Naturally, the media jumped on his comments, happily characterizing him as some backwoods Bible-thumper. A lot of Christian churches backpedaled, not willing to condemn the LDS Church. And Rick Perry himself, whom Jeffress had endorsed, quickly distanced himself from the pastor. When asked if Mormonism was a cult, Perry said without hesitation, “No.”

But the fact of the matter is, Dr. Jeffress is exactly right.

Merriam-Webster defines a “cult” as “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and Mormonism is definitely unorthodox compared to Christianity. While Mormonism shares many of the same elements as Christianity, including God, Jesus, and the Bible, the beliefs and teachings of the LDS Church are far outside of both Protestant and Catholic doctrine.

The most obvious difference between Mormonism and Christianity has to do with the Bible. For Christians, the Bible is the sole source of Scripture. Mormons, however, add other texts such the Book of Mormon, a collection of “scriptures” supposedly written by various ancient prophets and revealed to Joseph Smith in 1823. The Book of Mormon adds to and revises the Bible, which alone places Mormonism outside of traditional Christianity. The Pearl of Great Price is another Mormon text, which contains the Book of Moses (essentially a readaptation of the first six chapters of Genesis), the Book of Abraham (an Egyptian text proven to be fraudulent), some text from Smith’s translation of the Bible, excerpts from his autobiography, and the 13 Articles of Faith. And finally, there is the Doctrine and Covenants, a collection of 138 “revelations” that further define the exact belief system of the Mormon religion. While Mormons generally don’t publicly refer to these other texts, quoting only the Bible so as to avoid controversy, they are part of the LDS canon and integral to their faith. And much of these texts directly contradict what Christians believe about God, Creation, Jesus Christ, heaven, hell, and salvation.

Consider the Great Council in Heaven, as told in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham and which summarizes the Mormon beliefs. From LDS.org:

Before this earth was organized so that we could live on it, we lived very happily as spirit children of our heavenly parents. Our spirits looked like the physical bodies that we have now, and each spirit had a distinct personality with strengths and weaknesses. While in this spirit world, we grew until we could no longer progress without a physical body. We wanted to prove our worthiness and become more like our Heavenly Father. We were anxious to receive a physical body and undergo a time of testing.

Heavenly Father called a great council of all His spirit children. All the noble and great ones who would live on the earth were there—future prophets, apostles, presidents, mothers and fathers, and all those who would come to earth in the last days to teach the gospel to the people of the world.

Heavenly Father explained that an earth would be prepared for us and that we would each receive a physical body. While on earth, we would have our agency, the freedom to choose between right and wrong. Of course, Heavenly Father knew we would be happier if we chose the right, but agency meant that we would also have the ability to choose the wrong. To help us make right choices, we would be taught gospel principles so that we would know how we should live.

Heavenly Father told us that after we were born on earth, we would not remember our life in heaven. We would need to use faith, to trust in God without being able to see Him. Heavenly Father knew from His own experiences that choosing the right is sometimes very hard but that this would make us stronger. He also knew that some of His children would choose evil and would be unable to return to Him, however much He loved them.

Heavenly Father knew we would all make mistakes, and He explained that we would need a savior, a person who would be willing to atone for our sins so that we could receive forgiveness when we repent. One of the Spirits among us was like God. He offered to serve Heavenly Father and be a savior for all the spirit children. This was Jesus. Because of His great love for us, His brothers and sisters, He offered to give His life to atone for our sins. He would also teach us what we must do to return to Heavenly Father. Unselfishly He said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”

Lucifer, another of God’s spirit sons, proposed, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem [save] all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.”

Lucifer’s willful, glory-seeking plan would have forced all the children of God to return to heaven. He wanted to take away our greatest gift, the right to choose for ourselves. Lucifer would not have allowed anyone to make a wrong decision, and we would have been like puppets with him controlling us.

