Wow, this will be very helpful. I am going to save it till Romney and Huckabee are going head to head. I always appreciate these side by side comparisons. Simple is good.

A couple of days ago I mentioned that I liked Huckabee to one of my conservative friends; he responded that he wasn't in the Huckabee camp because he's not fiscally conservative.

(For some reason I had to jump through hoops to log on here -- and then I thought the 9 was a g and still couldn't get on. I finally figured it out. Will I have to do that every time?)

_________________
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths." (Proverbs 3:5)

Sure thing. This first go round will be a condensed version. I'll see if I can't basically use the template for the larger version, except plugging in Pawlenty for Romney. Really, your suggestion brings up the idea of doing a full chart comparing all the potential-candidate governors on these criteria. Hmmm. Maybe by the end of the month?

Huckabee vs. Pawlenty*
State+Local Tax Burden

Summary

As a percent of income, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee & Arkansas: 0.08%
Pawlenty & Minnesota: 0.07%

In terms of actual, inflation-adjusted dollars, their respective states saw a per year tax burden increase of:
Huckabee and Arkansas: $76.49
Pawlenty and Minnesota: $49.22

2006 Tax Burden, Percentage and Gross
AR - 10.0%, $2,866.80
MN - 10.3%, $4,008.35

Final Year of Governorship Tax Burden, Percentage and Gross
AR 2006 - 10.0%, $2,866.80
MN 2009* - 10.3%, $3,946.14

Conclusion

Huckabee and Pawlenty both grew government in terms of tax burden.
When looking at tax burden percentage, Pawlenty grew Minnesota's government slightly slower than Huckabee grew Arkansas'.
When looking at gross dollars, Pawlenty grew Minnesota's government a fair amount slower than Huckabee grew Arkansas'.
When looking at the relative level of tax burden percentage, Huckabee's Arkansas outperformed Pawlenty's Minnesota both in a head-to-head comparison of 2006 and a final-year comparison of 2006 (Huckabee) & 2009* (Pawlenty).
In both the 2006 head-to-head comparison and final-year-of-governorship comparison, Huckabee's Arkansas made do on over $1,000 less per taxpayer than did Pawlenty's Minnesota.

Pawlenty did better in terms of yearly increase in tax burden.
Huckabee did better in terms of actual level of tax burden.

*Numbers for Pawlenty are using 2009 as the final year of his governorship due to that being the most recent year for which I have been able to find data thus far. 2010 would be the appropriate year to use, but using 2009 still sheds some light.

Sources
Minnesota State+Local Tax Burden - http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/462.html
Arkansas State+Local Tax Burden - http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/442.html
Per Capita Income Data for Both States - http://united-states.reaproject.org/analysis/comparative-trends-analysis/per_capita_income/
(choose Arkansas then Minnesota on the right, then click on "Generate & Display Output"; when the next screen appears, scroll down to the graph at the bottom: "Arkansas and Minnesota: Per Capita Income, 1969-2009")

Thanks. Really cool stuff. Interesting comparison as I think all three of these governors were Republicans with Democrat controlled legislatures so they had similar circumstance and seems very fair to compare. If you do other candidates such as Palin or Daniels, it might not be apples to oranges as I think they had Republican controlled legislatures.

What has been borne out in these data comparisons thus far is that, by the definition of fiscal conservative in which a government leader cuts the size of government, or at least limits the growth to inflation and population only, it appears that none of Huckabee, Romney, or Pawlenty qualifies for the designation "fiscal conservative."

The thing that strikes me about the comparisons thus far is the "make do" number. That is, Arkansas under Huckabee made public spending ends meet on far less in actual dollars per taxpayer than either Minnesota or Massachusetts.

To me, the definition of fiscally conservative (and "small government advocate") should be tied far more to maintaining a low level of spending than changes from one year to the next.

For example, right now, Congressional Republicans are cutting $5 billion here or $6 billion there, but the level of spending is still extremely high resulting in an extremely high deficit. Even if they were to hold true to their promise to cut $100 billion, that would reduce the deficit by less than 10%.

