Comparing Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, and Daniels as FiCons

On one of the blog sites that I frequent a few supporters of other candidates questioned Huckabee’s FiCon credentials. On another site a contributor requested that someone “rank these same 4 as to who would be best for a poor economy?” I decided to give that a try using the data available at USGovernmentSpending.com. I’m hoping their information is accurate and am assuming it is from an unbiased source.

I’ll be posting only the information available during the years 3 of the 4 Governors (Huckabee, Romney, and Pawlenty) were serving together and include Daniels during the last two years of that time-frame so we can do our best to compare apples to apples. I hope I figured this correctly. Please feel free to check all the numbers and my math. (If the link starts working properly. I was having trouble with it most of the day.)

First we’ll compare the Gross State Product growth:

Arkansas GSP grew from $77.8 in 2003 to $97.6 in 2007 at an annual rate of 6.35%
Massachusetts GSP grew from $297.3 in 2003 to $353.8 in 2007 at an annual rate of 4.75%
Minnesota GSP grew from $212.4 in 2003 to $255.3 in 2007 at an annual rate of 5.05%
Indiana GSP grew from $239.6 in 2005 (when Daniels took office) to $263.1 in 2007 at an annual rate during the two years we can use to compare of 4.90%

Next we’ll compare the government spending in the state and local government for the four states:

Arkansas spending grew from $13.8 in 2003 to $19.1 in 2007 at an annual rate of 9.97%
Massachusetts spending grew from $40.7 in 2003 to $64.1 in 2007 at an annual rate of 14.37%
Minnesota spending grew from $37.6 in 2003 to $47.2 in 2007 at an annual rate of 6.38%
Indiana spending grew from $42.2 in 2005 to $46.7 in 2007 at an annual rate of 5.33%

Lastly, we’ll compare the Real State Growth:

Arkansas RSG was 3.0% in 2003, 3.7% in 2004, 2.9% in 2005, 2.7% in 2006 and 1.0% in 2007 with a 2.66% yearly average RSG
Massachusetts RST was 1.5% in 2003, 2.0% in 2004, 1.1% in 2005, 1.5% in 2006 and 2.0% in 2007 with a 1.62% yearly average of RSG
Minnesota 3.4% in 2003, 4.1% in 2004, 1.7% in 2005, 0.2% in 2006, and 0.7% in 2007 with a 2.02% yearly average RSG
Indiana 0.3% in 2005, 1.1% in 2006, and 3.1% in 2007 with a 1.50% yearly average RSG

In summary:
Huckabee saw the best annual rate of growth in Gross State Product. Daniels and Pawlenty saw the least growth in spending. Huckabee did the best in Real State Growth. Romney did the worst in all three categories.

I’ll be voting Huckabee for President 2012!

Note: If there is someone out there with the ability to put this in chart or graph form I would really appreciate it.

Update: I struck out the comment about Romney because it was properly pointed out to be inaccurate. H/T Jeff Fuller

Update 2: I was asked to calculate some information for Utah and Jon Huntsman during this time frame, too:

Utah GSP grew from $90.7 in 2005 to $109.6 in 2007 at an annual rate of 10.42%

Utah spending grew from $17.2 in 2005 to $20.0 in 2007 at an annual rate of 8.14%

Utah RSG was 5.7% in 2005, 6.6% in 2006, and 5.8% in 2007 with a 6.03% yearly average RSG

Note: I’ll be adding more information as I calculate it. I’m not sure if I’ll post the information here or write a new blog.

Advertisements
Published in: on MayUTCbMon, 02 May 2011 18:24:37 +0000000000pmMon, 02 May 2011 18:24:37 +000011 4, 2008 at 6:24 pm  Comments (4)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://grannyt53.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/comparing-huckabee-romney-pawlenty-and-daniels-as-ficons/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

4 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Interesting facrts!

  2. That word was supposed to be “facts” 🙂

  3. You should probably point out for Gov. Huckabee. He had one big spend on roads that the PEOPLE voted for (80% for), because their roads were so bad. It was affecting trucking and commerce and everyone knew it so if the voters vote to approve a tax at 80%, I will take their word it was needed. Also, besides roads, their schools and other things did actually improve at least with the spending. So that should be acknowledged. I can’t say about the other candidates.

  4. This is good and I can try to do a simple graph if no one else has volunteered. I am not a mathmatician and would prefer to wait until someone has double checked the numbers. I also agree with the point made by LIFEDONTWASTEIT regarding including the details as to what the money is spent on. It is the main reason that many people don’t trust raw data and statistics as stand alone evidence for a performance based decision.If progams and infrastructure of a state are considered truly improved by a majority of residents then that makes spending increases more valid. Those sort of facts should be written out and presented alongside the data chart. I am a Huckabee supporter but, this would need to be done for the other candicates oo if you wanted this to be fair and unbiased. Anyway good job, We all need to get as much info “out there” as possible.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: