New Geography

Category: Politics

  • Where’s Next: November May Determine Regional Winners

    As the recovery begins, albeit fitfully, where can we expect growth in jobs, incomes and, most importantly, middle class opportunities? In the US there are two emerging “new” economies, one largely promoted by the Administration and the other more grounded in longer-term market and demographic forces.

    The November election and its subsequent massive expansion of federal power may have determined which regions win the post-bust economy, but the stakes in November are particularly acute for some prime beneficiaries of what could be called the Obama economy: the education lobby, Silicon Valley venture firms, Wall Street, urban land interests and the public sector. All backers of his 2008 campaign, these groups have either reaped significant benefits from the stimulus or have used it to bolster themselves from the worst impact of the recession.

    In a sense the Obama policies are designed to overturn the pattern of economic dispersion –towards the exurbs, the south, the intermountain West, and more recently the Plains – that has defined the last half century. The biggest winner, in regional terms, is the Washington area. Even as local governments cut back, the federal establishment continues to swell. Federal employment, excluding the postal service, remains roughly 200,000 larger than in 2008.

    It is not surprising then that the capital district enjoys the highest job growth since December 2009 of any region. Indeed, the Great Recession barely even hit the imperial center. Given its current trajectory, it’s likely to remain the primary boom town along the east coast.

    There are other less obvious regional winners from Obamanomics. Wall Street, despite its recent wailing, has fattened itself on the Fed’s cheap money. It may benefit further from highly complex new financial regulations that will drive smaller, regional competitors either out of business or into mergers with the megabanks.

    Manhattan – a liberal bastion dependent on arguably the greediest, most venal purveyors of capitalism – enjoyed a revived high end consumer economy of high fashion, fancy restaurants and art galleries. Silicon Valley’s financial community also is seeing a surfeit of grants and subsidies for the latest venture schemes, keeping Palo Alto and its environs relatively prosperous. Perhaps this is the positive “change” that Time recently credited in its paen to the stimulus.

    Other regional winners from the Obama economy generally can be found in state capitals and University towns, particularly those with the Ivy or elite college pedigrees that resonate with this most academic Administration. One illustration can be seen in the relatively strong recovery of Massachusetts – home to many prestigious Universities and hospitals – which has seen jobs grow by 2.2 percent since the Obama ascension.

    Similar, albeit less dramatic recoveries can be found in Columbus, Madison and Minneapolis-St.Paul, with their large university communities and regional federal employment centers. Yet the political benefits of this growth may be limited. Many other parts of these same states, including the outer boroughs of New York are not doing well; aside from Columbus, Ohio has continued to skid as its industrial and corporate base dwindles, often moving to more business friendly states.

    At the same time, the strongest growth clusters in those regions that stick to the basics: relatively low taxes, pro-business regulations and continued infrastructure investment. Some regions – particularly in Texas, Alaska, Wyoming and the Great Plains – also have benefited from the growth in such basic industries as agriculture, oil and mining.

    Like resource-producing Canada and Australia, which barely felt the great recession, these economies have been boosted by continued growth in demand from countries like India and China. The current rise in food commodity prices, in part due to poor conditions in Russia and other former Soviet Republics, may further intensify this trend. Beyond the current food crisis, changing consumer tastes in boom markets like China seem certain to boost demand for such products as corn, used to help meet that country’s soaring demand for pork and other meat products.

    But perhaps even more important, once the economy recovers these areas – with their business friendly regimes and lower costs – may continue to siphon much of the next wave of industrial and even tech growth from the more expensive, largely Obama-friendly regions. Caterpillar, for example, one of the likely beneficiaries of expanded exports, recently announced plans to open a new assembly plant not in its Midwestern base but in Victoria, outside Houston.

    This trend has been building for at least a generation and seems likely to intensify under today’s highly competitive global business environment. If we start seeing a recovery in such things as auto sales, one can expect much of the new demand to be meant in efficient, largely foreign owned factories that have been gearing up across the Southeast. Unless powerful federal intervention forces Americans to buy General Motors products like the Volt, consumer preference is likely to be strongest for smart, fuel efficient brands built largely in towns from southern Ohio down to Texas.

    Perhaps even more significantly, these areas are also challenging the Obama regions in such fields as high-technology. Tech hiring has picked up in places like Silicon Valley, New York and DC, but consistently the fastest growth in science, engineering and technical jobs has been in low-cost states such as North Dakota, Virginia, New Mexico, Utah and Texas. Just recently, several major Silicon Valley powerhouses – Adobe, Twitter, Electronic Arts and eBay – announced major new expansions in Utah, a state that is among a brood seeking to move prized businesses, including even entertainment, from the Golden State.

    To a distressingly large extent, the fate of these two distinct economies may hinge on the outcome in November. If the Republicans gain an effective blocking majority – perhaps with a handful of centrist Democrats from growth-oriented states – many favored programs of the Obama economy may be cut or eliminated entirely. These include high-speed rail, increased subsidies for new light rail lines, massive investments in University research and investment breaks for renewable fuels.

    On the other hand, if the Democratic majority persists the tilt towards the Obama economy may even become stronger, as the Democrats will be the ones primarily losing their seats in many growth states. Many policies inimical to the growth states – support for government satrapies like General Motors, tougher restrictions on domestic fossil fuel development and policies designed to curb suburban single family housing – might even intensify.

    In this sense, we need to see November as much as a conflict between growth economies as an ideological contest. The results could determine what regions are next to boom, and whose economy will slow or even decline. What might be best – a compromise recognizing the need to boost growth in all regions – may be a too far a stretch of logic in this political climate.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

    Photo by bcbeatty

  • A Tsunami Approaches: The Beginning of the Great Deconstruction

    In the distant horizon, a giant wave is building. There are some who recognized the swell and raised the alarm. There are others who deny the possibility of such a wave. Most remain blissfully unaware. The wave is building and when it reaches our shores, it will hit with the force of a tsunami.

    The wave is propelled by government spending and crested with unfunded pension obligations. The Pew Center on the States wrote in The Trillion Dollar Gap (February 2010), “A $1 trillion gap exists between the $3.35 trillion in pension, health care and other retirement benefits states have promised their current and retired workers as of fiscal year 2008 and the $2.35 trillion they have on hand to pay for them.”

    Like any tsunami, the wave began long ago and very far out to sea. Thirty years ago the vast majority of union workers were in the private sector. Public employees in unions reached parity with private sector members by 2009. This was aided in part by campaign contributions from the unions to elect Democratic Party candidates and generous pay packages and retirement plans passed by those same politicians in return.

