https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rep...vernment/.

Quote:Not posting the entire article as it has graphs and data plots; worth the jump. Here's the teaser:

Five states will hold elections this November for governor or state legislature — and a lot seems to be on the line. In the Louisiana gubernatorial race, a Republican victory would mean total GOP control of the state government; similarly, in Virginia, Democrats could take total control with just a few more legislative victories.

And which party wins could have big consequences for state policy. Take the Kentucky gubernatorial race as an example. There, Andy Beshear, the Democratic nominee, has claimed that if Republican Gov. Matt Bevin wins reelection, his cuts to the education budget will be so drastic that some of the last remaining schools in rural communities across the state will close. At the same time, Bevin has argued that Beshear holds radical views on health care — like opposing a work requirement for some Medicaid recipients — and that if Beshear is elected, he’ll continue to support the “government takeover of health care.”

But how high are the stakes exactly? Based on the campaign rhetoric, you might expect state spending to be fundamentally transformed by whichever party is in control. The real-world effects, however, are more limited.

One way we can answer this question is to look at what’s happened in state governments over the last 30 years, as Republicans have been on quite an electoral run. The GOP went from full control in only three state governments in 1992 to 26 in 2018. Democrats have had full control of some state governments during this time period too — including some gains in the midterm elections last year — but their control has been nowhere as extensive as the GOP’s. Government at the state level is seen as a story of conservative success; Republicans gained ground nationwide in elections and built networks of advocacy groups, associations and think tanks — all while becoming increasingly conservative.

But in my new book, “Red State Blues: How the Conservative Revolution Stalled in the States,” I argue that states controlled by Republicans haven’t shifted the size of government as much as one might have expected. In reviewing the programs that were (and were not) implemented, I found that policy either continued to move to the left or it stabilized, rather than moving in a more conservative direction.

One simple indicator I looked at is state expenditures. Despite Republican gains at the state level, states have still been spending a lot more money over time. Even as more Republicans took control since the 1990s, median spending by states doubled (adjusted for inflation).

So what....

"...This, of course, does not sound like what Republican governors and legislators typically promise on the campaign trail, but Republican control of state governments did have some effects. I found that Republican control meant slightly less growth in government as a share of a state’s economy. But it took many years to see these effects and it was not enough to reverse the nationwide upward trend...."

If any of those dumb*** states opted in for the medicaid expansion, they are going to be paying a lot more no matter how many republicans they have in control.

Also goes for benefits for government employees. Simply changing the guard will not prevent those costs from skyrocketing, as they are baked in.

Its very similar to the Obama pay-it-forward deficit that Trump is dealing with right now.

This is why the rise of libertarians.... only a small fraction of whom are anarchists (far fewer than the leftist socialists)

The Republican party isn't a small government party anymore... hasn't been for a decent while... maybe since Newt?

Republicans have turned pretty worthless.

But democrats are worse. it's kind of no ideas versus socialist/communist/collectivist ideas.

The enemy of my enemies is my friend. I wish my enemies had better enemies, but I will take what I have.

(10-14-2019 11:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  "...This, of course, does not sound like what Republican governors and legislators typically promise on the campaign trail, but Republican control of state governments did have some effects. I found that Republican control meant slightly less growth in government as a share of a state’s economy. But it took many years to see these effects and it was not enough to reverse the nationwide upward trend...."

And that would be because nobody in either party gets elected by cutting government jobs since the largest employer in many states is the government (schools, state agencies, in some state liquor stores, law enforcement, etc.).

Republicans might slow or stop the growth of Bureaucracy a bit more than Democrats but neither of them cut it. And there's your problem. It's nothing new. Bureaucracies self perpetuate!

(10-14-2019 11:12 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rep...vernment/.

Quote:Not posting the entire article as it has graphs and data plots; worth the jump. Here's the teaser:

Five states will hold elections this November for governor or state legislature — and a lot seems to be on the line. In the Louisiana gubernatorial race, a Republican victory would mean total GOP control of the state government; similarly, in Virginia, Democrats could take total control with just a few more legislative victories.

And which party wins could have big consequences for state policy. Take the Kentucky gubernatorial race as an example. There, Andy Beshear, the Democratic nominee, has claimed that if Republican Gov. Matt Bevin wins reelection, his cuts to the education budget will be so drastic that some of the last remaining schools in rural communities across the state will close. At the same time, Bevin has argued that Beshear holds radical views on health care — like opposing a work requirement for some Medicaid recipients — and that if Beshear is elected, he’ll continue to support the “government takeover of health care.”

But how high are the stakes exactly? Based on the campaign rhetoric, you might expect state spending to be fundamentally transformed by whichever party is in control. The real-world effects, however, are more limited.

One way we can answer this question is to look at what’s happened in state governments over the last 30 years, as Republicans have been on quite an electoral run. The GOP went from full control in only three state governments in 1992 to 26 in 2018. Democrats have had full control of some state governments during this time period too — including some gains in the midterm elections last year — but their control has been nowhere as extensive as the GOP’s. Government at the state level is seen as a story of conservative success; Republicans gained ground nationwide in elections and built networks of advocacy groups, associations and think tanks — all while becoming increasingly conservative.

But in my new book, “Red State Blues: How the Conservative Revolution Stalled in the States,” I argue that states controlled by Republicans haven’t shifted the size of government as much as one might have expected. In reviewing the programs that were (and were not) implemented, I found that policy either continued to move to the left or it stabilized, rather than moving in a more conservative direction.

One simple indicator I looked at is state expenditures. Despite Republican gains at the state level, states have still been spending a lot more money over time. Even as more Republicans took control since the 1990s, median spending by states doubled (adjusted for inflation).

I agree.

And this is why I continually say that democrats actively push a leftist agenda while republicans say they fight against a leftist agenda but vote in favor of it.

Let's get real for a minute...both of our main parties are big government parties. Don't fool yourself thinking that the "R's" are small government. As a whole, they are not.

Its hard to roll back government

That means layoffs. The general public doesnt like layoffs

MUH NATE!

(10-15-2019 08:31 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  MUH NATE!

Except not written by Nate.

(10-14-2019 04:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  This is why the rise of libertarians.... only a small fraction of whom are anarchists (far fewer than the leftist socialists)
The Republican party isn't a small government party anymore... hasn't been for a decent while... maybe since Newt?

The republicans haven't been for any ideas since Newt. Newt is the last republican who really had any ideas.

Newt is a great idea guy. But he has to stay in the back room generating ideas. You can't let him actually run anything.

Extra extra read all about it! Republicans can't cut! Democrats can't do math! The sun rose today! Water is wet!

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Its hard to roll back government

That means layoffs. The general public doesnt like layoffs

I think we would go for government layoffs, though.

And now's the time to do it, that is with the record-low unemployment levels.

(10-15-2019 03:03 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 08:13 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Its hard to roll back government

That means layoffs. The general public doesnt like layoffs

I think we would go for government layoffs, though.

And now's the time to do it, that is with the record-low unemployment levels.

I agree that now is the time to do it.

And by the way, we can cut government without layoffs. Just institute a hiring freeze. 3% of employees reach retirement age every year, and population grows by 1% a year. So a one-year hiring freeze will reduce government employees as a % of the workforce by 4% (and that's not counting employees who leave for the private sector).

I'm done with the leftists and slightly farther leftists. **** both parties. I can't tell which spends more or lies more.