What makes America an economically ingenious place is the competitive federalism model set forth by our Founding Fathers. They established our nation as the world’s largest ever free trade zone in which 50 states competing for jobs and people with varying economic and fiscal policies.
And boy have liberals come to hate that model. Why? Because it puts their policies of tax, spend, regulate and restrict on trial every day. We can see with our two eyes the stampede out of liberal blue states to conservative red states.
These trends are more important to point out today than ever before because Hillary Clinton wants to adopt a classic “blue state” model of economic revival — more government spending, higher tax rates on the rich and increased regulations — while Donald Trump would follow the “red state” course. That would mean lower tax rates, control of federal spending and regulations, and drilling for our bountiful and valuable energy resources.
If Hillary’s vision for America makes sense, why has it failed in the states?
Two years ago I co-authored a New York Times best-selling book with Arthur Laffer, Rex Sinquefield and Travis Brown called the “Wealth of States.” We documented the overpowering evidence that states with low tax rates, less regulation, and with right-to-work laws have substantially and statistically significant higher rates of job and income growth. Red states on average tend to be a magnet for people and incomes, whereas many blue states — including most notably New York and California — are losing out big time in the internal migration game.