Buy WILLisms

XML Feed
rss-icon.gif Feedburner RSS
WILLisms.com on Twitter

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Do Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Ace of Spades
Protein Wisdom
Urban Grounds



September 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
January 29, 2008

Caption Contest Archive
Jan. 21, 2009

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com January 2009 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif

Site Meter


« March 2013 | WILLisms.com | May 2013 »

This Intentionally Engineered Air Traffic Control Traveshamockery.

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 970 -- Air Traffic Controllers Purposely Sandbagging-

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, air traffic in the United States has decreased by nearly a quarter (23%) since the year 2000. Meanwhile, America actually has slightly more air traffic controllers than in the year 2000:


So, traffic: way down.

But more controllers.

And then there's the budget situation, as described by Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner:

Here are the facts: President Obama’s 2013 FAA Budget Request asked for just $15.172 billion. But Congress gave them an extra $1.1 billion for the Grants-in-Aid for Airports program, bringing their total 2013 funding to $16.668 billion. Then the sequester lopped off $669 million in FAA funding, leaving them with $15.999 billion.

But that $15.999 billion is more money than they originally asked for to run the entire agency!

Okay. So there really wasn't even an actual budget cut, in other words.

Phil Kerpen explains the numbers this way:

President Obama’s original FAA budget request for fiscal year 2013 was $15,146 million. Congress, knowing sequestration loomed, appropriated $16,008 million. From that, sequestration cut $637 million; so this year’s actual, final FAA budget is $15,371 million. That’s a cool $225 million more than Obama’s original budget request.

And here's a handy graph, as well:


Meanwhile, internal FAA emails reveal that "generating fear and demonstrating failure" are the administration's goals in this fiasco.

In what version of America is it even remotely okay for government employees to conspire to intentionally perform a particular task poorly, just to extract more money from taxpayers across the board?

The facts are clear. There are more than enough air traffic controllers, and more than enough money in the budget, to direct the considerably reduced flow of traffic in the United States today. Any air traffic control delays are therefore either the result of incompetence or purposeful sandbagging.

Either way, this should make your blood boil. It is a travesty. It is a sham. It is a mockery. And it's a story that is still gone largely untold in the establishment media.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Inner Cities Versus Suburbs/Exurbs.

rss-icon.gif twitter-icon.gif facebook-icon.gif

Posted by Will Franklin · 26 April 2013 09:18 AM · Comments (0)

Job Growth: City Cores Versus 'Burbs.

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 969 -- Job Growth In Exurbs More Than City Cores-

Senator Vitter of Louisiana asked a question yesterday that deserves examination:

Why do Democrats get 3 times as many Obama stimulus grants as Republicans?

One key fact: Democratic districts, typically in city cores, have received $356,109,553 from Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), a portion of the 2009 stimulus bill, compared to just $132,272,695 for Republican districts.

So what's the deal?

It's one of two things. 1) It's just blatant political machine cronyism and favoritism. 2) It's because these Democrat districts need the stimulus more, because they are more depressed, because they're run by Democrats.

Now, it's probably a combination of the two, but it highlights the fact that we spend inordinate levels of tax dollars subsidizing failure and punishing success. We've spent far too much trying to shape the country into these one-size-fits-all units designed and run by Washington, D.C. We don't learn applicable lessons from success and failure nearly enough, and we allow out-of-touch elites to fashion top-down programs designed to solve last decade's problems.

Far too many of us take it as an of article of faith that smart people planning and micromanaging our lives will make the world a better place-- that these oracles of urban orthodoxy know best.

There is another way.

Between 2000 and 2010, no city in America added more jobs than "no zoning" Houston, Texas:


Adding 202,202 jobs in total, Houston actually shed jobs in the inner core and close-in suburbs, but it more than made up for those losses with growth in the far-flung exurbs, such as The Woodlands, which has a 2.9% unemployment rate, in Montgomery County.

For years now, I've seen certain Texas Democrats attempt to take credit for robust economic growth in Texas cities. When I worked for Governor Rick Perry and would post the latest daily or hourly brag about Texas cities on the campaign Twitter account, a certain D activist-- like clockwork-- would modify a retweet with a "thanks Democrat mayors!" or "...all run by Democrats" slapped on the front of it.

As if.

It's actually the conservative suburbs that have been adding people, jobs, and economic growth. The urban cores certainly can offer a metropolitan area an identity (with a sports team or entertainment district, perhaps) or branding (Austin=SXSW or ACL), and yes, big metro areas always just take on the identity of the largest city therein, but it's just not the case that the big cities themselves have been driving Texas engine of commerce. Certainly, if we care about reality and facts and numbers, the mayors and left-wing city councils of Texas' cities have absolutely no claim on Texas' success story. Indeed, they're probably responsible for holding back what could be even more impressive growth.

When people refer to "Houston" having the fastest growth or being number one for the most one-way, inbound U-HAUL shipments, they're almost definitely talking about the greater Houston metropolitan area, which includes Houston city limits, plus all of those booming exurbs populated and run by conservatives who have consciously clustered themselves in places where they can be left alone by the long taxing and regulatory appendages of Bloomberg-style over-governance.

