The authors of the study use four factors to generate state-by-state rankings: fiscal policy, regulatory policy, economic freedom, and personal freedom. These scales are combined to produce an overall ranking. Here are the top ten (most free) and bottom ten states, according to the study - - with some colors I have added:

Table V: Overall Freedom Ranking
State Overall Freedom
1. New Hampshire 0.432
2. Colorado 0.421
3. South Dakota 0.392
4. Idaho 0.356
5. Texas 0.346
6. Missouri 0.320
7. Tennessee 0.284
8. Arizona 0.279
9. Virginia 0.275
10. North Dakota 0.268

41. Connecticut -0.225
42. Illinois -0.238
43. Massachusetts -0.242
44. Washington -0.275
45. Hawaii -0.304
46. Maryland -0.405
47. California -0.413
48. Rhode Island -0.430
49. New Jersey -0.457
50. New York -0.784

If you hadn't already guessed, the colors came from a recent "Red State - Blue State" map; dark blues are reliably Democratic, light blues are usually Democratic, light reds are usually Republican, and dark reds are reliably Republican. (No purple "swing" states were in the top or the bottom ten.)

Measured by the conventional, two-dimensional view of American politics, the top ten (most free) are a mix of dark Red States and light Red States with one light Blue State. The bottom ten are all dark Blues. Also note that the bottom ten include a high proportion of the states which are currently suffering severe economic distress - - like California, which is so broke it cannot pay its bills, and New York, which is trying to raise every tax in sight.

The authors reach some conclusions with interesting implications for those who (like me) have a strong libertarian streak:

Although we hope we have demonstrated that some states provide freer environments than others, it would be inappropriate to infer that some states enjoy a “libertarian streak,” while others suffer from a “statist mentality.” Other research has shown that state politics, like federal politics in the United States, plays out largely on a single left-right ideological dimension defined by sociocultural attitudes toward equality, authority, and tradition. The libertarian position simply does not show up in the data as a live political alternative. Indeed, one might well argue that throughout history, human freedom has emerged not because political leaders have consciously sought it, but as a consequence of balancing forces (church and state, king and nobles, and institutional forms) that happen to check the arbitrary exercise of power in particular times and places. Why then do some states protect individual liberty more thoroughly than others if not because of a libertarian ideology? In our index conservative states have generally done better than liberal states, but moderately conservative states have done best of all. Previous research has shown that, as of 2006, Alabama and Mississippi were the most conservative states in the country, while New York and New Jersey were the most liberal. In our index Alabama and Mississippi fall in the middle, while New York and New Jersey are at the bottom. The problem is that the cultural values of liberal governments seem on balance to require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments. While liberal states are freer than conservative states on marijuana and same-sex partnership policies, when it comes to gun owners, home schoolers, motorists, or smokers, liberal states are nanny states, while conservative states are more tolerant. We should not attribute this relative freedom in conservative states to any philosophical respect for freedom inherent in contemporary political conservatism, but simply to the fact that the conservative position in the culture wars tends to require less regulation. However, extremely conservative governments do not appear to afford any more freedom overall than do moderate, centrist governments.

From a libertarian perspective, it seems that we need to deliberately inject a third dimension into American politics - - the libertarian-statist dimension, which is too often lost in the two-dimensional arguments between liberals and conservatives.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Freedom and Failure, State-by-State

Abstract of the study

Powerline Blog piece

Because I have spent so much time in clinics and waiting rooms and medical facilities, I know that Canadians who can afford to are coming to the United States for medical care, especially for cancer. Many Canadian medical facilities are outmoded; tests are often delayed; treatments are often denied. With cancer, delay can mean the difference between arresting a colony of mutagenic cells in time or having to deal with incurable metastasized cancer. Time is of the essence; so the affluent and the wealthy come here, where health care is not rationed.

The chemotherapy drugs which saved my life in 2007 were not available in Canada. The death rate from colorectal cancer in Canada is 25 per cent higher than in the United States. The reason for the discrepancy is that Canada has "universal," government-run health care, and the United States does not.

