N.C. BEATS OUT MICHIGAN FOR MOST JOBS LOST IN MONTH
North Carolina lost 20,700 jobs between June and July, enough to rank it first place, according to data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday, which meant Michigan, which lost 19,800 jobs during the same time, claimed second place.

The federal agency reported the states with the biggest month-to-month increases in jobs were Texas (plus 29,400), Maryland (plus 16,900), New York (plus 11,800) and South Carolina (plus 10,600).  

And if you look, neither New York nor Maryland are Right-to-Work and they are attracting more jobs than most of the states with RTW on the books.

We tried your tax cuts. That didn't help. You promised tax cuts would increase revenues. It didn't. Tax revenues following the cuts have fallen.

Now the big push is to oppose tax increases. The conservatives claim that tax increases will result in even more lost jobs. Instead, conservatives want to slash spending and lay off government employees. Net resuts, even more people on the unemployment rolls.

Some want to push right-to-work. The only way that right-to-work benefits Michigan companies is if leads to Michigan workers taking home less money. Workers making less money means people spending less and less tax revenues for the state.

Some want the state to privatize more services. Again, the only way that helps the state budget is if it results in Michigan workers taking home less money. Otherwise, we won't see a reduction in expenditures. So more people are left making less.

Come on.  You can do it.  Just a few words: "We can tax our way out of Michigan's recession."

Second, the conservative agenda has worked.  In case you didn't notice, the Bush administration's tax cuts have spurred economic growth around the country.  The United States has a 4.6% unemployment rate (considered to be "full employment" by economists), has created nearly 8 million jobs, and has provided the country with 47 consecutive months of job growth.

Sure we're hurting in Michigan because of the auto industry, but without the "conservative agenda" things would probably be a hell of a lot worse in Michigan than they are now, if anyone can even imagine that.

On North Carolina, I understand the concern, but please allow me to rebut the Gongwer article.  I wrote a column on this a couple weeks ago and the the outlook for right-to-work states, North Carolina included, keeps getting better.

Since January of 2003, North Carolina has had a job growth rate of 7.42%.  This is the 17th highest job growth rate in the country for that time period.

Michigan on the other hand has a job growth rate of -4.16% for the same time period.

Sure maybe North Carolina lost more jobs one month, but when you look at the trend over time, there is no comparison.

In fact, starting at Jannuary 2003, when you average all of the job growth rates from right to work states together you get an average growth rate of 9.25%.  This is opposed to non-right to work states, which have a growth rate of only 4.73%.

When you rank all the states together, 7 of the top 10 job growth states are right to work states while 9 out of the bottom 10 job growth states are non-right-to-work.  The exception with the latter is Louisiana, who got leveled by Hurricane Katrina.

Now Democrats will tell you that the only reason this happens is because companies in right to work will hire people for less money and therefore can afford to hire more workers.  And in a state like Michigan right now that would be a problem?

I'm sure that anyone making $0.00 an hour right no in Michigan's job starved economy would work for $8.75 an hour because there are not other jobs out there.

So what does this do?  It has a multiplier effect on the economy.

More people working, means more people have money, which means more people are likely spending money on goods and services, companies producing the goods and services need to respond to increased demand, so they hire more workers.

AKA economics 101.

"Cush" was on OTR talking about this very thing a couple of weeks ago and he laughed at Republicans saying that what we do is eliminate a job where someone was making $80,000 a year and replace that worker four people making $20,000 a year.

Why's that so funny?  The person who is making $80,000 a year is a skilled laborer and likely can find work else where, where as the four people replacing him are probably new hires in entry level positions that will have opportunities to work their way up.  This is what we call economic growth.

Besides, I'm sure Democrats wouldn't have a problem if CEOs surrendered all of their salary in the name of hiring more workers, so for Cush to even make this argument was folley.

•  Between December 1995 and December 2003, Michigan finished 51st among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in employment growth, with a total of just 1.4 percent new jobs created.

• Between 1995 and 2001, Michigan dropped from 23rd to 30th among the 50 states in per-capita gross state product.

• Between 1995 and 2003, Michigan finished 49th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in per-capita income growth.
  

I think that part of the solution is privatization of services.  Mainly because the government is involved in areas where other types of organizations are better equipped to provide services to the needy (for instance) and Medicaid/Medicare are basically jokes.

If you've been on either program you know that government health care (or received services from the VA for anything more than a minor problem), then you know that these programs aren't working the way that they should - or rather - the way that they've been promoted to work to the population that pays for these services through taxation.

But part of the answer is also radical structual change.  Whether it be dropping a program that doesn't work or completely restructuring the way a program functions.  The problem you run into is two-fold 1) people don't like to give up power and 2) once a government agency is created, it stays around forever like that neighbor who you'd like to see move, but never does.

I mean, if you are going to tell me that our education system is the best that we can come up with - considering all the resources that we put into it - then we should be ashamed of ourselves because there are a lot of kids who fall through the cracks.

We can't keep living like we have the resources we used to and we can't keep asking taxpayers for more and more.  The only thing that will accomplish is MORE people on the welfare rolls, not less.  

Your problem personally is that your so invested in tax cuts as THE solution that you refuse to acknowledge any facts that would contradict that. You tout the Bush tax cuts as the reason that the economy was booming in the rest of the US. But somehow the Bush tax cuts didn't work in Michigan, even when layered on top of the state tax cuts that preceeded them? Are we supposed to believe that the Governor Granholm single-handedly was able to override the effects of both the Bush and the state tax cuts? Or maybe, just maybe, the Bush tax cuts aren't the reason that the economies in those other states are booming. Maybe tax cuts or increases only have marginal impact on economic decisions being made, especially by multi-national corporations that just happen to be based in Michigan.

A tax increase might not even be necessary.

Now if only you can get the people in charge on YOUR side to understand that, we'd be all set.

Granholm has her mind SET on raising taxes for 2008.  Now, you want to talk about "political losers"... Raising taxes is ALWAYS a political loser.

That's true, we have been cutting taxes. Under John Engler, the gax tax went up. Now, according to you, raising taxes is "ALWAYS a political loser". Yet it happened. So try explaining how taxes go up if it's "ALWAYS a political loser". Not too tough, is it?

"Also, find where I said our tax system is overly burdensome?  Find the quote."