    By 2010, the general public received a series of shocks. The first shock was the jobless recovery of the Great Recession that cost 8 million jobs. Most of the job losses occurred in the private sector yet the majority of the $800 billion Stimulus Bill went to “save and create” public sector employment. The second shock was learning that civil servants earned twice that of private workers. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal workers received average pay and benefits of $123,049 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation. The third shock was revelation of incredible retirement plans doled out by politicians since 1999. In 2002, California passed SB 183 that allowed police and safety workers to retire after 30 years on the job with 3% of salary for each year of service, or 90% of their last year’s pay. During the Great Recession, fireman began retiring with $150,000 pensions at age 52 despite a life expectancy approaching 80. In Orange County CA, lifeguards, deemed safety workers, retired with $147,000 annual pensions. The Orange County sheriff, recently convicted of witness tampering, will receive $215,000 annually while in jail. Bob Citron, the Treasurer of Orange County who pushed the county into bankruptcy in the 1990s, receives a pension of $150,000 per year. A tsunami of anger and resentment is building.

    As the wave approaches, economists issue thick reports with ominous names like “The Gathering Storm” (Reason Foundation) advising us that the pension obligations we have created are unsustainable. They report cities and states cannot economically allow workers to retire at 52 when they have a life expectancy of 26 years of retirement. They simply cannot pay for these pensions with existing revenue. Services will go down and taxes will go up to pay for these generous pension obligations. Orange County’s CEO, Thomas G. Mauk, predicted that pension requirements in 2014 will take 84% of the county’s law enforcement payroll. It is already 50% today. To exacerbate the problem, The Great Recession forced most states into budget deficits as their revenues decline. For FY2010, every state except Montana and North Dakota has projected a budget deficit. (RedState 3/21/2010).

    California once again leads the nation with a $26 billion budget deficit plus an unfunded pension obligation of $500 billion. Its current financial structure is clearly unsustainable. It has an operational structure that in ungovernable with often duplicative agencies, some collecting less in tax revenue than the agencies spend on collection. Wikipedia lists 500 existing public agencies for the State of California. California can no longer afford such a luxury. It must deconstruct these bloated inefficient government agencies, and rid itself of their chairman, staff, offices, cars, pensions and the overhead that such excess represents. A $26 billion dollar deficit is not something that can be corrected with a wage freeze or job furloughs. Bold leadership can lead California to deconstruct its 500 agencies down to 100 functional organizations. California is a classic example of what must change in the coming Great Deconstruction.

    One Orange County city has already taken bold steps to correct its $10 million deficit. It may be a model for other cities and states across the country. Internally, it has decided it will not replace any city worker that dies, retires, moves or quits. The city will simply out source the employment to an outside service company and eliminate healthcare requirements and unsustainable pensions. Building inspectors will be out sourced as will city plan checkers, librarians and meter maids. Only essential services like top executives and cops will remain on the city payroll. The city staff will eventually decrease from 220 to approximately 35 personnel. This is the essence of deconstruction.

    At the state and local level, the Great Deconstruction has already begun albeit delayed by an infusion of federal stimulus dollars and grants in 2009 and 2010. The federal government must deconstruct as well. It must happen, if only because the revenue is no longer there to sustain all of these often well-intentioned programs. The federal government will not be immune from fiscal reality.

    In this sense, the election in November will be a referendum on the very sustainability of our system of government. One party will continue to borrow and spend in order to maintain the 500 agencies in California and the abundance of federal programs. They have not said how long they will be able to borrow money to sustain their system. The other party will try to simply turn off the spigot – now. Either way, one day the money will run out and the inevitable deconstruction will occur.

    ***************************************************

    The Great Deconstruction is a series written exclusively for New Geography. Future articles will address the impact of The Great Deconstruction at the national, state, county and local levels.

    Robert J. Cristiano PhD is the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange County, CA and Director of Special Projects at the Hoag Center for Real Estate & Finance. He has been a successful real estate developer in Newport Beach California for twenty-nine years.


    Other works in The Great Deconstruction series for New Geography
    An Awakening: The Beginning of the Great Deconstruction – June 12, 2010
    The Great Deconstruction :An American History Post 2010 – June 1, 2010
    The Great Deconstruction – First in a New Series – April 11, 2010
    Deconstruction: The Fate of America? – March 2010

  • Progressives Against Progress

    For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, American liberals distinguished themselves from conservatives by what Lionel Trilling called “a spiritual orthodoxy of belief in progress.” Liberalism placed its hopes in human perfectibility. Regarding human nature as essentially both beneficent and malleable, liberals, like their socialist cousins, argued that with the aid of science and given the proper social and economic conditions, humanity could free itself from its cramped carapace of greed and distrust and enter a realm of true freedom and happiness. Conservatives, by contrast, clung to a tragic sense of man’s inherent limitations. While acknowledging the benefits of science, they argued that it could never fundamentally reform, let alone transcend, the human condition. Most problems don’t have a solution, the conservatives maintained; rather than attempting Promethean feats, man would do best to find a balanced place in the world.

    In the late 1960s, liberals appeared to have the better of the argument. Something approaching the realm of freedom seemed to have arrived. American workers, white and black, achieved hitherto unimagined levels of prosperity. In the nineteenth century, only utopian socialists had imagined that ordinary workers could achieve a degree of leisure; in the 1930s, radicals had insisted that prosperity was unattainable under American capitalism; yet these seemingly unreachable goals were achieved in the two decades after World War II.

    Why, then, did American liberalism, starting in the early 1970s, undergo a historic metanoia, dismissing the idea of progress just as progress was being won? Multiple political and economic forces paved liberalism’s path away from its mid-century optimism and toward an aristocratic outlook reminiscent of the Tory Radicalism of nineteenth-century Britain; but one of the most powerful was the rise of the modern environmental movement and its recurrent hysterias.

    If one were to pick a point at which liberalism’s extraordinary reversal began, it might be the celebration of the first Earth Day, in April 1970. Some 20 million Americans at 2,000 college campuses and 10,000 elementary and secondary schools took part in what was the largest nationwide demonstration ever held in the United States. The event brought together disparate conservationist, antinuclear, and back-to-the-land groups into what became the church of environmentalism, complete with warnings of hellfire and damnation. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, the founder of Earth Day, invoked “responsible scientists” to warn that “accelerating rates of air pollution could become so serious by the 1980s that many people may be forced on the worst days to wear breathing helmets to survive outdoors. It has also been predicted that in 20 years man will live in domed cities.”

    Thanks in part to Earth Day’s minions, progress, as liberals had once understood the term, started to be reviled as reactionary. In its place, Nature was totemized as the basis of the authenticity that technology and affluence had bleached out of existence. It was only by rolling in the mud of primitive practices that modern man could remove the stain of sinful science and materialism. In the words of Joni Mitchell’s celebrated song “Woodstock”: “We are stardust / We are golden / And we got to get ourselves back to the garden.”

