The best- and worst-run states in the US (NE #2 / AZ #47)

[HSKR]

What impresses me the most about Nebraska is we do it without a lot of the resources that many of the neighboring states in the Midwest have. Places like Kansas, Wyoming and the Dakotas all have large amounts of natural gas, coal and even some oil. That's a lot of money that goes back into each of those states and eases taxes. Even though agriculture is huge here like Iowa, Nebraska has a vast areas like the Sandhills where production is minimal at best. We never have the fortune of experiencing economic booms like other states but at the same time we don't get our bubble burst either, a lot of the reason our unemployment rate has stayed relatively steady though all of this. We have always lived within our means because our economy doesn't fluctuate that much like other areas of the US.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

It's pretty amusing that the farther from the two coasts you get, the more responsible the population base seems to become.

 

Or perhaps their lower population density and a lower cost of land have something to do with it more significantly than "a responsible population".

 

 

I would say land price stability... I haven't met anyone from Nebraska whose house is now "worth" 60-70% less than it was four years ago, unless it burnt down... Also most of the economic ill's passed us over, we have stable jobs with farming, banking, and insurance holding the line. The housing area took a hit, but it was nothing compared to Florida, California, Nevada, and Arizona.

 

why isn't the Governor of Wyoming a front runner for a presidental nomination? The governor of Louisiana is widely regarded as having a shot at the White Hourse at some point down the road. Why? Louisiana is consistantly in the bottom 5

Because you only do stuff if you're the Governor of a huge population state like California, New York, Texas, ect. In Wyoming and Nebraska it's more of a title. Kinda like Carl Pelini being our defensive coordinator.

 

 

The scale is different, but it is still a fight. Whether you agree with his ways or not, Gov Heineman had a tough fight to hold the line on spending, not raise taxes, and keep us in (get us back into) the black. He was heavily criticized for his cuts and calls for departments to hold off on hiring etc.

[HeyBurke]

why isn't the Governor of Wyoming a front runner for a presidental nomination? The governor of Louisiana is widely regarded as having a shot at the White Hourse at some point down the road. Why? Louisiana is consistantly in the bottom 5

Because you only do stuff if you're the Governor of a huge population state like California, New York, Texas, ect. In Wyoming and Nebraska it's more of a title. Kinda like Carl Pelini being our defensive coordinator.

 

Who's Carl Pelini?

[krill]

Small governments tend to be ran more efficiently, and I don't say that as a political philosophy. Literally less people to govern, less pressure overall from interest groups, fewer mesh points for corruption. Also, I don't think we really did anything revolutionary to dodge the high unemployment that other states have. Agriculture is booming and the flow of ethanol subsidies sure hasn't hurt either.

 

Personally I think Heineman is a certified moron who cannot rest is laurels on anything, because while the state has had windfall income from farmland taxes, we still had to make substantial cuts to public education (it's getting worse) and there have been disastrous experiments with privatizing state services. Additionally, little has been done to address the human cost of methamphetamine besides filling up the prisons, and that's a problem nobody can wish away once it takes root in a community.

[Sub-Husker]

I would say land price stability... I haven't met anyone from Nebraska whose house is now "worth" 60-70% less than it was four years ago, unless it burnt down... Also most of the economic ill's passed us over, we have stable jobs with farming, banking, and insurance holding the line. The housing area took a hit, but it was nothing compared to Florida, California, Nevada, and Arizona.

 

Same thing here in Vermont, we never had that housing bubble to inflate prices.

[klacc]

Interesting. It is pretty scary reading some of those statistics.

[VectorVictor]

Yeah, I don't find this all that encouraging. We (Nebraska) have the fourth lowest dept per capita in the nation, and yet we still sit at a debt rate of $1,407 per head. Yikes.

 

Some debt is encouraged and necessary--for example, debt can be incurred by giving tax breaks to businesses, which will be offset by other factors down the road (e.g. State income tax from employees, sales taxes).

 

The idea that governments should not have *any* debt is really not ideal, practical, feasible, or pragmatic. In order to grow, a government must spend (e.g. Law Enforcement, Infrastructure, Governance/Regulation)--if the government does not have the funds to do so currently, then it's perfectly acceptable to obtain bonds to expand accordingly.

 

What makes a debt good versus bad is if the debt is manageable (read: can it be paid off in a sufficient or expedited timeframe if necessary) and how much debt is incurred in relation to the revenue generated by the government.

 

Nebraska's debt, most would say, is a 'good' debt that could be paid off quickly if necessary. Frankly, the state could stand to incur more debt to bring in outside investment or business to help the state (e.g. Boeing), especially when it had (and still has) one of the largest gluts of over-qualified, college degree-holding workforces working in low-skilled jobs.

[Nebula]

Some debt is encouraged and necessary--for example, debt can be incurred by giving tax breaks to businesses, which will be offset by other factors down the road (e.g. State income tax from employees, sales taxes).

 

The idea that governments should not have *any* debt is really not ideal, practical, feasible, or pragmatic. In order to grow, a government must spend (e.g. Law Enforcement, Infrastructure, Governance/Regulation)--if the government does not have the funds to do so currently, then it's perfectly acceptable to obtain bonds to expand accordingly.

 

What makes a debt good versus bad is if the debt is manageable (read: can it be paid off in a sufficient or expedited timeframe if necessary) and how much debt is incurred in relation to the revenue generated by the government.

 

Nebraska's debt, most would say, is a 'good' debt that could be paid off quickly if necessary. Frankly, the state could stand to incur more debt to bring in outside investment or business to help the state (e.g. Boeing), especially when it had (and still has) one of the largest gluts of over-qualified, college degree-holding workforces working in low-skilled jobs.

 

Good points. My main concern is that the spending is not manageable, that current spending (on a national basis) is not at an acceptable (nor sustainable) level. As we sink deeper and deeper into debt, it's getting harder for me to see how that spending is going to turn into that growth you referenced. The idea that debt will be turned into future dividends is palatable only if you have faith in the efficiency of the government, and the oversight in place to ensure those future dividends are actively pursued. I don't currently have much faith in that. Then again, I'm no finance guy. I just know that what is happening with our deficit scares the bejesus out of me.

[T_O_Bull]

It's pretty amusing that the farther from the two coasts you get, the more responsible the population base seems to become. A look at the top ten:

 

1) Wyoming

2) Nebraska

3) North Dakota

4) Minnesota

5) Iowa

6) Utah

9) Kansas

10) South Dakota

 

If they think that the state of SD is the tenth best run state in the nation then these people have their head lodged deeply up their rectom

T_O_B

[CornHOLIO]

Or that 40 are worse