Thus, who is more fiscally conservative - Congressional Republicans or Governor Huckabee? By the conventional wisdom, the Congressional Republicans are more fiscally conservative because they have cut something. However, they are still a part of spending that is extremely high. Relative to Pawlenty and Romney, Huckabee's Arkansas used far less money per taxpayer, even if the net effect of his tax policy was a small increase in tax burden (just like Romney and Pawlenty).

Thanks not only for the comparison, but also for the understandable analysis.

_________________
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths." (Proverbs 3:5)

D-Dawg,
Did you see the booklet they have available?
http://taxfoundation.org/publications/show/2181.html

I hope my fellow HucksArmy members will forgive a double post of my comment. But, this is just too good not to keep in our fiscal thread.

Did you see the video posted at RightSpeak about the Wisconsin issue and how much each state owes? Watch the video and read my comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eyhnw6TBfI



Granny T said...

Thank you for sharing that video. States with current or former Governors as potential 2012 Presidential candidates:
Alaska -$14.1 billion
Arkansas -$8.7 billion
Indiana -$33.9 billion
Massachusetts -$111.4 billion
Minnesota -$22.3 billion
Mississippi -$14.8 billion
New Mexico -$15.4 billion

Did I miss anyone?

From what I see "tax hike" Mike's Arkansas is doing the best so far and "mandate" Mitt's Massachusetts is doing the worst.

How do taxes in your state compare nationally? This convenient pocket-size booklet compares the 50 states on 32 different measures of taxing and spending, including individual and corporate income tax rates, business tax climates, excise taxes, tax burdens and state spending.
http://taxfoundation.org/publications/show/2181.html

From the booklet's list of Tax Freedom Day for each of those states:
Alaska March 26 ranked #50
Arkansas April 3 ranked #38
Indiana April 6 ranked #29
Massachusetts April 14 ranked #6
Minnesota April 13 ranked #8
Mississippi March 28 ranked #48
New Mexico April 1 ranked #45

In the rankings the lower the number the higher the taxes. There's a lot more available in the booklet linked above.

Arkansans owe the least and are taxed near the least, too. Maybe Tax Hike Mike doesn't look quite as bad as some people seem to think!
March 17, 2011 10:14 PM

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

Nice post, GrannyT!

I had missed it the first time around. I also had not seen the tax booklet you linked to; thanks!

This is all great and may be useful , at least for a segment of the undecideds.
I'm not sure if it's worth its own thread, but many of the folks I know will not be as interested in governor statistics. What I hear regarding Mike is fear of us devolving into a nanny state, as well as an embracing of liberal globalist values in general.
I used to show Huck skeptics the video where Mike as much as told the UN they could vacate the property in NY anytime. Sadly, he was mainly speaking in regard to a specific UN decision made in regards to Mid East policy. I would be ecstatic if his statement were in regards to the UN and its globalist anti-American agenda.
Your stats, however, are quite useful in allying fears of tax increases and underlining Mike's abilities as a manager, especially important compared to a lot of those who only existed in the unreal world of government and the public dole.
This is in no way meant to criticize Mike. This is mostly to underscore a perception problem I see out there. I presently support with cautious optimism, my ear to the ground for any future indications of Mike taking the positions I spoke of above.
I chock up a lot to the office of Governor having vastly more Constitutional powers than the more limited ones of a federal chief executive. For example, many of the school policies he implemented at a state level would be an affront if implemented at the federal level . Does he, like Reagan, at least express a wish to abolish the Department of Education? I haven't heard it, but would welcome any info any can share.
Maybe this is all irrelevant, but I believe if the perceptions of us becoming a nanny state with Mike, on a fast track to globalism and a loss of sovereignty could be quelled, a lot of Dr. Paul's more mainstream non-libertarian supporters could be won over.
Recent polls have shown an overlap in both candidates supporters.
These are the less libertarian "Ron Paul Republicans" Mike even distinguished from the Libertarians in general. Is this worth any consideration?
If the primaries are close, every vote will count.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.

Thanks, Granny T! More bullets for our gun.

Our nominee will certainly be from one of those states you listed.

_________________




Please click^ on the tank and join up today

Since there are rumors of Gary Johnson running I will add New Mexico to the list since he is a former Gov. of that state.

New Mexico -$15.4 billion
Tax Freedom Day April 1 ranked #45

I will edit my original posts to include NM.

_________________
Psalms 144:1 "Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"