    In his 1973 book The Death of Progress, Bernard James laid out an argument already popularized in such bestsellers as Charles Reich’s The Greening of America and William Irwin Thompson’s At the Edge of History. “Progress seems to have become a lethal idée fixe, irreversibly destroying the very planet it depends upon to survive,” wrote James. Like Reich, James criticized both the “George Babbitt” and “John Dewey” versions of “progress culture”—that is, visions of progress based on rising material attainment or on educational opportunities and upward mobility. “Progress ideology,” he insisted, “whether preached by New Deal Liberals, conservative Western industrialists or Soviet Zealots,” always led in the same direction: environmental apocalypse. Liberalism, which had once viewed men and women as capable of shaping their own destinies, now saw humanity in the grip of vast ecological forces that could be tamed only by extreme measures to reverse the damages that industrial capitalism had inflicted on Mother Earth. It had become progressive to reject progress.

    Rejected as well was the science that led to progress. In 1970, the Franco-American environmentalist René Dubos described what was quickly becoming a liberal consensus: “Most would agree that science and technology are responsible for some of our worst nightmares and have made our societies so complex as to be almost unmanageable.” The same distrust of science was one reason that British author Francis Wheen can describe the 1970s as “the golden age of paranoia.” Where American consumers had once felt confidence in food and drug laws that protected them from dirt and germs, a series of food scares involving additives made many view science, not nature, as the real threat to public health. Similarly, the sensational impact of the feminist book Our Bodies, Ourselves—which depicted doctors as a danger to women’s well-being, while arguing, without qualifications, for natural childbirth—obscured the extraordinary safety gains that had made death during childbirth a rarity in developed nations.

    Crankery, in short, became respectable. In 1972, Sir John Maddox, editor of the British journal Nature, noted that though it had once been usual to see maniacs wearing sandwich boards that proclaimed the imminent end of the Earth, they had been replaced by a growing number of frenzied activists and politicized scientists making precisely the same claim. In the years since then, liberalism has seen recurring waves of such end-of-days hysteria. These waves have shared not only a common pattern but often the same cast of characters. Strangely, the promised despoliations are most likely to be presented as imminent when Republicans are in the White House. In each case, liberals have argued that the threat of catastrophe can be averted only through drastic actions in which the ordinary political mechanisms of democracy are suspended and power is turned over to a body of experts and supermen.

    Back in the early 1970s, it was overpopulation that was about to destroy the Earth. In his 1968 book The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich, who has been involved in all three waves, warned that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over” on our crowded planet. He predicted mass starvation and called for compulsory sterilization to curb population growth, even comparing unplanned births with cancer: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.” An advocate of abortion on demand, Ehrlich wanted to ban photos of large, happy families from newspapers and magazines, and he called for new, heavy taxes on baby carriages and the like. He proposed a federal Department of Population and Environment that would regulate both procreation and the economy. But the population bomb, fear of which peaked during Richard Nixon’s presidency, never detonated. Population in much of the world actually declined in the 1970s, and the green revolution, based on biologically modified foods, produced a sharp increase in crop productivity.

    In the 1980s, the prophets of doom found another theme: the imminent danger of nuclear winter, the potential end of life on Earth resulting from a Soviet-American nuclear war. Even a limited nuclear exchange, argued politicized scientists like Ehrlich and Carl Sagan, would release enough soot and dust into the atmosphere to block the sun’s warming rays, producing drastic drops in temperature. Skeptics, such as Russell Seitz, acknowledged that even with the new, smaller warheads, a nuclear exchange would have fearsome consequences, but argued effectively that the dangers were dramatically exaggerated. The nuke scare nevertheless received major backing from the liberal press. Nuclear-winter doomsayers placed their hopes, variously, in an unverifiable nuclear-weapons “freeze,” American unilateral disarmament, or assigning control of nuclear weapons to international bodies. Back in the real world, nuclear fears eventually faded with Ronald Reagan’s Cold War successes.

    The third wave, which has been building for decades, is the campaign against global warming. The global-warming argument relied on the claim, effectively promoted by former vice president Al Gore, that the rapid growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was producing an unprecedented rise in temperatures. This rise was summarized in the now-notorious “hockey stick” graph, which supposedly showed that temperatures had been steady from roughly ad 1000 to 1900 but had sharply increased from 1900 on, thanks to industrialization. Brandishing the graph, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the first decade of the twenty-first century would be even warmer. As it turned out, temperatures were essentially flat, and the entire global-warming argument came under increasing scrutiny. Skeptics pointed out that temperatures had repeatedly risen and fallen since ad 1000, describing, for instance, a “little ice age” between 1500 and 1850. The global-warming panic cooled further after a series of e-mails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, showing apparent collusion among scientists to exaggerate warming data and repress contradictory information, was leaked.

    As with the previous waves, politicized science played on liberal fears of progress: for Gore and his allies at the UN, only a global command-and-control economy that kept growth in check could stave off imminent catastrophe. The anti-progress mind-set was by then familiar ground for liberals. Back in the 1970s, environmentalist E. J. Mishan had proposed dramatic solutions to the growth dilemma. He suggested banning all international air travel so that only those with the time and money could get to the choice spots—thus reintroducing, in effect, the class system. Should this prove too radical, Mishan proposed banning air travel “to a wide variety of mountain, lake and coastal resorts, and to a selection of some islands from the many scattered about the globe; and within such areas also to abolish all motorised traffic.” Echoing John Stuart Mill’s mid-nineteenth-century call for a “stationary state” without economic growth, Mishan argued that “regions may be set aside for the true nature lover who is willing to make his pilgrimage by boat and willing leisurely to explore islands, valleys, bays, woodlands, on foot or on horseback.”

    As such proposals indicate, American liberalism has remarkably come to resemble nineteenth-century British Tory Radicalism, an aristocratic sensibility that combined strong support for centralized monarchical power with a paternalistic concern for the poor. Its enemies were the middle classes and the aesthetic ugliness it associated with an industrial economy powered by bourgeois energies. For instance, John Ruskin, a leading nineteenth-century Tory Radical and a proponent of handicrafts, declaimed against “ilth,” a negative version of wealth produced by manufacturing.

