The Wall Street Journal attempts to smear Democratic governance by using the example of Illinois:
A favorite conceit of Democrats is that the U.S. budget and economy would be A-okay if congressional Republicans weren’t able to obstruct President Obama’s agenda. One counter-argument would be the state of Illinois, where one-party Democratic rule has led to a fiscal crisis that’s culminating in political paralysis.
(click here to continue reading Political Diary: Stand-Off in Springfield – WSJ.com.)
…except California is also governed by the Democratic Party, and they seem to be doing ok:
After years of grueling battles over state budget deficits and spending cuts, California has a new challenge on its hands: too much money. An unexpected surplus is fueling an argument over how the state should respond to its turn of good fortune.
(click here to continue reading California’s New Problem – Too Much Money – NYTimes.com.)
Party is less important than the actual politicians making policy, but that doesn’t play to the base, however, so don’t expect Rupert Murdoch’s press to report it. Or this, or this, or this.
If party is important, what about a little historical perspective?
Bush vs Obama spending