting this core competency is essential, if you want to see private industry flourish there. They don’t exist in a vacuum.

To illustrate my point, we had the circumstance a number of years ago where a private company opened up a printed-circuit-board manufacturing plant, but closed it within a year because they couldn’t find enough local talent that knew how to diagnose and repair printed circuit boards. Places like Massachusetts already have that level of core competency, and a major reason is the existence of strong engineering programs that routinely produce high quality young engineers, who then go out into the market place.

What COEs do for small universities (again if well set up), is it provides students with concentration areas where they can get training that rivals what you can find at other more technically developed regions. Secondly, they bring a core group of competent researchers that small enterprises can leverage off of. Most new job creation is from businesses with less than 20 personnel, see this, so it makes sense to provide an atmosphere where these small concerns can thrive.

Bluntly, they ain’t going to do it in a corn field, and that’s the bottom line.

Newsflash, george: Conservatives aren’t “hard core right wingers”; the Constitution isn’t a right wing document. Individual independence isn’t part of right wing ideology

Don’t you like how these neo-libs call conservatives extremists when we show disdain over growing the budget 24% in one legislative session. We’re also hard hearted and mean spirited because we think that people who can afford to buy their kids health insurance should do so.

They have the nerve to say we’re extreme.

I hate to be disagreable, but I doubt that in the whole your system can be successful.

If so the socialist model would be much wealthier than the capitalistic model.

The place where basic research funded by government would be where something is worth doing but is too far down the road in order to attract private money.

I see publicly funded research as something like you funded a thousand projects for a million dollars apiece. One of those projects succeeds and comes up with a five-hundred million dollar product.

The inventors would say that it was a 500 to 1 return on investment. I would say it was a five hundred million dollar loss(or subsidy).

Furthermore where you said this bothers me:

In our case, I can count off the top of my head four different companies spun off (with employees leaving in three of them to run the businesses). Obviously these private concerns are job growth.

That doesn’t sound like a good deal. The public funds the research and when something good comes out of it the beneficiaries leave to reap the rewards.

George:

LATE BREAKING NEWS

Just calculated the average annual general fund budget increases by the
Hoeven admin and GOP legislature since JH took office (2001-09)….6.5%!

I hope you don’t consider that something to brag about! Your figure shows that he’s growing the state government at over twice the rate of inflation over his entire administration.

That’s frightening? What we’ve seen in the past by Democrat administrations is that (George Sinner) is that they spend the money in the good times and then jack up the taxes when the money doesn’t keep coming in at the same rate.

The massive spending increases in 1985 led to the referral effort in 1989 when the legislature wouldn’t control their spending.

And now we’ve got Hoeven doing the same stupid stuff from 20 years ago. I don’t care if he calls himself a Republican or not, he’s doing the wrong thing.

There are several things wrong with Hoeven’s tax scheme.

For one it’s another property transfer from the rural residents (non-farmer) to the city people. If you live in a responsible area you aren’t going to get the same state tax refund back even if you might pay more in state taxes.

How’s that going to help the Republican party when the party bulwarks in the small towns find out they’ve been screwed over?

Secondly the way they structured it it’s an invitation to more local government people to continue to operate irresponsibly. I’ll guarantee it in December when property tax bills come out that they’ll say it’s ok that they’re going up around 10% because of the property tax credit.

Why should an income or sales tax refund involve how much property you might own?

The biggest reason why this plan is a bunch of garbage is that it’s not enough. General fund spending is up like six hundred million dollars. We get a piddly 120 million. Meanwhile we don’t get any new or expanded services for that money.

It’s clear to me that with John Hoeven it’s all about the government employees. The regular run of the mill taxpayer is just a cow for him to milk.

George you say that much of the budget increase is for one time expenses. Do you think that in the next budget they’ll exclude that amount from the baseline or just figure that it’s their money and we should just shut up how they spend it.

You say you stuck that little biennium thing in there as a test to see if we know what we’re talking about. I find that rather interesting because you’ve stated some things as facts (such as tuition didn’t go up) that turned out to be incorrect. I don’t recall in those instances that you apologized for saying we were in error.

Maybe it’s time for the big government Republicans to be honest with themselves.

Ah, I see. With a wave of his hand, the almighty Port dismisses any history, fact or reasoning…unless it fits his narrow point of view. Then who cares it is accurate and true.