    Like the Tory Radicals, today’s liberal gentry see the untamed middle classes as the true enemy. “Environmentalism offered the extraordinary opportunity to combine the qualities of virtue and selfishness,” wrote William Tucker in a groundbreaking 1977 Harper’s article on the opposition to construction of the Storm King power plant along New York’s Hudson River. Tucker described the extraordinary sight of a fleet of yachts—including one piloted by the old Stalinist singer Pete Seeger—sailing up and down the Hudson in protest. What Tucker tellingly described as the environmentalists’ “aristocratic” vision called for a stratified, terraced society in which the knowing ones would order society for the rest of us. Touring American campuses in the mid-1970s, Norman Macrae of The Economist was shocked “to hear so many supposedly left-wing young Americans who still thought they were expressing an entirely new and progressive philosophy as they mouthed the same prejudices as Trollope’s 19th century Tory squires: attacking any further expansion of industry and commerce as impossibly vulgar, because ecologically unfair to their pheasants and wild ducks.”

    Neither the failure of the environmental apocalypse to arrive nor the steady improvement in environmental conditions over the last 40 years has dampened the ardor of those eager to make hair shirts for others to wear. The call for political coercion as a path back to Ruskin’s and Mishan’s small-is-beautiful world is still with us. Radical environmentalists’ Tory disdain for democracy and for the habits of their inferiors remains undiminished. True to its late-1960s origins, political environmentalism in America gravitates toward both bureaucrats and hippies: toward a global, big-brother government that will keep the middle classes in line and toward a back-to-the-earth, peasantlike localism, imposed on others but presenting no threat to the elites’ comfortable lives. How ironic that these gentry liberals—progressives against progress—turn out to resemble nothing so much as nineteenth-century conservatives.

    This essay originally appeared in City Journal.

    Fred Siegel is a contributing editor of City Journal, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a scholar in residence at St. Francis College in Brooklyn.

    Photo: CarbonNYC

  • Australia 2010: Unstable Politics in a Prosperous Country

    2010 has been something of an annus mirabilis in Australian politics. On 24 June a prime minister was dumped before facing the voters a second time. This was the first time ever for such an early exit. Then the election on 22 August produced a “hung parliament”, an outcome not seen since the 1940s. Having fallen short of enough seats to form government, the major parties are scrambling for the support of four independents and one Green in the House of Representatives.

    If this looks like the politics of a nation mired in economic upheaval, the reality is far different. Australia was one of a handful of advanced countries to avoid recession during the financial crisis. The unemployment rate never rose much above 5 per cent. For some economists, Australia is “the wonder from down under”.

    So why did the Labor government, elected in 2007, fall apart? There was certainly a lack of governing experience after eleven years in opposition. But in a broader sense, the political class is struggling to cope with Australia’s increasingly regionalised economy, and the divergent sources of its new-found prosperity.

    Like many industrialised countries, Australia passed through a seemingly intractable malaise in the 1970s. The country’s predicament appeared worse than that of more diverse and innovative economies like the United States. Relying on agricultural and mineral exports, legacies of a colonial past, Australia’s manufacturing base was inward-looking, outmoded and sclerotic. Disparaging assessments like that of former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew – Australians were destined to be “the poor white trash of Asia” – were common. Some fretted about “the Argentine route”, a country failing to diversify its economy and sliding down world rankings of GDP per capita. As transformed manufactures and high-tech products gobbled up an increasing share of world trade, Australia seemed stuck in the slow lane of commodity exports.

    And then came the 1980s. Protective barriers were slashed, the currency was floated, the financial system was opened up to foreign banks and state-owned agencies were sold off or treated to radical micro-economic reform. By the mid-2000s, the contours of the economy had changed. Activities such as business and property services rose from 10 to almost 15 per cent of GDP over the decade to 2006. Meanwhile manufacturing declined from 15 to 12 per cent. The new economy was dominated by services, now accounting for 68 per cent of GDP. Rather than drag down the economy, however, mining enjoyed parallel growth, from 4.5 to 8 per cent in the same period. China’s explosive arrival on the world scene shifted commodity exports into a very fast lane. These developments set Australia on a growth path that few could have foreseen in the 1970s. A small economy in relative terms to countries like China and the United States, it has evolved into a series of distinct geographic regions.

    The booming commodities export sector, dominated by mining, is concentrated in the northern and western states of Queensland and Western Australia, which account for 74 per cent of onshore mining production. Business and property services are concentrated in the south-eastern states of New South Wales and Victoria, specifically the inner precincts of Sydney and Melbourne, the nation’s emerging global cities. Together, these cities host around 50 per cent of Australia’s finance industry jobs. Public sector services, mostly in health and education, figure prominently in the populous south-east, again skewed towards long-established inner-city localities, where the most prestigious institutions are found. Construction, consumer services, including retail, and light manufacturing, fuelled by demand for household goods and building supplies, thrive in the larger metropolitan regions with high rates of immigration and population growth, like outer Sydney and Melbourne, and increasingly south-east Queensland.

    At the end the true driver of the economy lies with commodities. Today mineral resources make up just under 80 per cent of Australia’s commodity trade and around half of all exports (including services). Australia is the world’s leading exporter of coal and iron ore and ranks high other minerals like zinc and aluminium.

    Reaping the China bounty, former Prime Minister John Howard kept the federal budget in surplus and reduced government debt to zero, while handing out tax cuts and family income supplements. This winning combination delivered Howard eleven years in power. Towards the end of his rule, however, strains in the boom economy began to manifest themselves. Skilled labour shortages and the heated property market began to put pressure on inflation and interest rates, contributing to a sense of policy exhaustion in Howard’s later years.

    By 2007, there was a widespread view that the benefits of the resources boom were not being distributed fairly. The service sector professionals of the south-east, especially in the public sector who dominate the national media, began to shift to Labor as did outer suburban workers, who saw the dream of home ownership slipping beyond their reach. Forced to compete for investment in the open economy, south-eastern state governments, controlled by Labor, were constrained to keep taxes low. An ever larger proportion of their budgets was channelled into health and education services, partly due to close links with powerful public sector unions. There was little left to pay for urban infrastructure on the booming fringes.

    In response, infrastructure costs were shifted onto developers and local government, along with a new set of regulations, and urban consolidation (“smart growth”) was enforced as planning policy, ostensibly to reduce the need for extra resources. These choices reflected the green ideology taking hold in the planning profession, as well as among the professional classes.

    The impact of these measures on housing affordability were disastrous. When the low interest rates of the Howard years began to creep up, the problem turned into a crisis, as the Demographia survey has shown. The property market slowed down, depriving the south-eastern states of even more funds, since property taxes are a significant share of their revenues. This contrasted with conditions in the mining states, prompting the Federal Treasury Secretary to declare Australia a “two speed economy”.

    At the 2007 election, Labor leader Kevin Rudd claimed to have the solutions. Paying lip service to Howard’s fiscal conservatism, he signalled plans to divert mining boom proceeds towards infrastructure and services, including a new deal on health funding and an “education revolution“. Much of this was wrapped up in the rhetoric of climate change, talked up by Rudd as “the greatest moral challenge of our time”. His environmental centrepiece was an Emissions Trading Scheme (cap and trade), a massive revenue raising device for the federal government. In essence it was a mechanism for transferring wealth from the mining states, and their fossil-fuelled economies, to the populous south-east.