Some of God’s children liked Lucifer’s idea, and one-third of them decided to follow him. Heavenly Father loved Lucifer and these spirit children, but because they refused to follow His plan, they were no longer worthy to remain with Him. Therefore they were cast out of heaven and could not be born on the earth and receive physical bodies.

Many of those who followed Heavenly Father’s plan were ordained to do important things on earth. Each of us has received special talents and abilities that can be increased when we use them to help each other. Heavenly Father has provided everything we need to return to Him.

In the Mormon religion, as in Christianity, the Godhead is comprised of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet, Mormons believe that both God (“Heavenly Father”) and Jesus (the “Son” or sometimes referred to as the “Only Begotten”) have a physical body similar to ours with flesh and bones. And that God isn’t the only god, that He was once a mortal man on a another planet “who progressed by living in obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel he had on his world, then he died. He became a resurrected man and evolved to become a god.” Further, it is widely taught and believed among Mormons that along with Heavenly Father there is a Heavenly Mother who is married to God. In the Mormon Godhead, the three beings are completely separate in identity but act together toward a single purpose. In the Christian Godhead (or Trinity), the three are both distinct and completely the same being (God) concurrently.

Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin named Mary. Mormons also recognize Mary but believe that Jesus was conceived by the physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary and is thus part spirit and part man (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vo1 15, Page 770 1853; Teaching of Ezra Taft Benson, 7). Jesus, then, having a physical body just as the Heavenly Father does, is both the firstborn “spirit child” of God and the eldest brother of all mortals, including Lucifer (Satan). Jesus, Mormons believe, offered to act as our Savior, making an atonement for our sins so that we could ascend to the Father’s kingdom and eventually achieve godhood for ourselves just as the Heavenly Father did.

This is different from the Christian view of Jesus, who being both fully God and fully human, existed before mankind was created and who was given up by God as a sacrifice for our sins so that through His sacrifice we could be rescued from eternal separation from Him. The distinction here is slight but extremely important. In the Mormon faith, Jesus is one of us, a spirit child literally born from God and our spiritual brother. Through His atonement, we can be reunited with God and be equals with Him. In the Christian faith, Jesus is fully God who has always coexisted with God the Father. Through His atonement, we can be reunited with God in heaven, but we will never obtain godhood for ourselves. Rather, we will serve and worship God for eternity.

The differences between the Mormon view of salvation and eternity and the Christian view is often hard to explain because the LDS Church uses so many of the same terms. In the Mormon version, a person is saved when he professes his belief in God, Jesus, Joseph Smith as a prophet, and Brigham Young as Smith’s successor (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 6:229, 7:289). Following baptism by immersion, which typically happens around the age of 8, a person is confirmed as a member of the Church and then receives the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. It’s important to point out that while Mormons share Christianity’s view that salvation comes only through the grace of God through Jesus’ death and resurrection, Mormons don’t believe in Original Sin or human depravity as Christians do. Further, Mormons place a greater emphasis on earthly works, as those works will help determine what level of heaven you and your family will ascend to after your death.

Upon one’s death, Mormon’s believe, they will end up in one of three different spiritual kingdoms: the Celestial kingdom, Terrestrial kingdom, or Telestial kingdom.

The celestial kingdom is the highest of the three kingdoms of glory. Those in this kingdom will dwell forever in the presence of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. This should be your goal: to inherit celestial glory and to help others receive that great blessing as well. Such a goal is not achieved in one attempt; it is the result of a lifetime of righteousness and constancy of purpose.

The celestial kingdom is the place prepared for those who have “received the testimony of Jesus” and been “made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood” (D&C 76:51, 69). To inherit this gift, we must receive the ordinances of salvation, keep the commandments, and repent of our sins.

Those who fall short of the Celestial kingdom may end up in either the Terrestrial kingdom (for people who are honorable members of the LDS Church but who weren’t quite good enough) or the Telestial kingdom (for people who were not saved through the LDS Church but who were freed after their death from their spirit prison via baptism by proxy, which I’ve written about before). Those who aren’t worthy of any of these three kingdoms will end up in Perdition, which is similar to hell.