Indeed, the story of Houston has played itself out similarly all across the country in the rare handful of cities with net job growth since 2000 (El Paso, Oklahoma City, McAllen, Charlotte, Phoenix, Baton Rouge, Omaha). For the most part, the inner cores of even these successful metropolitan areas have continued to shed jobs (although there is recent evidence of that stabilizing in some towns), while the outer rings of those same cities have added tons of people and jobs. The net effect is more jobs.

Take Austin, even, another city-- with a thriving inner core-- known for its robust economy and impressive job growth. Between 2000 and 2010, Austin added 85,309 jobs. Not spectacular in the grand scheme, but compared to the rest of the country, Austin is a veritable job Shangri-La.

Of those 85,309 jobs, only 6,108 were created in the inner core of Austin. That's only about 7% within the 3-mile core of Austin. Meanwhile, 87% of those new jobs (74,394) were created more than 10 miles out from downtown. We're talking about Round Rock and Lakeway and Cedar Park here. The 'burbs, in other words. Often in other counties, entirely. And that's not surprising, given the Austin city council's odd penchant for enacting arbitrary anti-business ordinances, like banning grocery bags.

Or, let's take San Antonio, which added just shy of 80,000 jobs between 2000-2010. In the liberal inner core of San Antonio, now run by the Castro brothers, more than 22,000 jobs were lost. It's in the conservative far-flung exurbs of San Antonio where 85,403 jobs were added.

Now, let's acknowledge that suburbs and exurbs are only suburbs and exurbs because there is a big city magnet there. Austin has the enormous flagship university of the most influential state in America. Houston has a medical center that would be among the largest American cities by itself. San Antonio has The Alamo. These kinds of things are found almost exclusively in large metropolitan areas and are not insignificant features in this discussion. But with that being said, Houston's famed M.D. Anderson Cancer Center has now opened a "sprawling" campus in the aforementioned The Woodlands. Yes, some cities do have a certain inertia that allows them to do a lot of stupid things and remain successful for a time, but living on the legacy of once-prosperous eras can only take a place so far, for so long. Ultimately, bad policy and poor governance will create refugees who seek asylum in places with more freedom and opportunity.

And dispelling the idea that a successful small town must necessarily be attached to a large metro, Midland, Texas, with America's second-highest per-capita income and 3.2% unemployment rate, has no big city in any direction for more than 250 miles.

While it's easy to believe that everyone must be drawn to the lifestyle that the inner core of the big city offers-- after all, nearly all television sitcoms take place in oversized apartments, cool restaurants, inviting bars, and cozy coffee shops in the inner core of New York City or some other large, hip metropolitan area-- the data just beg to differ. People are choosing flyover country ("Flyoverstan") over the elite coasts. And within flyover country, people are drawn not to the places that resemble Manhattan but rather to the small town feel of the outskirts of metropolitan areas found mostly in conservative states.

The suburbs of Houston, in other words.

The Brookings Institute, meanwhile, concludes that outer-ring job growth, like Houston's, is a bad thing and even affixes the derogatory label of "sprawl" to describe it:

If the next period of economic expansion reinforces low-density, diffuse growth in metropolitan America, it will be that much harder for metro areas to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth over the long term.

It will be harder for metro areas to achieve sustainable growth if they have a lot of growth in the suburbs and exurbs? Really? Based on what? Personal aesthetic/cultural preference?

America's foremost demographer Joel Kotkin might beg to differ with Brookings' conclusion that dense city cores are inherently superior to suburbs or exurbs:

...over the past decade, most “cool cities” have not been enjoying particularly strong employment or population growth; in the last decade, the populations of cities like Charlotte, Houston, Atlanta, and Nashville grew by 20 percent or more, at least four times as rapidly as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Chicago. This trend toward less dense, more affordable cities is as evident in the most recent census numbers than a decade.

So far, we've looked at data from three successful Texas cities, plus a handful of other job-positive cities from around the country. But what about the failures between 2000-2010?

Detroit: Negative 475,591 jobs, while holding its proportion of inner-core jobs steady.
Boston: Negative 131,114 jobs, while increasing its proportion of inner-core jobs by 0.9%.
Milwaukee: Negative 53,163, while increasing its proportion of inner-core jobs by 1.5%.
Silicon Valley: Negative 148,576, while increasing its proportion of inner-core jobs by 1.7%.

The story goes on and on a lot like that.

Here's some more detail on Chicago, which lost 428,968 jobs between 2000-2010, while increasing its proportion of inner-core jobs by 1%:


Chicago may be an extremely fun place to visit for a few summer months, it is also the very inverse of Houston in so many ways, and the job and economic data bear that out. It's just unfortunate that the failed Chicago way is now the American way, under this President.

Barack Obama holds himself up as a problem-solving, technocratic pragmatist, saying "let’s do what works" so often the words by now may be burned into his teleprompter screen. Well, if we really want to do what works, there's a clear blueprint in Texas for what works, and a cautionary tale of what not to do in places like Chicago.

