New York & Texas - Policies & Results

Although the policies of the Obama Administration have served to hinder the growth and to minimize the efficiency of each of the fifty states, America’s government, at least in theory, remains a constitutional republic. As such, the government policies of each of the several states, and their respective impact on the citizenry, offers Americans an invaluable lesson on how to proceed in the future. No two states may better highlight the opposing views of government in America than those of New York and Texas. New York, a firmly regulated and highly taxed northeastern union stronghold, represents the epitome of modern liberalism. Texas, with a culture rooted in individual drive and a penchant for limited government, is a model of contemporary conservatism. It is not surprising that the opposing policies of New York and Texas, and their diverging views of government, have likewise produced entirely dissimilar results.

Taxes - New York claims the mantle of having the highest top marginal individual and corporate tax rates in the nation. Texas, in contrast, levies no state income tax at all. The population of Texas has increased exponentially over the course of the past decade, while New York has lost 1.75 million people to emigration. Due to the nature of its “defined-benefit” pension system and its unhealthy reliance on federal government “matching funds”, New York’s unfunded liabilities have continually increased, even as its population has diminished. This has led to a vicious cycle of repeated tax increases on an exceedingly narrow tax-base. Since 2009, Texas has added 265,300 new, net jobs to its workforce - New York, 98,200, a remarkable and illuminating comparison.

Healthcare - Texas Governor Rick Perry has been most successful in initiating tort-reform in his state, minimizing frivolous lawsuits and excessive settlement demands, thus providing cheaper services and more accessible healthcare for Texans. In contrast, New York, notorious for a legal system that fosters gratuitous settlements, claims a healthcare system that is among the highest priced and least accessible in the nation.

Energy - Texas is leading the shale oil boom that presently grips our nation. Governor Perry’s efforts to promote energy independence for Texans, via hydraulic fracturing, has led to strong economic growth and reduced energy prices in his state, as well as an increased capacity for American commodity production, e.g. steel and petrochemicals. In New York, on June 6th, the assembly passed a bill that bans all forms of hydraulic fracturing through mid-2012. The legislature cites environmental concerns as the impetus of its moratorium, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary, and with little regard for the millions of dollars and thousands of jobs the industry would bring to the state.

The stark contrast between the respective governments of New York and Texas is indicative of a broader conflict that presently pervades America. Through low taxes, minimal regulations and free trade initiatives, Texas has categorically rejected the economic model of government that currently prevails in Washington. Conversely, New York has warmly embraced the big-government, loose spending policies of the Obama Administration. Through an honest assessment of the pros and cons of New York and Texas policies, fair-minded Americans may clearly discern which role of government, liberal or conservative, will best promote their interests. Herein lays the veritable genius of America’s form of government.

Jeremy Pitcoff

To Secure These Rights

In the course of human events, no political document has proven more influential than that of America’s Declaration of Independence. While it has become commonplace for contemporary historians to mark the “inalienable rights” section of the declaration as the primary source of its strength and longevity, this interpretation tends to oversimplify the breadth of the document’s genius. In truth, mankind’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were not unique to American philosophy; to the contrary, these were the guiding principles of the European enlightenment, best espoused by such social commentators as John Locke and Voltaire.


What made America’s founding generation so unique and what was preserved for posterity in the nation’s “Declaration”, was the relationship between these God-given rights and their practical application in government. European governments, including those that embraced the theories of the Enlightenment, were ruled by Kings who played the part of “demi-gods” on Earth. It was these Kings who were expected to act as the middlemen between God and the masses, essentially assuming the powers of Heaven while redistributing “rights” to the people. Herein lies the true revolution that was born in American Independence: That all mankind has an equal right to compete for a station in life, to pursue happiness, to bear the fruits of his labor; that these rights cannot be assigned nor revoked by any mere king or tyrant, that they are, in fact, inalienable. Governments may be instituted among men to “secure these rights” but only by the consent of the governed. In other words, no government has the moral authority to distribute the rights of others.

The Declaration of Independence is both a moral and political document. Thomas Jefferson, after making the moral case for American Independence and the natural rights of mankind, proceeded to enumerate the political acts of King George III that served to violate these rights, eventually leading to America’s separation from the motherland.



As the past two decades of American history have been marked by a frenetic expansion, both in size and in scope, of our nation’s federal government, it is little wonder that popular uprisings such as the Tea Party Movement have proven so influential. In fact, when reading the list of grievances put forth by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, one cannot help but notice the stark similarities between the actions of King George III and the Obama Administration and their shared conception of their respective roles as magistrates.

To wit:

“He [King George III] has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance,” claiming his authority and ability do deal with such matters “he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” Note the Department of Justice’s stubborn interference in border- state immigration laws and President Obama’s subsequent dithering on the issue.

“He has erected a multitude of new offices,” serving to consolidate his power with appointed officials. Note the expansion and appointments of nonelected government “czars” from 2009 to the present, unparalleled in our nation’s post-revolution history.

Jefferson goes on to enumerate the King’s malfeasance “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world,” (President Obama has consistently evaded signing free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea irrespective of their economic benefits.) “for imposing taxes on us without our consent,” (note the nationwide disapproval of Obama-Care) and for “altering fundamentally the forms of our governments”. (The Patient and Affordable Care Act, if not disavowed by the Supreme Court, will render America’s federal government limitless in power and scope.)

While President Obama has certainly not emulated King George’s proclivity for suppressing discord with violence, he has, in fact, committed many acts that are offensive to American sensibilities. By positioning himself as a middleman between Americans and the natural rights of mankind, he has violated our founding tenets. What was true in 1776 remains true today: The American people do not require, nor do they want, a demi-god to provide for their sustenance by distributing their collective wealth. Rather, we are a people culturally rooted in fierce individualism and a strong desire to earn our own station in life. Our Founding Fathers understood this and were keenly aware that these uniquely American strengths would allow this nation, conceived in liberty, to lead the way in a global revolution.

Now, two hundred and thirty-five years later, the defining principles of the American Revolution are, once again, in jeopardy. Fortunately, the nation’s Founders went on to write a Constitution that would allow future generations of Americans to revolt by a different means; the ballot has replaced the bullet. Yet, as was the case with King George III, so it is with President Obama. The American people have had enough. A new revolution is underway.

Jeremy Pitcoff