Christians don’t recognize these different spiritual kingdoms, only heaven and hell. For Christians, it’s through Jesus, and Him alone, that we are saved from the punishment of our sins (John 14:6). Romans 10:9-10 says, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved.” Baptism isn’t necessary for salvation but rather a public demonstration of what has already happened internally (Romans 6:5-8, Colossians 2:11-13). And works have nothing to do with determining one’s salvation but rather is evidence of it (Romans 3:27-28).

It’s often difficult to discern the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Both use the Bible and both use very similar terms and concepts. But they are not the same. Mormonism teaches things that are in no way consistent with the Bible and traditional Christianity. Whether that technically makes it a cult or not is open to interpretation, I suppose. In my opinion, it absolutely does.

Previously:
It’s not just religion that America is ignorant about
Baptism of the dead?
Survey: Other religions can lead to eternal life
Faith and the Presidency

Fort Worth Weekly explains that there are a few reasons. First came major changes to the state’s franchise tax in 2006 along with other taxes that were supposed to save local school districts about $7 billion in maintenance and operations taxes. However, the franchise tax didn’t bring in the revenue legislators expected it to.

Second, armed with a sizable budget surplus in an election year, the Senate did what any politician would do: they spent it. Or at least $5.6 billion of it, in the form of teacher pay raises, incentive pay, and other stuff.

These two reasons alone would’ve hurt the state down the road, but then the national economy unraveled in 2008. With Texas getting about three quarters of its revenue from sales taxes, the state took a big hit as people tightened their belts, as they always do during a recession.

The crap should’ve hit the fan two years ago, but thanks to about $15 billion in federal stimulus money, the state was able to escape relatively unscathed. Until now, that is. Without another massive handout from Washington, Texas is finally having to acknowledge the $27 billion elephant in the room.

The real kicker, though, is that none of this is a surprise. In fact, way back in 2006, then-Comptroller and “One Tough Grandma” Carole Keeton Strayhorn warned Congress of the impending doom:

She said the bill and the Senate’s freewheeling election-year spending spree left Texas taxpayers holding a “$23 billion hot check” and warned lawmakers that the only reason she could certify the legislation was because of the state’s surplus. Even with that, she said, she could only certify that the house of cards wouldn’t collapse before the end of fiscal 2008.

“Because of the huge surplus, I would have enough revenue to certify this bill through 2008, but not 2009 and 2010,” she said in her message certifying the legislation.

Strayhorn, who was running as an independent for governor at the time, was pooh-poohed by Perry and many, if not most, Republicans. She had taken so many shots at Perry in the previous months that many regarded her revenue estimates as purely political. She predicted shortfalls that could top $13.9 billion — and that was more than five years before the state and U.S. economy tanked, a development that drained state surpluses and shrunk state revenues like a cotton shirt washed in hot water.

I wouldn’t blame Strayhorn for saying, “I told you so” to her former arch-nemesis, who skated through the 2010 election without ever being fully held accountable for the budget crisis that he had a hand in creating. However, I can guarantee that no one else is laughing.

Previously:
Won’t somebody please think of the children?
Don’t mess with Texas
Is it hypocritical for Perry to accept stimulus money?

A couple of years ago, I quoted an article from The Economist comparing California, with its high unemployment and oppressive government regulation, to Texas, which has a lower-than-average unemployment rate and business-friendlier environment. While Texas naturally came out ahead, the article did praise California’s “inventive” nature, to which I replied, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

I may have to rethink that.

Without the prospects of a massive federal stimulus package, the Texas legislature is wrestling with a $27 billion budget shortfall. And adamantly opposed to raising taxes or dipping into the state’s $9.4 billion rainy day fund, the Republican-led congress is hoping the close the gap simply by cutting spending. A lot.

Such budget cuts would impact all areas of the state government, but at least in preliminary proposals, education would take one of the biggest hits, costing the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers statewide. Medical programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be also slashed. But can we really afford to do that?