    Rudd’s electoral success, and apparent public support for climate action, drove the agenda forward until the crash at Copenhagen. This precipitated a revolt in the opposition Coalition, which replaced ETS supporter Malcolm Turnbull with climate-sceptic Tony Abbott. When Abbott labelled the ETS “a great big new tax on everything“, and blocked its passage in the Senate, public interest in the scheme melted away, particularly in the mining regions. Rudd lost his nerve and shelved it until 2012. For many Australians, he was exposed as a weak leader without the courage of his convictions.

    Rudd refused to give up his dream of redistribution though, turning to Plan B. Having commissioned a review of Australia’s taxation system, he announced a Resource Super Profits Tax, a complex device confiscating up to 40 per cent of mining profits above a threshold. Adopted without consulting the resources industry, it attracted furious opposition from the global mining companies, which launched a powerful advertising campaign against it. Opposition leader Abbott labelled the measure ”a great big new tax on mining”. Opinion polls showed strong opposition to the tax in mining states, and mild support in the south-east. Rudd’s poll ratings fell through the floor. He was soon deposed by his Labor Party colleagues.

    Julia Gillard, the new prime minister, substantially modified the proposal after negotiations with the large miners, but smaller operators remained opposed, along with most of Queensland and Western Australia. Gillard quickly called an election to capitalise on her status as the country’s first female leader. But the legacy of Rudd’s undelivered promises shaped the outcome. Australia’s regional divisions were clearly evident in the voting patterns. Western Australia and Queensland swung to the Coalition, and Queensland proved to be a killing ground, depriving Labor of nine seats. New South Wales also swung to the Coalition, reflecting dissatisfaction with the long-serving state Labor government’s failure to address the infrastructure and housing needs of suburban western Sydney. In contrast, the southern states of Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia swung towards Labor.

    Well over half of Labor’s lost votes moved left to the Greens, who more than doubled their share of the vote, rather than right to the Coalition. Increasing numbers of south-eastern professionals consider the Greens their preferred agent of redistribution. Handing the Greens the balance of power in the Senate, and possibly the House of Representatives (only one seat this time), may prove a better strategy than sticking with a fractured Labor Party. Inevitably though, regional and outer-suburban voters, with their divergent priorities, will react to a green-dominated agenda, which tends to dismiss suburban interests. Over time, and perhaps after the next election, this may mean a shift back to the right and a clear Coalition victory.

    John Muscat is a Sydney lawyer and co-editor of The New City (www.thenewcityjournal.net), a web journal of urban and political affairs.

    Photo by webmink

  • McClatchy-Medill: Real $timulating News

    I saw this story in the Omaha World Herald last week: Benefits of stimulus bill spread unevenly over U.S. As I read through it, I became increasingly impressed. The journalists start off by laying out who said what about the benefits of stimulus spending. They provide quotes and facts from the White House, the Congressional Budget Office, and Joe Biden’s spokesperson. They include viewpoints and analysis from professors at Berkeley, Harvard, George Mason and the editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. They even talked it over with the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers – the people in charge of receiving and accounting for the billions of dollars represented by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. What impressed me most, though, was that they did their own research – not just reporting what the Administration or Congress told them was happening or was supposed to be happening.

    “Spending the Stimulus” is a website put together by McClatchy Newspapers and the Medill News Service to track what was promised and what was done, how much was actually spent and where and on what the stimulus billions were spent. I was intrigued by their finding that “much of the stimulus money has yet to go out the door” eighteen months after the emergency, gotta-fix-it-now legislation was passed. After Congress approved $750 billion for the Wall Street Bailout in October 2008, I’m pretty sure all that money was out the door before December!

    Even more intriguing is the finding that the money was spread around rather unevenly. Beyond the infantile “Why Did North Dakota got More Than Me?” rhetoric going around among the states (by the way, the McClatchy-Medill per-capita graphic shows that most of New England got more than North Dakota), is the more interesting discussion of where would the spending be most stimulating. Transportation money was directed to the states under the “usual formula” despite the fact that the Great Recession didn’t follow a formula as it spread throughout the economy. The result: “researchers were unable to find any relationship between unemployment in a given area and the amount of stimulus dollars spent there.” If unemployment is lower in some areas than in others, it wasn’t because of the stimulus spending.

    Maybe this is a good thing. Instead of focusing on the political necessity of justifying billions of dollars to pull the country out of the Great Recession (unlike the complete lack of justification for bailing out Wall Street), the McClatchy-Medill report raises more interesting points. Is it “rewarding failure” to send more money to the states that most failed to develop diversified economies that are resilient to downturns? Would we be throwing good money after bad to provide more spending for states that didn’t manage the cash inflow from the rapid rise in property taxes that came with rapidly rising home prices? Finally, did we really want a central government to make every decision – county by county – about where and on what the money would be spent?

    If you missed this story last week, I highly recommend perusing the “Spending the Stimulus” website for more stimulating idea.

  • Can We Socialize Ourselves to Good Health?

    How can we reduce health problems in society? Should we tackle poverty and social problems such as crime and drug abuse, or is the problem inequality in itself? If we reduce the income in a middle class neighborhood, will this in itself improve the health of poor people living in the same city?

    The latter form of reasoning is perhaps not so popular in the US, but quite so amongst European social democrats. A new book highlights how the European left is as concerned with fighting wealth as it is with fighting poverty.

    One year after its publication, the “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better” – by social epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett – has been embraced by many European intellectuals and politicians. The Social Democratic Party leader Mona Sahlin relies on the book as one of her main arguments during the current Swedish election campaign.

    Even conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron has praised the book, which claims that income inequality in itself causes more or less every problem in society. The argument goes: if your neighbor’s income increases, so does you chances of catching cancer.

    The authors of the book, Wilkinson and Pickett, seemingly make as strong argument for the notion that social ills are caused not by poverty but rather by inequality itself. Inequality, they say, acts like a “pollutant spread throughout society,” with rich and poor equally susceptible to its toxic effects.

    The book will likely soon appear also on the bookshelves of many US intellectuals, not least amongst the left. It is interesting then to note that its notions are dismissed by current research.

    Last year for example, the “Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality” was published. There we could clearly read that income inequality in itself is not the cause of health problems or lifespan: “The preponderance of evidence suggests that the relationship between income inequality and health is either non-existent to too fragile to show up in a robustly estimated panel specification.”