You seem to be getting testy Rob. Maybe it isn’t me who can’t take a little heat himself.

By the way, you love to whack at Hoeven, but where are you on the legislature who spent millions more than the governor requested. Or how about the Dems who wanted $500 million more spent. How about Sen Tracy Potter the former ND Socialist Party official. How about Rep. Jasper Schneider, the most likely Dem Insurance candidate. You seemed to have forgotten them.

Whistler

I am interested in your 24% budget increase figure.
Is that annually?

Gee George I thought you knew the state government worked on biennium (a two year budget).

Maybe you need to quit lecturing the rest of us until you get a better grip of the process.

Whistler

As for Governor Hoeven suppporting the massive Dem increase in SCHIP, you have your facts wrong. The letter 43 governors signed asked for four things…reauthorization of SCHIP, increased funding, flexibility fo rthe states in implementing and encouraged the GOP and Dems to work together to get the job done.

The letter DID NOT advocate specifically for the passage of the goofy Dem plan that was obviously design to illicit a veteo. Here is a link to the letter I found.

http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.cb6e7818b34088d18a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=522135d7cc304110VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD

As for the NDDHS budget, I stand corrected. Give that man a cookie. I meant to say the federal funding percentage decreased, not the federal funding. ND increased their budget to meet the increased state match required to get the federal funding. ND’s percentage match keeps going up due to the strength of our economy relative to the country. All indications are that the match percentage will continue to rise as our forecast continues to outpace the nation.

Finally, I don’t get your 38% tax point. The taxes you quote are only roughly 75% of the 40% of the total budget that is general fund. What is your point?

Rob, hopefully without getting dragged too far into this, I don’t agree with you n this one. Without knowing the details of why the COEs are requesting more state funds, it’s hard to make any meaningful conclusion about the request. Perhaps you have a link with more details from a less partisan web site?

Lets say (for R108′s sake “hypothetically”), that the COEs were successful in job creation, especially in quality jobs (meaning not McDonald’s fry cook type jobs), then logic would say more cash infusion could lead to additional jobs. Asking for more money in that case wouldn’t be a sign of failure, but rather success.

That is a completely different question than the premise under which the COEs were created to start with, because it deals with “here’s where we are now, and this is what is sensible to do next”, not boxed-in “but you said based on last years data, you would do XYZ” sort of reasoning. As with other policy questions, like “what to do next in Iraq”, what we said or did in the past should not constrain our decisions for the future.

Whistler:

Carrick there is a place for basic research but I doubt that your model is producing ready for market ideas at a fraction of the cost of private enterprise.

Having seen how private industry functions (or doesn’t usually when it comes to basic research), I can say that you’re flat wrong. We can do the same work that it costs industry for about 1/3 the price or less. Industry isn’t nearly as efficient for this sort of thing as you seem to think.

It’s not fair taking a gem out of the pile of manure and holding
Rob:

We have seen many, many businesses move into North Dakota to take advantage of economic development money, only to pack up and leave once its time for them to start standing on their own.

See my comment about a lack of extant technological infrastructure. Simply giving a company an incentive to come is not going to succeed.

In fact North Dakota’s experience that you’ve related is exactly my point. Subsidies and incentives don’t work; technology infrastructural improvements do. (However, the time span is > 5 years to see a return.)

Later.

Robert108:

Not in the middle of a cornfield, or in the Sahara Desert.

You’re wrong about the first example, because in 10 years you’d see strip malls all over the place. The second is a stupid example, because increasing the efficiency isn’t going to help if there is nobody there to work or purchase any products.

There has to be a demand first. The longevity of a commodity has no bearing on its supply/demand status.

Baloney. The existence of Roman roads in England have no bearing on current demand, yet they affect where industry is located. And once again, they aren’t “commodities”. Once built, they aren’t bought and sold.

You are only right in that industry isn’t created solely by the building of roads. Obviously it presupposes the existence of an economy. Industry just operates more efficiently where there is an effective transportation system, than when there isn’t. So it will naturally chose locations where it can operate efficiently over those where it cannot. That’s why the mass-migration to Mexico of our technology firms never occurred. They simply lack the infrastructure down there to support the industry.

By the way, “infrastructure” is a term recognized in economics as being distinct from the supply and demand cycle. Why, with your training, do you continue to insist on conflating the two?

