"because it's an irrelevant statistic. It would be a little bit like comparing the number of points scored in the Super Bowl to the size of the crowd watching on TV"

Irrelevant?

Sort of like saying the amount of people in your family is irrelevant to how much it costs you to purchase groceries.

Mr. 3Tac:

No, the funds were not awarded per cap, but that is the sensible way to compare large and small states.

Kevin,

Federal stimulus funds weren't awarded per capita. Saying that Texas "received less stimulus funding than almost any other state" on a per capita basis is itself a bit of statistical chicanery, because it's an irrelevant statistic. It would be a little bit like comparing the number of points scored in the Super Bowl to the size of the crowd watching on TV.

Here are the latest figures from recovery.gov: (External Link )

Total funds awarded, by state (top 5):
CA $27,141,322,038
TX $16,358,374,457
NY $15,463,599,958
FL $10,927,325,990
IL $10,221,721,014

Total funds received, by state (top 5):
CA $12,835,257,474
TX $6,657,840,875
NY $6,056,116,146
IL $5,270,060,095
FL $4,269,090,238

Texas is far from the bottom of the list. In fact, it's second, both in terms of funds awarded and funds received.

Why would you be surprised that Leftards believe the lie that fits their narrative? These people are so fundamentally dishonest that you can't live with them in any society that involves trust.

Texas spends less per capita than any other state. Isn't the relevant measure some percentage of government spending covered by stimulus funds?

Umm . . . I would make so bold as to suggest that anyone out there who DOESN'T start with the premise that Krugman is a cheap, tawdry, intellectually dishonest, partisan streetwalker is someone who shares his affinity for Keynesian Kool-Aid.

Like that given to the Obamateur, his Nobel is FAR more about his politics, and his criticism of the EVVIILLLLL Bush, than about his economic analysis.

Still, in his day, Krugman was capable of parsing his way through the brier patch of economics - which makes his calculated whoring of Keynesianism even MORE reprehensible - he knows better; he just doesn't give a darn.

Kevin,

Federal stimulus funds weren't awarded per capita. Saying that Texas "received less stimulus funding than almost any other state" on a per capita basis is itself a bit of statistical chicanery, because it's an irrelevant statistic. It would be a little bit like comparing the number of points scored in the Super Bowl to the size of the crowd watching on TV.

Here are the latest figures from recovery.gov: (External Link )

Total funds awarded, by state (top 5):
CA $27,141,322,038
TX $16,358,374,457
NY $15,463,599,958
FL $10,927,325,990
IL $10,221,721,014

Total funds received, by state (top 5):
CA $12,835,257,474
TX $6,657,840,875
NY $6,056,116,146
IL $5,270,060,095
FL $4,269,090,238

Texas is far from the bottom of the list. In fact, it's second, both in terms of funds awarded and funds received.

Why in the world would you use Per Capita for this? It's not like the Federal Government is writing out checks "Per Capita"

I do think the 97% is misleading, however, 6.6 billion is a LOT of money.

One thing that a lot of people outside the state don't know is that the state comptroller of Texas is legally required to use pessimistic assumptions when calculating our budget deficit. That means that we often have quite a bit of vapor deficit that disappears during the actual budgeting process.

Leftists lie, even when they tell the truth.

it's easy to fool people when they can't do math.

I'd be willing to bet that I could find $6.6 billion in waste (even in Texas)to cut from that budget before taking one dime of taxpayer funded "stimulus" money. Really dumb - who ever made the decision to accept the money. They should have remembered the evilness of liberal news and what their response would be. God Bless Texas anyway.

So, if I understand Krugman's position correctly, if Texas' budget gap had been a smaller $6.4 billion, Texas would've covered 100% of the gap with the stimulus money and this smaller gap would have provided even MORE evidence that Texas was failing because it was covered 100%. Right?

What? Paul Krugman manipulating facts to fit his liberal vision? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you!!!

It's kind of a silly statistic ("covered 97% of its budget shortfall with stimulus funds") to mention, no? Let's assume the federal Gobermint had an infinite money supply to solve the State's probelms (oh wait, "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke already thinks that way with QE2!), then wouldn't it follow that all States would cover 100% of their budget gaps with their alloted stimulus dollars?

And as you point out, TX's gap was much smaller than the other liberal welfare states out there (CA, NY, IL) so doesn't that really imply that they did a better job managing their state's finances before and during the crisis?

Leave it to Paul Krugman to state that 1+1=4 and demand everyone believe it...

So let's see if I've got this right, Kevin.

When a state doesn't want to take federal gravy at all, a la Mark Sanford in 2009 in South Carolina, you get indirectly called a "racist" for not caring for your most vulnerable citizens. You do as you suggest and not leave free money on the table, you're a "welfare queen."

I like to think we on the right don't follow this process of desperately wanting to arrive at some sort of insult, then doing the mental gymnastics required to get us there, consistency be damned.