    The same conclusion has been drawn in research conducted by Professor Angus Deaton, one of the world’s leading health economists. After a comprehensive survey of the scientific literature he concludes:
    “[I]t is not true that income inequality itself is a major determinant of public health. There is no robust relationship between life expectancy and income inequality among the rich countries, and the correlation across the states and cities of the United States is almost certainly the result of something that is correlated with income inequality, but is not income inequality itself.” (Published in Journal of Economic Literature, 2003).

    One could say that one of the main theses of the European social democracy – that inequality in itself is the problem – has been proven wrong by recent scientific studies. Social problems in themselves do cause inequality.

    If there are problems with drug abuse, racial tensions, unemployment, etc., in one neighborhood for example, this will decrease the income of the citizens. Thus income inequality arises compared to the middle class. Reducing social problems will also reduce inequality. But inequality in itself does not cause social problems.

    The socialist approach – to shrink the income of the middle class instead and hope this will aid the poor – is simply based on a skewed analysis of the correlation between social problems, poverty and inequality.

    A comparison between Sweden and the US is often used to argue that the European social democratic approach will reduce social problems and expand life span. As noted in a previous New Geography article, this reasoning is misleading.

    Sweden was characterized by an even income distribution, low poverty and long life spans already before the introduction of high-tax welfare policies. The difference in lifespan between Swedes and Americans was the same (2.6 years) in 1950 as it is today (2.7 years). And lastly, the 4.4 million Americans with Swedish origin are not only 50% more rich than Swedes living in Sweden, but also have the exact same level of poverty.

    It is simply wrong to assume that high tax welfare state policies automatically improve health. In 1960 Sweden was a low-tax country, with the third highest lifespan in the world. Switzerland was ranked on the sixth position. 45 years later, it was Switzerland that had the second highest lifespan, whilst Sweden was ranked on sixth position. Evidently, retaining a low-tax system did not hinder Switzerland from catching up to and surpassing Sweden.

    Low taxes might however explain why the poorest fifth of Swiss citizens have a considerably higher purchasing power compared to the same group in Sweden (the US figure is slightly, but not much, lower than in Sweden).

    And it is simply not true that socialist policies always lead to low income distribution, whilst free-markets increases inequality. Reforming away from communism to a very free-market oriented approach has for example allowed the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia from gaining a high living standard. But these nations do not have a low, but rather relatively high level of income equality. Moving away from socialism has benefited not only a small handful of capitalists, but rather the population as a whole.

    History teaches us that one society simply cannot change to another by simply changing its policies. Much can be achieved by focusing on the root of social problems – such as unemployment, crime and drug abuse – but society has little to gain and much to lose from thinking that we should hinder those who strive towards success in the name of social equality.

    Nima Sanandaji is president of the Swedish think tank Captus. He is the author of the book ”Entrepreneurs who go against the stream – what the 90s successful entrepreneurs can teach us” (Swedish title: ¨”Entreprenörer som går mot strömmen – vad 90-talets succéföretagare kan lära om dagens utmaningar”) for Fores.

    Photo by: JavierPsilocybin

  • Vancouver: Planner’s Dream, Middle Class Nightmare

    Vancouver is consistently rated among the most desirable places to live in the Economist’s annual ranking of cities. In fact, this year it topped the list. Of course, it also topped another list. Vancouver was ranked as the city with the most unaffordable housing in the English speaking world by Demographia’s annual survey. According to the survey criteria, housing prices in an affordable market should have an “median multiple” of no higher than 3.0 (meaning that median housing price should cost no more than 3 times the median annual gross household income). Vancouver came in at a staggering 9.3. The second most expensive major Canadian city, Toronto, has an index of only 5.2. Even legendarily unaffordable London and New York were significantly lower, coming in at 7.1 and 7.0 respectively. While there are many factors that make Vancouver a naturally expensive market, there are a number of land use regulations that contribute to the high housing costs.

    Vancouver is a unique real estate market: it’s the only major Canadian city that doesn’t experience frigid winters. This makes it a major draw for high skilled, high salary employees. It is also a major destination for wealthy Canadian retirees, who choose to actually spend their winters in Canada. There is little doubt that it is a naturally expensive real estate market. As with coastal California cities, people pay a premium for (in this case relatively) hospitable weather. The proximity to world class skiing, fishing, and hiking are no doubt another factor in the city’s high real estate costs. There is certainly a premium to be paid for living less than two hours away from the world’s best ski resort.

    Moreover, Vancouver has become an appealing real estate market for overseas investors, particularly Chinese nationals. There has been a good deal of news recently about how many of the nouveau riche in China are now looking to Vancouver, rather than Los Angeles or New York as an immigration destination. In absolute dollar terms, Vancouver is still cheaper than either city. This, combined with the more hospitable Canadian immigration system, has made Vancouver so attractive to overseas investors that real estate agents are now organizing house hunting tours for potential Chinese buyers.

    To be sure, geography deserves much of the blame for Vancouver’s high housing costs. But a large chunk of the blame lies with restrictive municipal and provincial land use policies. Since the introduction of the city’s first comprehensive plan in 1929, Vancouver has used various land use regulations to create dense mixed use development in order to protect green space surrounding the city. In 1972, the provincial government passed legislation aimed at protecting BC farmland. This left less than half of the already scarce land in Greater Vancouver off limits to developers. As a result, the city is circled by undeveloped land, referred to as the Green Zone. The Green Zone acts as a de facto urban growth boundary, largely designed to prevent sprawl.

    As a result, Vancouver is one of the few North American cities that have been growing almost exclusively upwards, rather than outwards for the last century. Its narrow streets and lack of a major highway running through the city make it one of the least automobile friendly cities on the continent. Unsurprisingly, Vancouver was ranked the most smart growth oriented city in the Pacific Northwest by the Sightline Institute. Roughly three times more Vancouver residents live in compact neighborhoods as a percentage of the population compared than Portland or Seattle. This arguably makes Vancouver the most smart growth oriented city in North America.

    Smart growth has become a truism for urban planners. Walkable communities with a mix of commercial and residential units combined with strict zoning regulations to encourage transit usage is a formula increasingly prescribed for North American cities. Though many smart growth principles are attractive, there is an strong correlation between heavy land use regulations and housing costs. Using data from the Wharton Residential Land Use Regulation Index (WRLURI), and Demographia’s International Housing Affordability Survey, a simple scatter plot diagram has been included to illustrate this correlation.

    The WRLURI measures the stringency of land use controls imposed on various US jurisdictions by state and local governments. There is a clear correlation between high regulations, and low housing affordability. Though the index does not include Canadian cities, it does include neighboring Seattle. Seattle ranks fifth of 47 cities on the Wharton Index. According to a recent study in Boston College International & Comparative Law Review by David Fox, Vancouver is decades ahead of Seattle in terms of smart growth policies. This means that Vancouver would rank at least fifth in North America on the index, though it is more realistic to assume it would most certainly top the index.