By the way , general tax items such as sales/use, income etc amount to 38% of the total budget. Page 19 in the budget if you ever want to look it up.

Pretty close for a neo-lib.

Children’s health insurance is critical the SCHIP is important but we clearly need to do more to make health insurance more affordable.

Whistler:

The question is how many jobs would be created if the money were left in the economy and not handed out as favors?

In which state? Not North Dakota, unless you’re talking about field hand work or stocking shelves at Walmart.

And there is a huge difference between a socialistic system and one in which the government plays a role in the economy. Road building is not socialism, neither is the existence of a federal reserve, neither for that is technology infrastructure.

You guys stay backwards. No skin off my back.

I’m factually challenged?

I notice you conveniently gloss over any proof or fact or completely ignore facts if inconvenient to your point. Oil jobs, state tax rankings, economic activity are just a few examples.

Since you are not interested in fact contrary to your opinion or are unwilling to admit you are ever wrong, we will discontinue this pointless back and forth. I will be content to correct your errors and do my best to tell the real story.

All your complaining will not hide these facts:

1. ND is doing very well. In fact, this may be the best times our state has ever seen. Every segment of our economy is cooking.

2. ND has created thousands of new jobs…25,000 jobs and 12,000 more working (how’s that for compromise).

3. Wages are growing faster than the national average.

And it is being done in the most inefficient means possible.

No, that would be some sort of totalitarian socialist single-payer system.
Despite your fantasy, george, a real business operates in a completely different manner than socialized enterprises, right from the basic reason to engage in the business in the first place. Unless you have run a real business, this fact will be lost on you. I suggest a basic econ course, since there are fundamental principles here of which you have little or no knowledge.

Actually, you have it wrong on both counts.

The general fund represents only a part of the total state taxes spent.

Federal funds make up about 30%, other funds 30% and general funds about 30%.

Federal funds also impact general funds. Almost all federal funds require a state match. Also, as ND’s economy heats up, the federal matching dollars increase and the federal money decreses just to hold even.

And don’t get on Hoeven for HP shortages. He put it in the budget and the legislature cut it in half.

No neo-libs here.

By the way George has still not admitted that Governor Hoeven signed a letter urging President Bush to agree to expand the POOR Childrens health care program to include 25 year olds in households making $80,000 a year.

We don’t buy Hoeven’s contention that 25 year olds are children nor are families making $80,000 a year deserving of a subsidy.

We can do the same work that it costs
industry for about 1/3 the price or less.

I would like to see some real numbers to back up this claim.

Carrick: Market forces modernized this country to take advantage of everything the Industrial Revolution made possible; why do we now need govt to do it?

Carrick: If you want to change the subject to natural resources, I give you the Yukon and the Black Hills. There was a very high demand for gold, and when the supply was found in those two places, the need for infrastructure was created. Before then, there was no demand for infrastructure in those two locations.

robert 108

You are something else.

FYI: I built and run a $15 million business. I also pay $200,000 a year in healthcare premiums for my employees. I know something of what I am talking about.

Unlike you who deals in polysci/econ theory, I deal with the real world everyday.

My comment had to do delivering services in the most inefficient means possible…in our current healthcare system. I guess if we are going to deal in fantasy, proving them on the moon would also be more inefficient.

Rob

I can’t agree with you more about unnecessary trust funds. The legislature loves em as a way to hide money so they can’t spend them…or give them back. However, you will find that Hoeven has not supported the establishment of these “trust” funds.

The Human Services increase you quote is General Fund only. 80% of the increase is due to replacing the reduced federal funding ND received due to our strong economy. The net result of the total budget impact is significantly less.

As for my numbers, you love to call them wrong, despite my documentation. It seems that you are the one who can’t prove his numbers…when you actually ever bother to provide numbers to prove.

Yours is an old trick, if you can’t beat em, call em a liar. Bad form old friend.

Road building is not socialism, neither is the existence of a federal reserve, neither for that
is technology infrastructure.

Like National Defense, some things are better done by govt; they are few in number, and should be re-evaluated from time to time. It should always be a cost/benefit calculation, not for vote-buying purposes.
In the case of taxpayer-funded tech research through govt bureaucracy, it is still proper to consider the use of that taxpayer money if it is left in the private sector. If taxes weren’t so high, more money would stay in the private sector to fund research. It would still be more efficient for business to do it directly, rather than pass it through govt infrastructure, with its tendency toward political patronage and social goals, rather than real progress. The present globalwarming crap is a prime example.