According to the left-leaning Texas Legislature Study Group, Texas doesn’t look too good compared to other states in the areas of health care and education. Texas has the 2nd highest public school enrollment but the lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma. The state ranks 44th when it comes to state and local expenditures per student (which could be interpreted as a good or bad thing), but SAT scores rank an embarrassing 45th.

Meanwhile, Texas has the highest percentage of population uninsured, the highest percentage of uninsured children, the 2nd highest birth rate, and the 4th highest percentage of children living in poverty. And it ranks at or near the bottom in terms of per capita spending on Medicaid (49th), percentage of low income population covered by Medicaid (49th), per capita spending on mental health (50th), and percentage of population with employer-based health insurance (48th).

Obviously, with such a huge budget deficit to overcome, it’s not realistic to expect that no cuts would be made to education or health care spending. But as the New York Times’ Paul Krugman points out, such cuts put a disproportionate burden on the state’s children:

While low spending may sound good in the abstract, what it amounts to in practice is low spending on children, who account directly or indirectly for a large part of government outlays at the state and local level.

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average. …

It’s not a pretty picture; compassion aside, you have to wonder — and many business people in Texas do — how the state can prosper in the long run with a future work force blighted by childhood poverty, poor health and lack of education.

With Texas already lagging far behind the rest of the country in health and education, how does anyone expect things to get better by drastically cutting spending in those areas? They won’t. Still, the budget still has to be balanced somehow. Rick Perry likes to tout’s the state’s low-tax, pro-business conservatism, yet the reality is that simply cutting spending isn’t going to be enough to close the budget gap. But even if that were possible, what would be the long-term consequences?

Unfortunately, I think the answer to the budget problem is a lot more complicated than just cutting costs. Yes, some across-the-board cuts will have to be made, which will result in some people losing their jobs. But additional money from the rainy day fund and higher taxes and fees must also be included.

Previously:
Don’t mess with Texas
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs
Economist: Marriage is ‘necessary for good economic development’
Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

In the end, I voted for Hutchison.

Now, if you’ve read my previous posts about Hutchison, you know I haven’t exactly gushed over her. Frankly, her campaign has been a mess, and I’m not exactly confident that could do any better job than Perry. Furthermore, for someone who has served in the Senate since 1993 (after pledging to serve only two terms), she has little to show for it other than a bunch of pork barrel spending she’s accumulated for her home state.

So why vote for her? I suppose it was a process of elimination.

Debra Medina seems like a good person, and I respect her conservative principles. But she is in no way qualified to be governor of Texas. Her only political experience has been as the Wharton County Republican chairperson. That may in fact be a bigger deal than it sounds, but it certainly doesn’t sound impressive. She might as well say she’s been the president of the PTA. My advice to her would be to run for the state legislature instead, get some real experience in Austin, prove that she can handle it, then come back and talk about bigger things.

But even with more experience, I still wouldn’t vote for her. Her ultra-conservative Ron-Paul-flavored beliefs are too extreme for me, and they expose her naïveté. For example, the foundation of her platform is the elimination of property taxes and the raising of the sales tax. That would be a complete disaster for the state economically. Just look at California. They have the highest sales tax rate and the highest income tax rate in the country, and they’re also broke. I’m not in favor of repeating that same mistake in Texas.

And then there’s Rick Perry.

Perry has been the governor of Texas since December 2001, serving longer than any other governor in the state’s history. In terms of evaluating whether to reelect him for yet another four years, that works to voters’ advantage since they can clearly see what he’s done in office and how he approaches the job. And personally, I’m not that impressed.

While Texas may be doing better economically than almost any other state in the nation, we still relied on federal stimulus money to pass a balanced budget last year. Plus we’re looking at a projected $10.8 billion shortfall in 2011. So while conditions may be not dire, they’re certainly not as rosy as Perry claims they are.