    In addition to smart growth policies, Vancouver also has very stringent inclusionary zoning laws. Inclusionary zoning requires developers to provide a certain number of affordable housing units in any given development. This policy might seem to make the city more affordable, but it functions exactly like rent control. Those fortunate enough to find spaces in the affordable housing units pay less, but the subsidized rent is made up for by higher rent in adjacent units. In a study of inclusionary zoning in California cities, Benjamin Powell and Edward Stringham from the Department of Economics at San Jose State University found that inclusionary zoning imposes an additional $33,000-$66,000 cost on adjacent market rate units.

    There have been some recent policy initiatives that may reduce the cost of housing marginally. In 2004, the city amended its zoning code to permit secondary suites throughout the city. Secondary suites are subdivided units of owner occupied homes that are used as rental units. This zoning change brought tens of thousands of relatively low cost units into the market. There are currently 120,000 secondary suites in the province. The city recently went one step further to allow homeowners to convert laneway garages into rental units. These units have a maximum of 500 square feet. There are 70,000 homes in Vancouver that are eligible for conversion, though it is unclear how many will take up the offer. This will add to the stock of relatively affordable rental housing in the city, but may not significantly reduce housing costs. In fact, by increasing the revenue generating potential of houses, it may actually increase the cost of purchasing a single dwelling home. After all, if the potential rental income of a single dwelling unit increases, the market price of the unit is likely to do the same. This isn’t necessarily an argument against the policy, though it does underscore the fact that housing costs in Vancouver will never decrease without liberalizing municipal and provincial land use policies.

    In short, the City of Vancouver and Province of British Columbia have chosen to favor compact growth over affordable housing costs. This likely makes the city more attractive to affluents from both the rest of Canada and abroad, but increasingly makes it unaffordable for middle class families. There is certainly some substance to the Economist’s claim that Vancouver is the most livable city on earth. It is a very attractive place for those who can afford it. Nevertheless, creating a city fit only for the wealthiest segments of society and non-families is hardly something to be proud of.

    Downtown Vancouver photo by runningclouds

    Steve Lafleur is a public policy analyst and political consultant based out of Calgary, Alberta. For more detail, see his blog.

  • High Cost of Living Drives New York’s Fiscal Deficit with Washington

    Between now and the end of the year, a hot political topic here in New York will be whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire for people in the highest income bracket, as the Obama administration proposes, or whether to extend those cuts for everyone. Advocates taking the latter position will correctly argue that higher rates will be especially harmful to New York, because of the large number of wealthy people, who live here.

    What is not likely to be discussed, however, is that because of the exorbitant cost of living in New York and the surrounding suburbs, federal taxes take a supersized bite out of the incomes of all New Yorkers, who in the vast majority are not wealthy at all. The result is that here in New York City, which is arguably the poorest city in America when it comes to what people can actually afford, we end up subsidizing other states and localities, where people pay less to Uncle Sam, even as they enjoy a higher standard of living than we do.

    How could this be? The answer is that because New York and the surrounding suburbs are so expensive, businesses have to pay higher salaries to recruit people to work for them. According to the ERI Economic Research Institute, a leading data survey company that helps corporate clients set compensation packages and calculate the cost of doing business throughout the United States and elsewhere, these higher salary costs are substantial.

    They calculate, for example, that a typical registered nurse in metropolitan New York earns $82,712 versus a national average of $65,464. In the case of an accountant, they calculate a figure of $74,388 versus a national average of $58,712. In the case of an administrative assistant, as they define those job responsibilities, they calculate a figure of $59,243 versus $47,961 nationally. And finally, they also provide data for someone working as a janitor. Here the figure they calculate is $38,142 versus $31,220.

    Sounds great. Who doesn’t want a higher salary? But unfortunately, it’s not that simple. The problem is that the IRS doesn’t care how much you can actually buy with your hard earned dollars. They just want to see the number printed on your W-2. And as we all know, the more you make, the more you pay.

    For the average registered nurse in New York, filing as an individual, and assuming no special deductions or one-time credits, the tax bite amounts to $14,381 versus $10,219 for the average registered nurse in the rest of the country. An accountant here pays $12,444 versus $8,531 nationally. For an administrative assistant, the figure is $8,656 versus $5,844. And in the case of a janitor, the figure is $3,899 versus $2,864.

    But wait, it gets worse than that. Based on data from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, it turns out that the cost of living in the New York metropolitan area is significantly higher than the difference in salaries alone would indicate. According to their data, the cost of living here is 45 percent higher than in the rest of the country or approximately twice the difference in salaries.

    Yes, employers have to pay more to recruit people to work here in New York, but they don’t have to make up the whole difference. Economists refer to this as money illusion, which is their way of saying that people find it difficult to distinguish between the nominal value of money and the true purchasing power of that money in the marketplace.

    If we recalculate salaries to take into account the cost of living, it turns out that the federal tax premium that New Yorkers have to pay is even greater. Thus, if the tax bite were to reflect the actual standard of living for a registered nurse in New York, the real tax would be $8,106 instead of the actual tax of $14,381 or a difference of $6,275. For an accountant, the difference would be $5,775. For an administrative assistant, it would be $4,352, and for a janitor, $1,778.

    The lessons here are clear. In the short term, New York’s Congressional delegation needs to restrain efforts to raise taxes in Washington, D.C., because the impact here will be greater than elsewhere. And in the longer term, we need to determine why the cost of living in New York is so high and then implement the reforms necessary to fix the problem and give New Yorkers a standard of living that is competitive with rest of America.

  • Australian Opposition to Loosen Land for Housing

    The opposition Liberal-National Coalition, locked in a close battle with the ruling Labor Party in Australia’s Saturday elections, has adopted a housing policy to improve the nation’s housing affordability. The policy would require states to monitor housing affordability and to release more land for development. There would also be a review of the efficacy of development charges.

    Australia suffers from some of the most unaffordable housing in the world, with a Median Multiple (median house price divided by median household income) of 6.8, which is more than double the historic norm of 3.0. With recent interest rate increases, the median household would have to pay more than 50% of its gross income to service a mortgage on the median priced house. Little more than 15 years ago, house prices were affordable in Australia, which had seen home ownership rise from approximately 40% before World War II to approximately 70%. The principal cause of the loss of housing affordability has been the virtual universal adoption of “smart growth” (“urban consolidation”) land use restrictions, which have (among other things) made it virtually impossible to develop inexpensive housing on the urban fringes, with the price of rationed land driven up many times.