So …other than on a purely philosophical level, why would anybody advocate changing it?

Again and again, I repeat that once that money is confiscated from the private sector, it is no longer available for privately funded research. Govt needs monopoly power to win, so you continue to demonstrate that truth every time you go to this particular argument. Who decides what “basic research” is, anyway?

Robert

It is apples to apples. Infrasctructure and overhead is imbedded into both sides of the equation.

But you miss the point. This cost/utilization is happening. Government is involved and hospital’s care mandated. No matter what, healthcare costs are shifted to the private sector and the real costs hidden in the current arrangement.

And it is being done in the most inefficient means possible.

Carrick: Massachusetts didn’t move from being agrarian to industrial because of govt programs. The same process can take place anywhere the market is allowed to operate. Govt programs are still about vote-buying.

We can produce ready-for-market ideas at a fraction of the cost that it would cost industry, and because we don’t live at the whim of some business executive (who will likely get switched out in two years, replaced by another executive with completely different priorities), and can work a problem from conception to completion (five years is a realistic period for any serious basic research to ready-for-market ideas).

Carrick there is a place for basic research but I doubt that your model is producing ready for market ideas at a fraction of the cost of private enterprise.

Now maybe your outfit is doing that and if so congratulations. However you’ve got to lump the successful with those programs that NEVER produce to come up with the actual cost/benefit.

It’s not fair taking a gem out of the pile of manure and holding that out as an example.

TW: Most successful people have learned to live within their means. If they want more stuff, they do what it takes to earn it. Lefties want you to live beyond your means, with someone else’s money.

Lower taxes and less regulation are two ways it can help. That isn’t “helping”; it’s just getting out of the way. Tax incentives, tax credits Once again, this is less govt. Just don’t take the money out of the private sector in the first place. and private public partnerships Absolutely not. It simply obstructs the power of the private sector in the name of vote-buying. are other ways government can assist private industry in creating jobs. The best thing govt can do it to stay out of the private sector altogether.

This forum was made possible by such a private public partnership. Our tax money is wasted by this kind of thing. Everything govt “does” is paid for by the taxpayers. The personal computer age was largely the product of NASA working with private industry. Jobs and Wozniak? I don’t think they worked for NASA, and the Xerox design group was a private business.

When govt intrudes on private business, everybody except the political class is worse off. Govt money is just like heroin; once you get some, you want more and more, but it destroys you in the end, no matter how good it feels in the beginning.

I guess you haven’t heard of the land-grant system.

False. You should know that all the money confiscated to fund that system came from people who were already successful. Like I said, govt is a follower.
Again and again, you ignore the truth that the worth of govt activity can only be accurately judged by what would have happened without the govt taking over. Govt has to work in a monopoly environment, since it cannot win in a truly competitive situation.

I pay the insurance premium because that is what I have to do to be competitive and attract the kind of employees I need to be successful. No one forces me to.

Have you tried higher compensation? Of course, the govt biases the situation by allowing employer-paid healthcare premiums to be from pretax dollars, rather than the aftertax dollars for personally-purchased healthcare. Just another example of market distortion by the govt.

Rob:
1. I was responding to robert 108′s assertion that I needed an econ education. I get it everyday…old school style.

2. I believe this is the second time you have implied I was on the ED dole. I have never needed ED money, but I don’t begrudge the state using it to assist business. I also think it is dangerous for you to diss people getting state support.

3. You will find all these funds were eatablished before Hoeven became Governor. The last was the Oil and Gas Trust Fund. All tax revenues above $100 million go into the Trust Fund instead of in to tax relief or the General Fund. It was passed in the 1999 session.

4. If you truly do care about all tax dollars, then you should be glad. The 2007-09 budget increased total Human Services Dept spending an average of 6% per year. When federal dollars comprise 75% of the Human Services budget you can’t just cherry pick one piece of the data that fits your POV.

5. Just because you say it is so, doesn’t make it so.

You keep running down my facts, but I have presented credible evidence in every case. It would appear you don’t care for fact, but rely on platitude to rebut all povs out of sync with your.

