Messin' with Texas: The more critics try to assail Rick Perry's economic record, the better Perry looks

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

We knew it would happen. The moment Rick Perry entered the race, his economic record in Texas would be scrutinzed by those looking to throw water on the numbers. Numbers like creating 37% of the nation’s jobs since the recession.

So far, the critics are losing this debate. Those who hope for an Obama re-election should probably focus on other parts of Perry’s persona and background. Paint him as a creature from the Texas cultural backwaters, but stay away from his economic record. First of all, doing so invites some pretty strong rebuttals, and second, talking about the economy ultimately reminds everyone how lousy the Obama economy is.

Paul Krugman, Exhibit A, was the loudest early critic who’s received the most attention. He called the Texas miracle “a myth” and basically said that the economy grew because the population was growing. That he didn’t even stop for a nanosecond to consider that people might be moving to Texas because of the economy was an early sign that he had an agenda. He also highlighted the growth in low-wage jobs in Texas.

Some other skeptical takes have been a bit more balanced, criticizing Perry, among other things, for taking more stimulus money than others (Texas is the 2^nd biggest state of course, so getting more money in absolute terms isn’t too surprising).

The rebuttals began almost simultaneously. Two in particular are worth mentioning.

Kevin Williamson’s entire response is worth reading. It’s filled with good observations and numbers. Very simply, though, he points out that:

People are moving from the collapsing states into the expanding states because there is work to be had, and opportunity.

In other words, people aren’t just moving to Texas because they, well, decided to move to Texas. Population grows as opportunity increases. Krugman the Nobeal laureate pretty much missed this point.

And with regard to all those low wage jobs, Williamson writes:

The fact that a large number of workers make minimum wage, combined with a young and immigrant-heavy population and millions of new jobs, may very well mean that teens and others who otherwise would not be working at all have found employment. That is a sign of economic strength, not of stagnation. New York and Massachusetts would be better off with millions of new minimum-wage workers — if that meant millions fewer unemployed people.

The other rebuttal worth reading is at Political Math.

It’s a long post that, like Williamson’s, is worth reading in full. But I’ll just leave you with this chart, which counters the claim that Texas’s unemployment numbers are too high to be called a success (a claim Krugman also makes):

Political Math points out that unemployment numbers don’t account for people moving in or out of states. Some states with lower unemployment numbers benefit because many people have left the state, while others, like Texas, get dinged because so many people move into the state. So Political Math looks at how current employment in states appears compared to the population at the beginning of the recession.

Texas looks pretty good. Say what you want, but the more we dig into the Lone Star State’s track record, the smaller the critics look.

All in all, going after Perry’s economic record is tricky business for the left. Every time they bring it up, they deflect light onto Obama’s economic record. The line “well, Perry’s record isn’t nearly as good as people say” still has the word “good” in it. No description of the Obama economy, even from among his most ardent supporters, has “good” in it.

The person who stands the most to gain from skepticism over Perry’s economic record is Mitt Romney, not Obama. But I don’t expect to see him quoting Krugman anytime soon.

Comments

[Ricardo's Ghost]

Oh dear. You ought to read Krugman's blog more often, then you might start to understand his argument.

Krugman does consider whether Texas has some amazing policies that means job opportunities are being created and pulling workers into the state. If that were the case, and it was demand for workers that explained the job creation numbers we would expect to see wages rising in Texas. We don't.

[Richard Lowe]

Weren't most jobs created, public sector jobs?