Ranking the States – USA Gov Policy

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has released its annual ranking of the fifty states.

According to ALEC, “The 2015 economic outlook ranking is a forward-looking measure of how each state can expect to perform economically based on 15 policy areas that have proven, over time, to be the best determinants of economic success.”

The five states with the best prospects are Utah, North Dakota, Indiana, North Carolina and Arizona. The five with the worst prospects are Oregon, New Jersey, Connecticut, Minnesota, Vermont and New York.

From best to worst, here are ALEC’s state rankings:

1 Utah 2 North Dakota 3 Indiana 4 North Carolina 5 Arizona 6 Idaho 7 Georgia 8 Wyoming 9 South Dakota 10 Nevada 11 Texas 12 Virginia 13 Wisconsin 14 Alaska 15 Florida 16 Oklahoma 17 Tennessee 18 Kansas 19 Alabama 20 Mississippi 21 Colorado 22 Arkansas 23 Ohio 24 Michigan 25 Iowa 26 Louisiana 27 Missouri 28 Massachusetts 29 New Hampshire 30 Kentucky 31 Nebraska 32 South Carolina 33 Maryland 34 New Mexico 35 Washington 36 West Virginia 37 Hawaii 38 Delaware 39 Rhode Island 40 Illinois 41 Pennsylvania 42 Maine 43 Montana 44 California 45 Oregon 46 New Jersey 47 Connecticut 48 Minnesota 49 Vermont 50 New York

The policy areas include the top marginal personal income tax rate, top marginal corporate income tax rate, personal income tax progressivity, property tax burden, sales tax burden, remaining tax burden, existence of estate/inheritance taxes, recently legislated tax changes, debt service as a share of tax revenue, public employees per 10,000 of population, state liability system survey, state minimum wage, average workers’ compensation costs, right to work legislation, and the number of tax expenditure limits.

CNN Money http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/state-unemployment-rates/ compared unemployment ratings in the states. From best to worst:


1	NORTH DAKOTA
2	NEBRASKA
2	UTAH
4	SOUTH DAKOTA
4	VERMONT
6	HAWAII
6	NEW HAMPSHIRE
6	WYOMING
9	IOWA
9	MINNESOTA
11	MONTANA
11	OKLAHOMA
13	IDAHO
14	KANSAS
15	TEXAS
16	COLORADO
17	LOUISIANA
17	VIRGINIA
19	MAINE
20	MASSACHUSETTS
20	WASHINGTON
22	OHIO
22	PENNSYLVANIA
22	SOUTH CAROLINA
25	WISCONSIN
26	INDIANA
27	MARYLAND
28	ARKANSAS
28	DELAWARE
28	FLORIDA
31	WEST VIRGINIA
32	ALASKA
32	MISSOURI
32	NEW JERSEY
32	NORTH CAROLINA
36	CONNECTICUT
36	NEW MEXICO
36	NEW YORK
39	ILLINOIS
40	OREGON
41	ALABAMA
41	ARIZONA
43	TENNESSEE
44	CALIFORNIA
44	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
44	KENTUCKY
47	MICHIGAN
47	NEVADA
47	RHODE ISLAND
50	GEORGIA
51	MISSISSIPPI

But quitting can post great challenge, hence, most http://djpaulkom.tv/audio-snootie-wild-joins-dm6-for-gimmi-back-my-dope-remix-listen-now/ levitra online people need behavioral modification, medical attention and dental support. There are plenty of ways to deal with sleep troubles or insomnia, a cialis on line difficulty falling or staying asleep through the night. There is always some kind of medication that can benefit you by both improved purchase viagra sexual abilities with lowest price. Reduced supply of blood to genital area leads to erectile dysfunction generic cialis australia djpaulkom.tv or impotence.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.