I have my problems with both the gov and the GOP leg, but I also give them credit for doing a lot of things right. You can’t seem to get that far.

robert 108:
I pay the insurance premium because that is what I have to do to be competitive and attract the kind of employees I need to be successful. No one forces me to.

Whistler:

I noticed you reverted to using only 40% of the total state budget again. The actual total state budget has grown only 4.1% So much for fair and balanced bloggers. (might be an oxymoron)

Actually, the tax credit plan is fairness at its best. The only reason a small town or rural area would get less back is that they paid less in the firt place.

It is also the most transparent. By bypassing the local government and giving the $$$ directly to the people, you force the local government to own up to what their real taxes are and they can’t use the cut to hid ocal increases. I only wish the $1.2 billion the state gave the local governments were as transparent. It accounts for almost 50% of local government spending and yet tax payers in cities, counties and school districts never see the benefit or the real cost of their local government.

Why a property tax tax credit? Simple. Property owners pay more taxes than anyone else. Lots more.

We agree they need to do more and I believe that they will.

By the way, they didn’t spend the estimated $600 million 2007-09 surplus on more programs. Keep in mind the state doesn’t have it yet. It is just accumulating during this biennium because the legislature wasn’t confident it was for real. In the next session it will be in the bank and not an estimate.

This group has always been reluctant to spend or cut until it was proven real. The Dems spent on the hope of increased revenues back in the 80s and got burned.

As for the fact basis of my numbers, I quoted NDSU tuition. I pay my son’s tuition so I know. You quoted UND, which those liberal arts blood suckers probably did increase tuition. I am still trying to get system wide numbers and will gladly share when I do and I invite youto do the same.

As for you, weren’t you the one quoting errant tax rankings. I have repeatedly provided source links for my numbers. Several on this blogs attempt to discredit my facts with little more than plaitutdes and overheated rethoric.

I am not sure I am the one with a credibility problem.

While not perfect, I have a hard time calling this group big government Republicans. They rank 37th in the nation in spending per capita. I have seen Jeff Delzer spend two hours grilling a Human Services budget analyst over the purchase of fax machines. Their reputation has been tight to the point of ridiculous. Sure, the dam broke this time, but the long view is something quite different. Hence the 4% growth rate over 8 years.

We aren’t talking about work performed within the government infrastructure itself (“government labs”), but rather work billed out to university research facilities.

There is govt infrastructure cost involved in confiscating the money in the first place, then there are administrative costs involved in its distribution.
One of the Big Lies about govt programs involves not counting those costs when calculating “efficiency”.

We can produce ready-for-market ideas at a fraction of the cost that it would cost industry…

I doubt this; there are a lot of costs involved in govt infrastructure that are usually not counted in such calculations. I doubt that any govt run enterprise can function as efficiently as one that has to make a profit.

Obviously it presupposes the existence of an economy.

My point exactly. You are half right about infrastructure. Once it is created, it functions as you say, but its creation is a matter of supply and demand.
When I was in High School, a developer built the streets for a new housing development in the West San Fernando Valley, but it sat unbuilt for about thirty years, because the developer had assumed a demand that wasn’t there at the time. At least taxpayer money wasn’t wasted on that project. Your simplistic idea of infrastructure just doesn’t fit reality. It’s a little more complicated than you make out, and IMO should be left to market forces in the vast majority of cases, at least to the extent of the reason for its creation. Using taxpayer money might be appropriate once demand has been established by the market. Your example of the printed circuit board company was an example of bad management and possibly undercapitalization to fit the situation on the ground. They should have allowed enough money to pay for relocation of the necessary workers, if there were none in the area. After that, locals would retrain to fill the demand. Demand first, then supply.

Carrick: I think there’s a fundamental error in the idea that govt can “create jobs” by redistributing tax money. If you take the law of supply and demand seriously(and I do), then it stands to reason that the economy is supplying the jobs necessary to meet the demand, both in general and in particular. Given that, the reality of govt “job creation” programs is to address unemployment, not to add to economic growth. In addition, there is a pretty hefty overhead cost in any govt program, so a lot of the money confiscated gets siphoned off by the govt infrastructure, and doesn’t actually create any jobs.
For those reasons, I very much doubt that govt ever creates any productive jobs at all, in excess of the cost to the taxpayers.
If the govt really wanted to help economic growth, they would cut their spending, thus allowing lower taxes, along with eliminating anti-business regulations.