Is our health care system "broken?" Hardly. We have the best medical centers, the best equipment, and the best diagnostic testing that money can buy. Top-notch doctors come here from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Philippines, and other countries. The United States is the world leader in medical innovation:

"Ultimately, lost or constrained innovation impacts public health. Access to new drugs, for instance, is far superior for American consumers than European ones. For cancer patients, access to new drugs is crucial: a report by the Swedish Karolinska Institute, published in the Annals of Oncology, found that "The United States has been the country of first launch for close to half of the oncology drugs brought to the market in the past 11 years." The authors of the report observe that "Nearly half of the observed improvement in the 2–year cancer survival rate between 1992 and 2000 at 50 US cancer centers could be attributed to the use of new cancer drugs," evidence that America's embrace of new medicines translates into saved human lives.

"The evidence is unmistakable: Europe's pharmaceutical industry is in the midst of a long and steady decline, and Europe's bio–tech industry is lagging significantly behind its American counterpart. What is also clear—but far more controversial—is that by adopting certain aspects of the American R&D system, Europeans could regain their innovative and competitive edge."

Science Pioneer Cautions Europe on Declining Medical Innovation

"But one argument against universal health insurance isn't so easy to dismiss: the argument about innovation and the cutting edge of medical care. . . . In a universal coverage system, the government would seek to limit spending by forcing down payments to doctors and pharmaceutical companies, while scrutinizing treatments for cost-effectiveness. This, in turn, would lead to both less innovation and less access to the innovation that already exists. And the public would end up losing out, because, as Tyler Cowen wrote last year in The New York Times, 'the American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world.'"

The New Republic, Creative Destruction.

Is our health care system "unfair?" Of course it is. "Life is unfair" - - President John F. Kennedy. But the Canadian health care system is also unfair -- more so, because it denies health care to some of those persons who pay the taxes to subsidize the system. Is it selfish to say that those with more money should be able to buy better health care? Of course it is -- but self-interest is the best measure of value in a free society and because of the money paid and contributed by so many of us self-interested types, American health care is better for everyone.

Do I wish that every child in America had access to quality health care? Of course I do. But not at the cost of damaging or destroying the system we have now. Most children have health insurance of some kind now. Our health care system has an exemplary record of treating children who have cancer. In the year I was born, childhood cancer was fatal within five years in more than 95 per cent of the cases; the survival rate now exceeds 75 percent!

"Childhood cancers showed some of the largest improvements in cancer survival during the past 20 years, with an absolute survival rate increase of 20 percent in boys and 13 percent in girls. The current five-year survival rate of over 75 percent confirms substantial progress made since the early 1960s, when childhood cancers were nearly always fatal." National Cancer Institute, "Annual Report to the Nation Finds Cancer Incidence and Death Rates on the Decline: Survival Rates Show Significant Improvement."

"Universal," government-run health care will inevitably condemn some of those children to early death.

"Universal," government-run health care will inevitably condemn many adults like me to early death.

In both cases, the question is not "whether," but "who."

It is likely that cancer will eventually kill me. Because cancer treatment is physically punishing and has long-lasting side effects, both physical and emotional, the day may come when I decide that I have had enough. But that should be my choice; I should not be left to die because medical care is rationed. I am not a "victim" of cancer; I am a cancer survivor who doesn't want to become a victim of bureaucracy.

This is my testimony. Thank you for reading.

Adolf Hitler was a poor student of mathematics, but he got the hang of it sufficiently to figure how to take over the German government. A "majority," Hitler reasoned, consisted of 51 per cent of the votes necessary to control 51 per cent of the seats in the legislature - - 26 per cent of those voting, in other words. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans now find themselves victims of the same political calculation.

A McCain Democrat's Journal (through September 7)

American Sentinel (current)

I plan to have archives of both sites available on this Web site in the future.