Perry has also campaigned as a champion of the Tea Party movement, speaking at tea parties, writing op-ed pieces in national publications espousing “self-governance” and limited government, and even suggesting that Texas could secede from the Union. (For the record, I don’t believe he was really suggesting or promoting secession, but it shows how his rhetoric has been groomed over the last year to play to anti-Washington conservatives.) While I myself am a conservative and also believe in limited government regulation and low taxes, I have a hard time supporting the Tea Party movement, and as such, have a hard time supporting Perry.

To be fair, though, I’ve never been a big fan of Perry’s. His arrogant, “Adios, mofo” bravado has always turned me off. In 2006 I voted for Democrat Chris Bell, a vote which was more of an anti-Perry stance, driven particularly by Perry’s fondness for toll roads and his support of the hated TAKS test in public schools. While some of those toll road plans have since been scrapped and a new end-of-course exam will soon replace the TAKS (a bill which Perry signed), my opinion of him over the last four years has not changed.

So that leaves Kay Bailey Hutchison. Granted, she has no real hope of beating Perry in the Republican primary, having consistently trailed in the polls for months. But if the vote is close enough, it may at least result in a run-off election, which is as close a victory as Hutchison can realistically hope for.

Previously:
The many ideas of Rick Perry
Why are the Internets turning on Kay Bailey Hutchison?
Race for Texas governor on …sorta
Is it hypocritical for Perry to accept stimulus money?

“If there was ever a time to have full-time representation in the United States Senate, it would be right now,” Perry said during a visit to Emmett J. Conrad High School in Dallas. “So I really appreciate her taking my advice and staying on the job full time.”

Never mind that Hutchison has been decisively indecisive throughout the campaign and has seemed determined to hedge her bets as long as possible. I guess she just needed some helpful guidance from Governor Rick.

Also Perry’s idea?

• The Interstate Highway system (followed later by the invention of toll roads)
• Sliced bread
• Penicillin
• The Roman aqueducts
• Rocky IV
• Cherry Garcia ice cream
• Mega-strength hairspray

I’m pretty sure he also single-handedly planted thousands of acres of apples throughout the upper Midwest in the early 1800s and once had a giant blue ox named Babe.

Previously:
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?
Race for Texas governor on …sorta
Why are the Internets turning on Kay Bailey Hutchison?

The first mistake Hutchison (or “Kay” as her campaign prefers to call her) made was not being decisive about running. Four years ago, there were rumors she was considering a run for governor but backed off when it was obvious she couldn’t beat Perry. This time around, she finally pulled the trigger, but not very convincingly. In mid-July she announced that she would be announcing her candidacy at a later time. Combined with her fence-sitting about if or when she will be retiring from the Senate, this non-announcement created the impression that she wasn’t really committed to the task. And in the political world, that’s like blood in the water; sooner or later, the sharks are bound to appear.

But the mistakes didn’t end there. Even before her campaign officially started, she replaced her campaign manager, a clear sign of trouble. Then it was discovered that her website contained thousands of hidden search keywords, including the phrase “rick perry gay”. That was embarrassing enough, but then Yahoo and Google removed the site from their indexes because of the incredible number of search terms.

Then she fumbled again when it came time to actually announce her candidacy. Instead of holding the announcement in Dallas, Houston, or Austin, she opted for her hometown of La Marque (yeah, I’ve never heard of it either) in a mostly-empty venue that only drew about 60 people. Paul Burka of Texas Monthly called it an “astonishingly inept rollout”, and Matt Lewis of Townhall.com said it was “like watching a train wreck.” And then there’s this description from RedState.com’s Erick Erickson:

About the only campaign that comes close to the disaster that is Creigh Deeds’ campaign in Virginia is the craptacular spectacle of Kay Bailey Hutchison running her Texas gubernatorial primary.

The campaign has thus far been a disaster. Most recently, this morning, KBH showed up an hour late to her own kick off event.

Then, when she got there, she started bashing Rick Perry for being Governor for ten years. She said, “We need results, not politics. And that starts with term limits for Texas governor. For any governor, eight years is enough.”

