Matt Yglesias

Rick Perry Doesn’t Know Texas is in a Recession

Lee Fang reports that Texas Governor Rick Perry doesn’t realize there’s a recession in his state:

PERRY: Why is Texas kind of recession-proof, if you will? As a matter of fact, just today I think, Michael, you said someone had put a report out that the first state that’s coming out of the recession is going to be the State of Texas. I told him, I said, ‘We’re in one?’

Texas is doing better than many other states, but it’s very much in a recession. Governor Perry might want to consult such newspaper articles as “Texas unemployment hits 22-year high in August”

Below average unemployment is better than above average unemployment, but Texas unemployment is still much higher than it’s been in a long time. That’s a recession.

Is Texas a Model for Growth?

Dallas, Texas skyline (wikimedia)

I think there are an awful lot of problems with Ross Douthat’s column arguing that the contrasting fates of Texas and California during the recession help make the case for conservatism. In addition to what Steve Benen said, I think it’s important to note that energy-exporting economies around the world have held up unusually well during the recession. Texas is less battered than California, and Norway has probably the richest country left on earth. But public policy can’t conjure up oil fields.

But more to the point, just like when Tom DeLay attributed Texas’ prosperity to its citizens’ propensity for hard work the main reply is that there’s nothing to explain about Texas’ prosperity: Texas is a poorer-than-average state. There’s really nothing surprising about a broad trend toward catch-up growth given how integrated the overall American economy is. If anything the most interesting issue about states’ economic trajectories is why don’t we see more convergence? How is it that the south hasn’t yet caught up with the north given the lack of barriers to trade, investment, and migration?

If Texas Seceeds, Don’t Mess With It

Annie Lowery took a look at the countermeasures available to the United States in the unlikely event of a real Texas secession movement:

It would be the world’s thirteenth largest economy — bigger than South Korea, Sweden, and Saudi Arabia. But its worth would crater precipitously, after NAFTA rejected it and the United States slapped it with an embargo that would make Cuba look like a free-trade zone. Indeed, Texas would quick become the next North Korea, relying on foreign aid due to its insistence on relying on itself.

On the foreign policy front, a seceded Texas would suffer for deserting the world superpower. Obama wouldn’t look kindly on secessionists, and would send in the military to tamp down rebellion. If Texas miraculously managed to hold its borders, Obama would not establish relations with the country — though he might send a special rapporteur. (We nominate Kinky Friedman.)

The assumption here, though, is that the United States would want to coerce the Republic of Texas back into the fold. I don’t really see a good reason for doing that. Obviously, we shouldn’t let Texas secede as part of an unpopular governor’s bid to win a primary election against Kay Bailey Hutchison by defining himself as the wingnuttiest guy around. Letting a state secede on a whim would be a bad idea. But the situation in 2009 is very different from the situation in 1860 so if a big state like Texas (or a sizable bloc of states) had a population that was showing a clear and consistent preference for secession, one should consider just letting them go. Situations like the “Velvet Divorce” in which the Czech Republic and Slovakia amicably went their separate ways are rare, but that was a much better outcome than a typical bloody civil war.

The real question is not what could we do to stop Texas from seceding, but what would be reasonable terms?

The core elements of an amicable divorce would, I think, be Texas membership in NAFTA and NATO so as to ensure that disruption is minimized and nobody is a threatening anyone else. Beyond that, you’d need to do something about citizenship. My preference would be for the United States of America to establish a rule such that anyone whose citizenship in the Republic of Texas dates back to Texas Independence Day would have an unrestricted right to move to the USA at a time of his choosing and swap citizenship. We would also need, I think, to create a time period of, say, five years in which any American citizen who wants to become a Texan has the right to become a Texan. After that, Texas may or may not want to adopt a more stringent immigration policy.

Then there’s the issue of the debt. Texas would need to assume responsibility for a portion of the U.S. national debt that’s proportionate to its share of the population. Given that this debt is denominated in dollars, it will be important in the early years for the Republic to maintain a currency that’s strong vis-a-vis the dollar and a current account surplus. Given Texas’ oil that shouldn’t be too hard to pull off, and could be further assisted by having the United States military agree to “lease” military bases on Texas territory for ten years.

One could imagine some other reactionary states choosing to federate with Texas. And I think if that happened then, over the long-run, both sides might wind up happier. Chris Bowers, who’s opposed to secession, argues instead that “the better approach for progressives is to try and connect the United States more with other countries and international organizations, rather than fragmenting into smaller countries. More connection, not more division, is the answer.”

My own view, however, is that internationalization goes hand in hand with regionalization. In other words, that the smart money in the 21st century is on the diversion of power both up and down from the nation-state level. For a more practical example, look to Europe, where the United Kingdom’s integration into the European Union has gone hand in hand with some steps to moving away from the UK’s hypercentralized political system. In a world of strong nation-states, a place like Scotland or Wales would just be a weak nation-state. But international economic and security agreements reduce the incentive for a small state to affiliate with a larger neighbor. So we’ve seen the creation of a Scottish parliament. And I believe there’s been a similar devolutionary impulse in Spain. You hear talk sometimes of a “Europe of Regions” rather than a Europe of Nations, and I don’t think it’s a crazy idea.