USE THE INTERACTIVE ELECTORAL MAP TO TEST YOUR OWN PROJECTIONS

Colorado: 9 Electoral Votes. Polling results for Colorado are mixed; the three polls included in the Real Clear Politics average have Obama ahead by only four-tenths of a point, although McCain has a small lead in two of the polls. The “undecideds” in Colorado are about 9%, only slightly below national average. A five-point swing is enough to put Colorado in McCain’s electoral college column.

Florida: 27 Electoral Votes. The three most recent of the five polls included in the Real Clear Politics average favor McCain by margins of +3, +4, and +6. Undecided voters are comparatively lower in Florida (about 7%-8%), although still above expectations based on past elections. In an “if the election were held tomorrow” scenario, a swing of only two points puts McCain above the polling margin of error.

Indiana: 11 Electoral Votes. As of August 14, polling data on Indiana is scarce; RCP lists no Indiana polls taken since June.  The average of the older polls is Obama by half a point.  On the weak available data, I assume that a five-point swing would keep Indiana in the Red States.

Iowa: 7 Electoral Votes. While polling data is sparse in Iowa, the most recent Rasmussen survey showed a strong gain for McCain, from -10 to -5, with an "undecided" figure (before leaners are allocated) of 13 points.  The RCP average is Obama +5.7 as of August 15, but this counts a poll from April and a good case could be made that the better gauge us the average of more recent polls at Obama +4.5.  Due to lack of sufficient current polls, I have to leave Iowa in Obama's total for the time being, but if the trend continues, Iowa will be in play for John McCain.

Michigan: 17 Electoral Votes. The four Michigan polls reported by RCP all show an Obama lead, with an average of +3.2 points.  Using the un-”leaned” Rasmussen numbers, the polls report an average “undecided” factor of about 13%, which is slightly above the current national average.  Michigan is one of the places where I would expect to see a Bradley-Wilder Effect if the vote were taken tomorrow. A five-point swing is a realistic possibility and would be enough to put Michigan in McCain’s electoral college totals.

Minnesota: 10 Electoral Votes. Whoa!  Minnesota, the bluest of the Blue States, has changed from an Obama stronghold in June to a closely-contested battleground state in August.  The Real Clear Politics average as of August 15 is Obama +3.2, within the polling margin of error.  Using the un-"leaned" Rasmussen figures indicates an "undecided" figure of about 12-13 per cent, somewhat above the current national average and high by historic standards.  While I do not expect to see a large Bradley-Wilder Effect here, there is more than enough room for a 5-point swing, which would put Minnesota in McCain's total.

Missouri: 11 Electoral Votes. The four polls on today’s RCP Missouri list put McCain in the lead by an average of 2.3 points.  The average “undecided” factor is about 9 points, slightly below the national average.  McCain needs only a three-point swing to put Missouri outside the polling margin of error and into his electoral college count.

Nevada: 5 Electoral Votes. RCP does not publish an average for Nevada, as most of the polling data comes from a series of Rasmussen polls.  If they are averaged, the polls show a small McCain lead.  The un-”leaned” Rasmussen results and the Mason-Dixon poll consistently indicate an “undecided” factor of about 13 per cent.  A swing of 5 points would put McCain safely above the polling margin of error.

New Hampshire: 4 Electoral Votes. Ironically, New Hampshire, famous for making or breaking Presidential primary candidates, could be the difference in the 2008 electoral college.  Polling data is sparse; currently the RCP average has Obama +1.4, with a significant “undecided” factor of about 12%.  There is plenty of room for a 5-point swing, which would put New Hampshire in the McCain total.

New Mexico: 5 Electoral Votes. RCP does not publish an average for New Mexico, as most of the polling data comes from a series of Rasmussen polls.  If they are averaged, the polls show an Obama lead of almost 6 points.  The un-”leaned” Rasmussen results consistently indicate an “undecided” factor of about 13 per cent.  A swing of 5 points would leave Obama with a slim lead in New Mexico.

North Carolina: 15 Electoral Votes. Obama has never led in a North Carolina poll. The RCP average of McCain +3.5 is based on four polls taken from mid-July to August 11. Analysis of those polls indicates an “undecided” factor of 10%, about the same as the national average. As in Virginia, if the election were held tomorrow, the majority of those voters would likely move to McCain; a five-point “swing” in North Carolina is a realistic scenario, and a “swing” of only two points puts McCain above the polling margin of error.

