Conservative Policies Create a Better World- The Census Data Proves It?

States are laboratories of democracy. That phrase is not just a pretty sounding phrase- it actually has meaning, because states around our nation employ all sorts of different policies and we as a society can see the results of those policies by looking at the results in different states. For example, some states adopt policies that you might call more conservative- lower taxes, less regulation of businesses (whether the regulation is for safety, consumers, or the environment), stronger private property rights, a push for self-employment, an emphasis on family values, more freedoms in the workplace, etc. Other states adopt policies that you could call more liberal- higher taxes (to provide more revenue to the state), more regulation of businesses (for safety, consumer protection, environment, etc), more powers for the state to confiscate or control private property, more generous welfare policies, emphasis on the freedom to choose abortions and drugs, union protections, etc. Through the beauties of federalism, different states can adopt different policies.

And over time, we can measure the results of those policies. You can measure them many ways- domestic GDP growth, happiness, health, crime, etc- all of which have demonstrated that states that are run by conservative Republicans tend to do better than liberal Democrats. But one measure that should also be considered is population changes. You see, if people don't like where they live, if they can't find a job where they live, if they are unhappy where they live, if they don't see a future for their families where they live- then they move. And the evidence points towards people moving from liberal states to conservative states.

The Next Right analyzes the data and pulls out a couple of interesting trends:

• Avg tax top marginal income rate in states gaining a Congressional seat: 2.8%.
• Avg tax top marginal income rate  in states losing a Congressional seat: 6.05%
• Michigan's prevailing wage union economy has wreaked more devastation than Hurricane Katrina did to Louisiana. Michigan was alone among the states to lose population, losing 0.6% of it. Louisiana (which had to deal with the destruction and relocation of major portions of its biggest city in this decade) gained 1.4%.
• The Midwest is also hurting, but good policy saves the day. The Midwest fared only slightly better than the Northeast at 3.9% vs. 3.2% growth, but here one begins to see the difference policy makes. The damage here was done by both Democrats and weak sister Republicans. Michigan, which stubbornly refused to change under eight years of Jennifer Granholm, has the nation's worst economy and population growth. (Let us hope, for the sake of the survival of that state, that Governor Rick Snyder and his Republican majorities in the House and Senate can deliver a Right-to-Work law.) Ohio has the second worst, under the consecutive administrations of the corrupt, tax-raising Bob Taft (a Republican) and Ted Strickland (a Democrat). Like Snyder, John Kasich has the opportunity to emerge as a hero of the recovery. But aside from tiny South Dakota, the state in the region with the best population growth at 7.8% -- 4 points higher than neighboring Iowa and 2 points higher than neighboring Wisconsin, was Minnesota, where Tim Pawlenty held the line on taxes and spending for two solid terms. (Disclaimer: I help with Gov. Pawlenty's Freedom First PAC.) Likewise, there is no real reason that industrial Indiana should have performed any better than neighboring Illinois or Ohio other than its distinctively Republican orientation and the budget-cutting leadership of Gov. Mitch Daniels. Illinois, the state whose political leadership this decade consisted of Rod Blagojevich and Barack Obama, turned in a mediocre growth rate of 3.3%, lower than all of its neighbors.
• The Rise of Texas and the Decline of California. The blaring headline from the 2010 Census is, of course, Texas picking up 4 Congressional seats, landing at 38 total electoral votes. The last time a non-California state had this many was New York in the 1980s. At the same time, California leveled out at 55 electoral votes, the first time since the 1920 census that they haven't gained seats. Joel Kotkin has an excellent read on the California-Texas dynamic, stoked by Rick Perry who boasts of "hunting" for jobs every time he visits the Golden State. Texas's 20.6% growth off an already strong base shows its continued promise. California's 10% growth was the weakest in the West save for Montana (9.7%), showing again that even with its favorable geographic positioning, government for the public employee unions, by the public employee unions bleeds jobs and natives. Both states are bouyed by high immigration, much of it illegal (with Texas seemingly avoiding the social friction that characterizes the trend in California and Arizona).
• New York Nearly Fades to 4th Place. If there's a cautionary tale California should heed, it's New York. 2010 was the year California topped out its power and influence on the national stage, and may face an actual decline in Congressional representation in years to come. New York has been in population free fall for some time now. Once the Empire State in both name and fact, Florida is now within 500,000 residents of overtaking it. New York's decline from 1st to 4th seems inevitable.

Liberals I am sure are going to do their usual sputtering and spinning, and I am sure that they will say how this data is the result of a lot of conspiracy theories or something, but the truth of the matter is that when people are allowed to live free, they are allowed to make free choices absent of government regulations (whether they be for safety, 'consumer protection', or environmental protection), when their private property and earnings are protected, and when their family values are embraced and supported, they go about creating a better world to live in than what liberal policies in liberal states are creating. The ball doesn't lie.