Where would New Hampshire be without government aid?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

They love their liberty, in New Hampshire, and hate their government. Where Iowa is socially conservative, New Hampshire is libertarian. Maybe not Ron Paul-crazy libertarian, but it's still the "Live Free or Die" state, the state of low taxes, guns, and a general aversion to, well, law.

Must be some kind of free market paradise, eh? What good could government ever do? Well:

New Hampshire, scene of the upcoming GOP presidential primary, seems like the perfect illustration of the Republican low-tax philosophy. With no state income tax and one of the lightest tax burdens in the U.S., New Hampshire enjoys an 8.3% poverty rate, the lowest in the country, and an unemployment rate of only 5.2% as of November, far below the national rate.

But here's a surprise: The "Live Free or Die" State, having lost much of its manufacturing base, seems to be thriving mostly on a steady diet of government spending and public jobs. For one, government employment in New Hampshire is up 14% since 2000, compared to 6% for the country as a whole.

What's more, real personal income growth in New Hampshire over the past decade has been driven almost entirely by government spending. Here's how it breaks down: From 2000 to 2010, real personal income in the state rose by $4.6 billion, in 2005 dollars. Out of that, $3 billion, or 66%, came from the growth of government transfer payments such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Another $1.4 trillion, or 31%, came from increased wages and benefits to government employees (numbers are rounded and in 2005 dollars).

In other words, 97% of real personal income growth in New Hampshire from 2000 to 2010 came from government transfer payments and government jobs. 

Not that you'll hear any of this from the Republicans on hand to preach free market absolutism, talk up their beloved "makers" and "job creators" of the private sector, and pander to the anti-government prejudices of their local constituency, of course.

Can't have the truth interfering with their lies. How would they be able to scare up votes if people knew what was really going on?