One key difference, though, between Texans and Chicagoans is that Texans (notwithstanding some in the Bush Departments of Education and Treasury) generally don't care what awful things other cities are doing as long as responsible, successful people (i.e., Texans) are not being forced to bail them out, whereas the Chicagoans in the White House want to reshape the entire nation in the image of Chicago.

Indeed, ReasonTV just posted a great video about the modern urban religion known as "Smart Growth" and the forces behind it:

The best takeaway from this video is that we really don't precisely know what's going to happen in the future, so why not let thousands or even millions of individuals and families make choices that work for them, rather than ceding such enormous power to a handful of bureaucrats who may or may not have any idea what they're talking about?

The smartest growth is the growth that is driven by countless individual decisions made by free people.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Texas Cities Versus California Cities (House Price Growth Edition).

rss-icon.gif twitter-icon.gif facebook-icon.gif

Posted by Will Franklin · 19 April 2013 10:09 AM · Comments (0)

Texas Cities Versus California Cities (House Price Edition).

Trivia Tidbit of the Day: Part 968 -- Five Year House Price Growth (Or Lack Thereof)-

Did you know? That, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, only nine states (Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, West Virginia, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Alaska) plus the District of Columbia, had higher house prices at the end of 2012, relative to 2007.

Texas house prices, statewide, grew 5.88% over the most recent five year period for which data is available (again, that half-decade ending in December 2012).

California house prices ended 27.3% downward over the same period.

click for larger version

And try this link for a more interactive, searchable version of this histogram. You can click on all 366 of the individual metro areas, as well.

This graphic shows 366 major and minor metros around the country. What's fascinating is that only 10 of the largest 102 metros are on the positive side over the past five years. Four of those ten major metros are Texas cities: Houston (5.5%), Dallas/Fort Worth (0.6%), San Antonio (1.2%), and Austin (4.7%).

Similarly, only 14 of America's 100 largest metros have more jobs than before the recession. All 6 of Texas' major metros are among the 14 job-positive cities.

Texas is adding more jobs, while California is busy killing them with tax hikes:

Over the decade, for example, Austin’s job base grew 28 percent, Raleigh’s by 21 percent, Houston by 20 percent, while Nashville, Atlanta, San Antonio, and Dallas-Ft. Worth saw job growth in the 14 percent range or better. In contrast, among all the legacy cities, only Seattle and Washington D.C.—the great economic parasite—have created jobs faster than the national average of roughly 5 percent. Most did far worse, with New York and Boston 20 percent below the norm; big urban regions including Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and, despite the current tech bubble, San Francisco have created essentially zero new jobs over the decade.

And Texas cities are adding more college grads than California cities:

Houston, Charlotte, Raleigh, Las Vegas, Nashville, and San Antonio, for example, experienced increases in the number of college-educated residents of nearly 40 percent or more over the decade, roughly twice the level of growth as in “brain centers” such as Boston, San Francisco, San Jose (Silicon Valley), or Chicago. Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas each have added about 300,000 college grads in the past decade, more than greater Boston’s pickup of 240,000 or San Francisco’s 211,000.

Three Texas cities recently made the top five in terms of small business friendliness, according to actual small business owners; meanwhile, three Texas cities made the top five in the latest On Numbers Economic Index. And for the naysayers who inevitably pop up and argue that all the new jobs in Texas are dead-end minimum wage ones, Texas also recently ranked second in the nation for personal income growth.

And Austin in particular, just named the best city for young adults looking for a job, is doing pretty well for itself:

• The number of private-sector jobs in the Austin area has increased by 9.7 percent during the past five years. No other market has expanded more rapidly than 7.5 percent.

• Austin is the only market with growth rates of better than 3 percent in four key categories: private-sector jobs over the past year and the past five years, and personal earnings during the past year and past five years.

Oh, and Austin, which is now larger than San Francisco, is getting competing Gigabit fiber optic networks. Meanwhile, California is so left-wing that its cities are not only falling behind on jobs and GDP, they're losing out on cool high-tech innovations.

And when it comes to government transparency, Texas ranks number one for best in America; California is second from last.

California is a beautiful place being ruined by really, really, really bad policy and governance:

*Highest taxes (gasoline, sales and top bracket of income taxes)
*Lowest bond rating
*Highest poverty rate (at 23.5%, the home of 1/3 of those in poverty in U.S.)
*Highest unemployment rate (tied with Mississippi and Nevada at 9.6%)
*Highest energy costs
*Worst state to do business (as judged by Chief Executive magazine 8 years running)
*Most cities going bankrupt
*Prison system so poorly run it has been taken over by a federal judge

Ideas matter. Policies matter. And they have very real consequences.


Previous Trivia Tidbit: Texas Cities Versus California Cities (GDP Growth Edition).

rss-icon.gif twitter-icon.gif facebook-icon.gif

Posted by Will Franklin · 11 April 2013 03:02 PM · Comments (0)