Ohio: 20 Electoral Votes. The four Ohio polls reported by RCP have a wide range of results, with an average Obama lead of one-half point.  Using the un-”leaned” Rasmussen numbers, the polls report an average “undecided” factor of more than 10%.  A five-point swing is a realistic scenario and would be enough to put Ohio in McCain’s electoral college totals.

Pennsylvania: 21 Electoral Votes. The four polls in today’s RCP average all show Obama ahead and indicate a +6.8-point lead, which is above the margin for error. Analysis of the polls indicates an “undecided” factor of 11%, in line with national trends. A five-point swing would leave Pennsylvania in Obama’s column. The Bradley-Wilder Effect makes a larger swing a possibility, but for now, Pennsylvania remains pro-Obama.

Virginia: 13 Electoral Votes. As of August 14, the three polls reported on Real Clear Politics for the month of August had the candidates tied in one poll and McCain ahead by one in the other two. This is a turnaround from June, when three polls taken after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination all showed Obama ahead by 1 or 2 points. When the un-”leaned” Rasmussen figures are used, the average of “undecided” voters in the three August polls is 10 per cent. If the election were held tomorrow, the majority of those voters would likely move to McCain; a five-point “swing” in Virginia is a realistic scenario.

The overall electoral vote results in these “battleground” states, assuming a net 5-point swing in McCain’s favor, is 143 for McCain and 33 for Obama. As of this writing, the Real Clear Politics electoral map has McCain with 163 electoral votes; adding 143 electoral votes results in a total of 306 for McCain, 36 more than are needed to win.

Note:  The links to the Real Clear Politics site should update as more polls are added.  You can check back later and then send me comments about what a genius and/or chucklehead I am.

Note also:  I have not considered at this point the possible impact of third-party candidates.  Many poll respondents use third-party candidates as a means of casting a “protest” vote in summer polls; these comparisons will be more meaningful in the Fall, when a lot may have changed anyway.  The current average of RCP Four-Way Race polls has Obama +3.8 (lower than the head-to-head matchups) with neither Nader nor Barr having a strong showing.  The only state matchup I found which included a third-party candidate was Georgia, Bob Barr’s home state, where McCain retains a substantial lead and Barr runs a very distant third.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why McCain Wins If The Election Is Tomorrow

Polljunkie, August 6: New Polls Confirm Obama Has Problems

Polls: McCain, Obama In Close Race; Trends Are Against Obama

JOIN US! Visit American Sentinel

Sign the petitions:

American Solutions: . . . . . . . . . . The Lexington Project (loads slow):

Just when we thought that the memory of the North Carolina Republican Party video attacking Michelle Obama was fading, the Washington State GOP made the same mistake and released a similar attack vid.  What part of "stupid mistake" do these folks misunderstand?

The new ad was condemned by both Barack Obama and John McCain, and rightly so.  This is NOT something that goes over well in middle-America, Main Street America, and politically moderate America - - which is where I live, where I work, and how I think, so I'm not guessing here.

Okay, listen up.  Here is what such ads accomplish:

1.  They give credence to the accusations that there is a Republican Attack Machine.

2.  They permit the opposing side  to spread charges of "Swiftboating" when any negative information is thereafter disseminated.

3.  They burn up money which could be put to better use.

4.  They appear to many moderates, independents, and other potentially allies to be rude and pointless.

Now, here is what such ads DON'T accomplish:

1.  They DON'T change the minds of persons who support Barack Obama.

2.  They DON'T win votes from the political center.

3.  They DON'T get positive press coverage.

So here's the math:  no new votes, but maybe you lose a few.  STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!

Naturally there are times when criticism of Michelle Obama is warranted.  If she goes back out on the campaign trail and says something inflammatory or negative, then of course a response is warranted.  The response should be polite and to the point.  What is NOT WARRANTED is re-doing the "proud" remark over and over and over.  It simply makes the organization which sponsors the ad look petty and mean-spirited.  Michelle Obama is not running for President, so subjecting her to such treatment is a bad tactic.  And I don't want to hear the nonsense about how she's "running for first lady" and so on.  That doesn't matter.