The befuddling irony is that Kay Bailey Hutchison has been a United States Senator for seventeen years. Pot meet kettle.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s not a good sign when a blogger from your own party refers to your campaign as a “craptacular spectacle”.

So why all the backlash? Well, certainly Senator Hutchison, er, Kay has given political commentators plenty of material to work with, but I think it’s also a reflection of just how popular Rick Perry is at the moment. Perry is still riding the wave of anti-Washington sentiment building in the state. Conservative voters see him as someone they can rally around at tea parties, even if he hasn’t always been their knight in shining armor. (Keep in mind Perry won re-election in 2006 with only 39% of the vote). Hutchison, meanwhile, isn’t nearly as conservative as her opponent, earning her a reputation as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) and a Washington insider, a reputation Perry’s camp is more than happy to perpetuate.

The end result is a weak and vulnerable candidate. And in the age of Google, Facebook, and Twitter, that’s all it takes to doom a campaign.

Previously:
Race for Texas governor officially on …sorta
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?

Never mind the Economist’s statement that they are the “nation’s two biggest states” (I think Alaska might have something to say about that) or that the Dallas-Fort Worth area is made up of “flat, ugly countryside” (OK, that might not be too far off). The fact remains that CAHL-EE-FOR-NEE-A is old and busted, while the Lone Star State is the new hotness.

These days California’s unemployment rate is running at 11.5%, two points ahead of the national average. In such Californian cities as Fresno, Merced and El Centro, jobless rates are higher than in Detroit. Its roads and schools are crumbling. Every year, over 100,000 more Americans leave the state than enter it.

The second worry has to do with dysfunctional government. No state has quite so many overlapping systems of accountability or such a gerrymandered legislature. Ballot initiatives, the crack cocaine of democracy, have left only around a quarter of its budget within the power of its representative politicians. (One reason budget cuts are inevitable is that voters rejected tax increases in a package of ballot measures in May.) Not that Californian government comes cheap: it has the second-highest top level of state income tax in America (after Hawaii, of all places). Indeed, high taxes, coupled with intrusive regulation of business and greenery taken to silly extremes, have gradually strangled what was once America’s most dynamic state economy. Chief Executive magazine, to take just one example, has ranked California the very worst state to do business in for each of the past four years.

By contrast, Texas was the best state in that poll. It has coped well with the recession, with an unemployment rate two points below the national average and one of the lowest rates of housing repossession. In part this is because Texan banks, hard hit in the last property bust, did not overexpand this time. But as our special report this week explains, Texas also clearly offers a different model, based on small government. It has no state capital-gains or income tax, and a business-friendly and immigrant-tolerant attitude. It is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state—64 compared with California’s 51 and New York’s 56.

(Emphasis mine.)

The article goes on to point out Texas’ weaknesses (education, immigration) and says that we can learn a lot from the “inventive” Golden State. Sounds like the only thing they’ve “invented”, however, is big government with excessive taxation and regulation. Thanks, but no thanks. I think I’ll stick with the state where the inventions come from the private sector.

Oh, and one other thing:

Previously:
Chuck Norris for President of Texas

I was surprised as anyone. I thought she had been already been running for governor for months. I’m so used to her not doing anything substantive as a senator, I just figured she was taking the same approach to her gubernatorial campaign.

But running she is, and she’s already raised $6.7 million. Combined with the $6 million she had leftover from her Senate run, that puts her ahead of incumbent Rick Perry, at least financially.

And so far campaign finances are the only thing the two candidates seem to care about. Hutchison accused Perry of raising funds while the state legislature was still in session (a no-no), and Perry’s staff replied that she is a “liar, liar, pants on fire” (to paraphrase).

If this is any indication of how the rest of the primary season is going to play out, then I’m not interested. At least Carole Keeton “One Tough Grandma” Strayhorn was good for a few chuckles now and then.

Previously:
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?