None of which is to say that Texas will or should secede. But I do think it makes sense to think about ways to facilitate the amicable breakup or reconfiguration of nation-states rather than assuming that every parting of the ways needs to recapitulate the Civil War or the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Dallas to Houston Rail

As I said yesterday, it strikes me as odd that the designated high-speed rail corridors system involves two different corridors that are partially in Texas, but doesn’t include a Dallas-Houston line. I thought I would look into Dallas-Houston transportation a bit more. Kayak showed 20 flights per day from Houston to DFW airport plus another ten from Houston to Love Field. According to Google Maps it’s a 3 hour 40 minute drive. And the distance is almost exactly the same as the distance from Washington, DC to New York. In other words, the city-pair is at a distance where we know that rail can be competitive even if it’s not true HSR. And based on the 30 daily flights between the two cities, there seems to be ample demand.

At any rate, with Rick Perry talking about secession from the United States in order to shore up his flank amidst a primary campaign, I doubt we’ll be seeing Texas get behind any far-sighted initiatives any time soon. But this would be a good idea for the state to pursue.

Delay Claims Poorer-than-Average Texas is “Wealthy” Because Texans “Work Hard”

A few bloggers have noted that Tom DeLay went on a strange neo-secessionist binge yesterday on Hardball with Chris Matthews. This segment of the interview in which he lays out his substantive rationale has gotten less attention. But DeLay’s conceit is that Texas is a “wealthy state” because of it’s right-wing business-friendly policies, a situation that he specifically contrasts with the environment in California, New York, and New Jersey which have allegedly impoverished themselves with high taxes and overregulation:

One problem here is that Texas isn’t a wealthy state. Its median household income of $47,548 made it 28th in the country. Below average, in other words. New Jersey is second, California is eighth, and New York is nineteenth. Indeed, of the top ten states in per capita income nine are “blue” states.

The exception is Alaska, whose wealthy is due not to “hard work” on the part of the population or a business-friendly policy environment but to the combination of substantial natural resource wealth and a small population. Texas is like a poor man’s Alaska, with the substantial natural resource wealth but with the wealth spread across a much greater population. Absent oil, Texas would probably look more like its even poorer neighbors Louisiana (46), Oklahoma (44), Arkansas (49), and New Mexico (45). To some extent, I think the relative poverty of the South can really be attributable to the harmful consequences of Dixie-style conservative policies. But beyond that, it’s generally the case that state wealth is highly path-dependent—economic vibrancy attracts high-skilled workers which in turn leads to more economic vibrancy. But however you weigh that balance, the idea that Texas points us forward to a wealth-generating policy environment is absurd.

Rick Perry: Leave Texas Alooooone

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been throwing some serious heat lately, of the sort not scene since the federal government wanted to make states let black folks vote, or since there was some suggestion that the federal government might curtail white people’s ability to own black people as chattel:

“I believe the federal government has become oppressive. It’s become oppressive in its size, its intrusion in the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state. [...] “We think it’s time to draw the line in the sand and tell Washington that no longer are we going to accept their oppressive hand in the state of Texas. That’s what this press conference, that’s what these Texans are standing up for. There is a point in time where you stand up and say enough is enough, and I think Americans, and Texans especially have reached that point.”

Via Steve Benen, Texas Blue observes that Perry hasn’t always been that hostile to federal meddling in his state:

— Governor Rick Perry, five days ago: Governor Perry Calls FEMA To Assist With Wildfires

— Governor Rick Perry, last month: Governor Perry Calls For 1,000 Troops To Be Sent To Border

— Governor Rick Perry, five months ago: Governor Perry Requests 18 Month Extension Of Federal Aid For Ike Debris Removal

Honestly, though, I agree with Mike Tomasky that if Texas wants to leave the union we should probably just let them go and I’d say the same for other southern states that feel oppressed by our efforts to use federal tax money to help them take care of their unemployed citizens. Back during the Civil War, the cause of keeping the union together was intertwined with the cause of fighting the great evil of slavery. But assume we just welcome migrants from the Republic of Texas with open arms if they want to flee north, there’d be no comparable problem with letting Texas leave.

Obviously, one advantage of large-scale secession of the most conservative states is that it would be a lot easier to pass progressive legislation. An aspect of Civil War history that people don’t tend to appreciate is that the temporary departure of the Dixie bloc of Senators allowed a huge flowering of legislative activity that wouldn’t otherwise have been possible. In addition to prosecuting the war, the Lincoln-era GOP took sweeping action on industrial policy, infrastructure, land reform, etc. much of which would have been extraordinarily difficult to accomplish had the southerners just stayed in their seats and used the considerable levers of obstruction that are available to legislative minorities.

Texas GOP Legislator Calls for Asian Americans to Adopt Simpler Names

How’s that minority outreach going I wonder?

A North Texas legislator during House testimony on voter identification legislation said Asian-descent voters should adopt names that are “easier for Americans to deal with.”

The comments caused the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday to demand an apology from state Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell. But a spokesman for Brown said her comments were only an attempt to overcome problems with identifying Asian names for voting purposes. [...] “Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

As it happens, it seems to me that people of Chinese ancestry tend to have very “easy” names as things stand—lots of monosyllables and so forth. The big culprits in terms of “difficult” names, I would say, are Eastern Europeans, South Asians, upper-class WASPs, and of course those of us with Galician names like “Yglesias” that combined foreign origin with unorthodox spelling.