The only article I have posted previously that mentions Michelle Obama, Obama's Campaign of Smoke and Mirrors, did not attack Michelle Obama but instead focused on the reactions of Barack Obama and his campaign to the first round of "proud" criticism.   In my humble opinion, that was as much as needed to be said, and I assert that analyzing matters that way is more effective than trying to 'demonize' Mrs. Obama.

* * *

If you like this article, please vote for it at RealClearPolitics.com!

JOIN US! Visit American Sentinel

Sign the petitions:

American Solutions: . . . . . . . . . . The Lexington Project (loads slow):

As the price of energy climbs, the concerns of many American families have progressed from “Can we afford to go on vacation this summer?” to “Can we afford to heat our house this coming winter?”  For too many, the answer to both questions is likely to be “no.”

What do you heat with . . . electricity?  Natural gas?  Heating oil?  In any case, be prepared for a financial shock.  Home heating oil in particular will be costly; it is the same petroleum product as diesel fuel, which already is far ahead on the price surge.  In the winter of 2002-2003, the price of home heating oil in my area was $1.05 per gallon; this winter we will be lucky if it holds at the predicted price of $5.25 per gallon.  This is a five-fold increase.  A family with a modest house, using 700 gallons of heating oil per winter, will see its fuel bill soar to almost $4,000.00.  If the price rockets to $7.00 or better, as some predict, the cost will approach $5,000.00.  At that level you can expect working-class families, and a few middle-class families as well, to max out a credit card to keep warm.  Or be cold.

The economic collapse from unreliable, costly energy supplies may be slow, but it already has begun.  We can expect to see travel and tourism-related business laying off employees by mid-July.  Price-cutting to keep customers has begun already - - Biltmore House in Asheville, N.C., is offering price breaks; I am getting offer after offer, by snail mail and e-mail, from Orlando and San Antonio and similar travel destinations.  Here are more signs of things to come:

- - In Virginia, the Governor and the General Assembly are engaged in a running battle about how to increase road funding.  The need to maintain existing roads is a problem because of the increased cost of asphalt.  In current state and local budgets, there is enough money to perform about half of the roadway maintenance deemed essential.  In the Virginia Backcountry where I live, there is talk of letting some roads go from asphalt to gravel.

- - American Electric Power has applied to the Virginia regulatory authorities for a rate increase of about 23 per cent.  The call has gone out hither and yon to oppose the rate hike, but without increased revenue, AEP may not be able to buy enough fuel to generate at full capacity, so in all likelihood, there will be a substantial increase.

- - In the county where I live, the school board is confounded by the need to re-budget in order to buy fuel for its school buses.  The budget developed over the past term was based on $4.00-per-gallon diesel; the price is well above that already.  The current budget was also based on re-worked routes and on the elimination of much extra-curricular travel, such as transporting the school bands to “away” football games.  There’s virtually nothing left to cut.

- - In the North Carolina Piedmont, the famous communities of potters in the Seagrove and Sanford areas are looking on hard times.  These artisans are largely dependent on customers who travel by car; that traffic was down last year with $3.00 gas and this year it is likely to be worse.  There are more than 90 studios in the Seagrove area alone, most of them family operations.  Many of these potters fire their wares with propane.  They are traveling to more shows, but customers may not be plentiful there, either.

I could come up with many more examples, but these few demonstrate the depth and breadth of the problem.

Make no mistake about it: the problem is supply and demand.  Foreign producers couldn’t hold us up for price hikes if the supply were sufficient.  Terror attacks in Nigeria wouldn’t send prices jumping higher if we had an adequate domestic supply.  Oil companies wouldn’t be making nearly as much profit if they were competing to sell a good supply of products.  Speculators would not be betting on higher prices in the face of adequate supplies.  All of these things which we find convenient to blame are secondary aspects of the real problem: not enough supply to satisfy the demand.