Once again you fail to tell the real story. The Centers that received additional money did not get full funding in the original grant. Coming back for the rest of the grant was always the plan and expected. By the way, Centers only get money when they secure twice as much from the private sector. Please at least try to be accurate.

George, you’ve posted a few good things the Governor has done. These fail to make up for the amount of tax dollars the Governor has left tied up in the government and the massive increases in state spending he has presided over.

24% increase in general fund spending this last session. A 48% increase in Human Services spending since 2000, and that’s over and above the rate of inflation. It’s a 70% increase overall. And that is not one-time spending, pal, and you know it.

And as for this:

We just passed the largest tax break in history…a $120 million dollar income tax credit for property tax payers like me.

I own property too, and this was baloney. Giving me some of the income tax dollars I overpaid back to compensate for the too-high property taxes I’m paying while doing nothing to solve the reason why those property taxes are high in the first place (local spending?)? That’s not tax relief, that’s a shell game designed to make taxpayers think they’re getting tax relief.

But keep blowing smoke, George. Maybe somebody out there will buy what you’re selling.

Hoeven is a fiscal liberal. He’s keeping mountains of tax dollars tied up in the government. How much are in all those 40 or so special funds we have?

I was talking to a legislator today who told me that he thinks there may very well be some chamber in Bismarck where Hoeven and his people go swimming in all the money we’ve got tied up.

We’re on the verge of a tax-revolt in this state, and while Hoeven has managed to stay above the fray so far, he’s going to have to start taking responsibility.

Carrick,

From my perspective, all jobs are good jobs because they all develop the economy. As competition in the labor market grows, wages go up. As they go up, higher-skilled jobs are created.

Now we can skip steps and try to go right to developing high-tech jobs, but I don’t see that kind of growth as being sustainable. For one thing, the businesses it brings in don’t tend to stick around. For another, the number of tax dollars we spend per job created is a terribly inefficient amount. And then there’s the problems with corruption and cronyism.

I think your perspective is different because you work in a field where you get grants from the taxpayers all the time. And maybe that’s a good thing, I don’t know, but as a taxpayer in North Dakota I’m telling you that the money they’re spending on these centers of excellence would do better back in our pockets.

I don’t care about bringing some super-duper research facility here. You give me more of my money back, my quality of life goes up.

That’s the way I see things, and I don’t see it as “staying backward.” I call that sustainable economic development.

I don’t know. I just think we’re shooting ourselves in the foot when we give the politicians millions of dollars and say “create jobs.”

Again, Carrick, it’s not so much the funding of research and development itself I’m griping about but rather the way in which we’re doing it. We have seen many, many businesses move into North Dakota to take advantage of economic development money, only to pack up and leave once its time for them to start standing on their own.

What does that do except waste the taxpayer’s money?

It’s also difficult to pay high taxes, watch the legislators spend massive budget surpluses every session, get no tax relief and then see things like the Centers of Excellence suck up more tax dollars than they were supposed to get to begin with.

And then there’s the corruption and cronyism, which I think is a bigger problem with this stuff than anyone wants to realize. But that’s what happens when you throw around tax dollars like this.

By providing SCHIP for truly needy, we not only make health care cheaper by driving it to the clinics, but we also give the kids the care they need and make the costs transparent.

We’re already providing SHCIP to the truly needed. John Hoeven and the Democrats want to expand it to people who don’t need it.

Carrick, I think government funding of research and development can result in benefits for taxpayers in general. The problem is that here in North Dakota we’ve gone overboard with that model. All over the state we have these private committees or panels that get millions of taxpayer dollars, and they then use those millions to decide which businesses get government help and which don’t.

That’s not fair. It is central economic planning and it has no place in America. It especially has no place in North Dakota given the level of taxation citizens here have to put up with.

Just calculated the average annual general fund budget increases by the Hoeven admin and GOP legislature since JH took office (2001-09)….6.5%!

Total ND budget increased an average 4.1% during the same period.

Only a liberal would see those numbers as good. If they’re even accurate. You’re becoming notorious for bad numbers, George.

Were those budget increases necessary? And why is all that money being tucked away into “special funds” and not given back to the taxpayers.