Increasing federal spending does not stimulate the economy. Just the opposite: higher government spending crowds out the private economy, diminishing its rate of growth. The driving force of the economy is the incentive to engage in market activities. In both the long and short run, individuals and groups of individuals allocate resources according to the after-tax rate of return. If market activities are profitable, the economy will concentrate on ever-increasing market successes. When the profitability of market activities is reduced, market activity diminishes and welfare enhancing activities cease. …

The ARRA [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] is a significant increase in federal government expenditures at a time when the private sector can least afford to pay for the higher government burden. As a result, the purported “stimulus” plan passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama will actually worsen the economy’s performance.

The report estimates that nationally, the ARRA will increase government expenditures 3.3 percent while reducing real net business output by 2.5 percent.

As for Texas:

The ultimate impact from the ARRA of 2009 on Texas will depend upon how the state manages the increased federal government money. The previous section established the deleterious impact that a high or growing government expenditure wedge has on the private economy’s growth rate. Spending the money on recurring programs will necessitate Texas to increase taxes in the future in order to maintain these programs once the federal government funds run out, locking-in the higher expenditure wedge.

Maintaining the higher government expenditure wedge will reduce the annual average growth rate in the private sector by 0.32% per year. Over a 10-year period, Texas’ economy will be up to 3.22% smaller than it would have been had the extra spending been focused on one-time projects only—rejecting all funds that would ultimate lead to a permanent increase in the government spending burden. In terms of employment, this equates to the approximately 170,000 jobs that will not be created due to the additional government expenditure burden being maintained.

The conclusions of the report appear to back up Governor Perry’s insistence that federal stimulus funds be used for one-time expenses only instead of being incorporated into the budgets of ongoing programs. It also clearly echoes the supply-side arguments made famous by Dr. Laffer: namely that lower tax rates provide greater incentives for innovation and business growth, which in turn creates more private sector jobs.

Previously:
Is it hypocritical for Perry to accept stimulus money?

“As I have said during the debate on (the stimulus package), should Congress pass stimulus legislation using Texas tax dollars, I would work to ensure that our citizens receive their fair share,” Perry wrote in a letter to President Barack Obama.

Legislative leaders estimate that the stimulus bill could deliver almost $17 billion to the state budget, including billions for Medicaid, education and transportation. Lawmakers are just starting to see how the money might fit into the state budget. …

“We have begun the process today of accepting the funds,” Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle said. “However, the governor only wants those funds that can be used for one-time expenditures that don’t obligate the state to ongoing costs long after the federal funding has dried up.”

Using it for one-time expenses or not, is it hypocritical for the governor to accept any of the money? After all, as he recently wrote in an op-ed piece for the Washington Times:

I am convinced that those who believe in big government have little faith in self-governance. Their philosophy says that government should do what a man can’t – or won’t – do for himself.

Perhaps I’m jaded, but I believe that the gush of taxpayer dollars issuing forth from Washington is not driven by compassion, but from an unspoken belief that Americans are not smart enough to govern their own lives, strong enough to take some risk or compassionate enough to help neighbors in need.

On the surface it certainly appears hypocritical. If you really believe that Americans are smart enough to govern their lives and strong enough to take the necessary risks to help themselves, then there should be no need for a $17 billion federal handout, right?

Of course, it’s not that simple. For Perry, who’s facing a fierce challenge from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for the governor’s office in 2010, it’s a no-win situation. If he takes the money, then he looks like a hypocrite and also gives Hutchison massive ammunition in what has already become a nasty primary season. If he rejects the money on principle, however, he risks coming up short on funds in critical areas such as transportation and education. Plus, he would most certainly be angering a large number of voters who stand to benefit from the money. (And if the 2006 election is any indication, Perry doesn’t have much political capital to spare.)

So what’s a conservative governor to do? I think the only option is to accept the money for one-time expenses as Perry is doing. Yeah, he might have some ’splainin’ to do to fend off the resulting criticism, but the cost of not accepting the money would be much more devastating.

Previously:
When will Kay Bailey Hutchison resign?