While I certainly support and encourage conservation and alternate forms of energy, neither of these efforts will be enough if we do not have supplies of electricity and petroleum products which are reliable, stable, secure, and tolerably if not reasonably priced.  Research and development for alternate fuels and renewable energy technologies will suffer if our economy goes into free-fall; electric cars will be useless if we haven’t enough electricity to power them.

The Obamacrat plan to reduce dependency on foreign oil by half in the next 22 years is the prelude to two related disasters.  One is the national security disaster that results from buying too much petroleum from foreign countries; the other is the economic disaster that will result from an insufficient energy supply, regardless of source.

There are things we can begin to do now to avoid both of these disasters:

- - Drill for oil in this country - - there is a lot here, and Congress is standing squarely in the way of drilling.

- - Expedite the issuance of permits for coal-fired power plants using best-available clean coal technologies. 

- - Starting now, plan to build nuclear-fueled power plants on an expedited basis.

The Democrats have a litany of objections to these measures.  As noted already, they squawk that the oil companies should be forced to drill on barren leases.  Speak of coal-fired power plants and the answer is “polar bears!”  The mention of nuclear power induces responses that border on outright superstition and the demand that such plants be built only with a total guarantee that no single particle of radioactive material will escape into the environment, ever.

Such objections are ridiculous.  Will the polar bears be better off in a world where we can’t compete economically but dirty power plants can be built in India, China, Russia, and elsewhere?  France has a large nuclear power industry; are the French all dying of radiation exposure?  In both cases, I think not. 

As to the imbecilic claims that drilling now and starting now to build more, better power plants won’t get us out of the energy mess for a few years - - well, first, that looks pretty good compared to a plan which will get us halfway there in 22 years.  More importantly, a commitment to developing domestic sources of petroleum and building modern power plants will restore confidence in the future of our economy.  As it stands now, both the foreign oil producers - - especially those with hostile, nut-case leaders like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - - and the speculators as well, are counting on a Democratic win.  They’re betting on it, hoping for it, hungering for it, because it will put them in a commanding position.  They know that alternate fuels and renewable energy cannot fill the gap.

One of my friends recently commented, “you’re beginning to sound like an alarmist.”  I replied, “Thank you!  You’re starting to catch on!”  This situation should be alarming to every American citizen.  We are on the brink of an energy crisis which threatens our national security and promises economic collapse.  Meanwhile, our Democratic leaders in Congress and their probable candidate for President are low on gas, speeding, and asleep at the wheel.

Related posts:

Obama's Energy Plan: Changeless, Hopeless, Clueless

In Obamamerica, There Won't Be A Middle Class

The Price of Gas: Pelosi Fixes The Blame

Recommended posts:

Obama, The Corn Fake and ADM

Obama World: The Government, Not American Ingenuity, Will Solve The Gas Crisis

McCain's Energy Independence

Yes We Can - - Drill Our Way Out

JOIN US!  Visit American Sentinel 

Sign the petitions:

American Solutions:                       The Lexington Project (loads slow):

There are two sources of soldiers which have been over-represented in the American military for many years: those identifying as minorities (black, Hispanic, and native American)  and those from rural areas. The tradition of military service is particularly strong in the South, Midwest, and Great Plains states - - an area with a large block of "Red States," and also the area with a tradition of Scotch-Irish settlement. 

So the "Baby Alex" video, like the ad slandering Gen. Petraeus, offers an insight into the attitudes of the Moveon.org-style left.  These folks are irrationally anti-military, often opposing the location of military recruitment offices in or near their communities and complaining constantly about American "warmongering."  Of course, when there's an emergency that affects them, they'll expect the National Guard to be on the spot - - not that any of their children will be wearing the uniform, mind you.

Thank goodness, there are enough African Americans, Native Americans, Redneck Americans and Hispanic Americans willing to volunteer - - it is a volunteer military, nitwit AlexMom - -  so that we can field a military force to protect us all, including the privileged affluent who can't be relied on to do anything but complain.