    The Coalition’s housing policy includes the following provisions that are directly related to removing the urban consolidation barriers to affordable housing:

    In order to continue to receive federal funds, States and Territories will need to increase land supply and reform their planning and approval systems under the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA).
    States and Territories will need to set affordability targets to guide land releases and dwelling approvals. In order to receive federal funds States and Territories would need to demonstrate that they had a plan for delivering these targets and those approvals and land releases occurred consistent with the targets established.
    The Coalition will review of State, Territory and local developer charges, which have been contributing an increasing component to the cost of development. State and local governments that build higher charges into the cost of housing will be less able to meet their home affordability obligations under the Compact.

    Housing affordability has been an issue of substantial concern in Australia for years and has emerged as the top concern among voters in this election. State governments have talked about housing affordability, but have done little. Over the past five years, house prices have continued to rise relative to incomes. Just in the last nine months, a mortgage payment on the median priced house has risen from $500 in Adelaide to more than $800 in Sydney.

    The Coalition policy, however, represents the second significant development in recent weeks (Note). The first was an expansion of the Melbourne urban growth boundary by 440 square kilometers. All of this may signal an overdue attention to housing affordability in Australia.

    —–

    Note: Performance Urban Planning statement on the Coalition housing policy.

    —–

    Photograph: Adelaide: Urban fringe land (no houses allowed). Photograph by author

  • Sarah Palin: The GOP’s Poison Pearl

    Sarah Palin has emerged as the right’s sweetheart, a cross between a pin-up girl and Joan of Arc. For some activists, like the American Thinker‘s Lloyd Marcus, she’s “my awesome conservative sister” who the mainstream media wants to “destroy at any cost.”

    On a more serious note, leading right-wing pundit Roger Simon argues Palin’s is now the biggest name in Republicandom, which he admits is not too great an accomplishment. Armed with “something more than intellect,” he praises her unique ability to “connect with the base.” He also believes, citing some polls for 2012, that she could run a close race against President Obama.

    These Republicans may grow to regret their embrace of Sarah Palin: She will likely prove less a gem than a poison pearl for conservatives. Sure, she can stir the base, but her crossover appeal remains limited. Recent Pew surveys show that she’s still toxic for the Independents and moderate Democrats who generally determine national elections.

    Palin keeps building her brand, but she may also be diminishing the GOP’s. She has helped propel several potentially weak, marginal “Tea Party” candidates such as Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada into the general elections. These could end up losing seats that more earth-bound Republicans could have won.

    But if conservatives really want evidence of Palin’s limitations, they only need to talk to people in her home state of Alaska. “She represents a constituency that is rural, but that’s it,” says Jim Egan, executive director of Commonwealth North, a local think tank. “What she says and does makes little sense in the urban environment that most Americans live in.” If it does not sell across the board in Anchorage, home to almost half of Alaskans, you wonder how well her message will play in Omaha or suburban Houston, much less New York or Los Angeles.

    Conservatives in Washington might also cool their drool, Egan suggests, if they examine Palin’s Alaska record. True, she did initially take on some in-bred corruption, but she left the state as dependent on oil revenues and federal largesse as before. She left no strong legacy, particularly in comparison with the late former Sen. Ted Stevens–known widely as “Uncle Ted”–who brought heaps of federal blubber to the Last Frontier.

    In contrast, Palin is seen by many Alaskans–including business-oriented conservatives–as a hopeless lightweight. “She’s a narcissistic individual,” suggests Republican State Sen. Craig Johnson. “What bothers me is people think we are like Sarah Palin. We’re not.”

    To Johnson and many Alaska political veterans Palin is more self-promoter than serious politician. Even as some are touting her as a serious candidate for president of the United States, it’s important to realize she proved ill-prepared to be governor of Alaska–more interested in powdering her nose than putting it to the grindstone.

    And remember that Alaska, a vast, underpopulated state of 700,000 hard-working individuals, does not require the horsepower needed to rule a disaster zone like Michigan, much less a mega insane asylum like California. For one thing, Alaska, due to its huge mineral wealth, is a comparatively rich state, with the eighth highest per capita income in the nation. Over 80% of the state budget comes through energy-related taxes. Everyone even gets a nifty $1,300 check as well, also paid for by the energy companies.

    Egan and others argue that Palin, who boosted the return to taxpayers from oil revenues, failed to capitalize on these assets. The state’s bulging revenues during the energy price spike of 2007-08 could have been applied to badly needed infrastructure and education, not to buy new snowmobiles and shotguns. “She epitomizes the whole idea of we get a piece and no sense of planning for the future, about thinking about what we need to do,” Egan says.

    In this sense Palin appeals to the grifter spirit of America–opportunistic and self-centered. This was amply evidenced by her decision to quit office mid-way through her first term for the more lucrative job of cashing in on her personality cult. “Sarah Palin was a breath of fresh air,” says one-time supporter Iris Gardner, who with her husband operates a mercantile store in Alaska’s scenic Seward (population 3,000). “But she blew all that when she quit. People have soured on her.”

    This view is widely shared in Alaska. Today, according to Alaskadispatch.com, about half of Alaskans want to be “done with her.” Only 56% of Republicans count themselves as Palin fans. She is widely unpopular among both Democrats and Independents, the state’s largest electoral base, the Dispatch noted.

    So we have to ask why Palin continues to be attractive for so many conservatives? It has more to do with subliminals than the subtleties of public policy. Palin’s power is not that of serious policymaker but rather as someone with a keen understanding of message and branding. Still, Palin’s appeal cannot be easily dismissed. Certainly charisma does not necessarily translate into a lack of gravitas. Prominent conservatives like Norman Podhoretz have pointed out that Ronald Reagan too was considered a lightweight by many in the mainstream media.

    Yet those who knew and covered Reagan–like my old boss Lou Cannon–always argued Reagan was a serious figure, surrounded by a coterie of very smart advisers. He had spent decades in and around politics before ascending to the White House. Palin, in contrast, seems to be making up her politics along the way.

    Reagan also served two terms as governor of California, despite running for the nomination in 1976. Even today he enjoys some considerable respect from longtime opponents, as well as something close to adoration among friends. As those who interviewed him can attest, he also was very sharp: Reagan would have never allowed a Katie Couric to get the better of him. To paraphrase the famous Lloyd Bentsen’s quip about Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

    Still Palin’s populist appeal seems well-suited against a Democratic Party–and a president–burdened with what seems like a congenital inability to connect with most middle- and working-class concerns. Barack Obama has turned intellectualism into a liability.

    There’s also the novelty factor working in Palin’s favor. “It’s a sense of mystery we can’t keep away from,” Jim Egan suggests. In this sense, oddly, she’s a bit like Barack Obama–someone people enthuse over not because they are ready for the job but because they appeal to some emotional need for novelty. But, as Palin herself would say, how’s that working out for ya?

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

    Photo: geerlingguy