It seems that whenever conservatives raise the problems of California as an example of the failures of the big-government pro-public employee union policies of Democrats, they will instantly chime in and remind us of Texas’s budget woes. Paul Krugman did it in a recent column. When I posted recently on California’s problems, one of our critics quickly brought up Texas (which I had not mentioned in the post). Friday night, when I confronted an area state Assemblyman who spoke at my synagogue, reminding her of the problems of public employee unions and the unfavorable business climate, one of her defenders quickly chimed in to remind us of the Lone Star State’s budget woes.
In his eagerness to repeat what appears to be the latest Democratic talking point — that Texas has budget problems too — he missed the second point I raised. While Texas does indeed have some budget problems, that state is booming economically while California busts. At present, as I reminded the politician’s defender, the Lone Star State has an employment rate one point lower than the national average while the (once-)Golden State has a rate three points higher.
As Mark Hemingway informs us:
In 2008, 70 percent of all the jobs in the country were created in Texas. In 2009, all of America’s top five job-creating cities were in Texas.
More recently, “Texas created 129,000 new jobs in the last year — over one-half of all the new jobs in the U.S. In contrast, California lost 112,000 jobs during the same period,” according to “Texas vs. California: Economic growth prospects for the 21st Century,” a new report by the Texas Public Policy Foundation released in October.
Texas is home to 64 Fortune 500 companies — more than any other state in the union. (California has 51 and New York has 56.) For five years in a row, Texas has topped Chief Executive magazine’s poll of the best state to do business.
But, this latest talking point of Lone Star State’s critics addresses just one issue. This focus also helps show just how California politicians (and their defenders) are missing the second of the state’s big problems, the business climate. It’s as if they see the state’s fiscal mess as the only big problem California politicians face.And Governor Brown, to be sure, has done a decent job of trying to trim the state’s budget. He would do a better job if he could emulate his Badger State counterpart in standing up to the public employee unions.
That said, while other states have budget problems, including Texas, California has both a budget and a business problem. Unless legislators in Sacramento overturn anti-business policies (including the state’s draconian cap and trade law), it will continue to see business move elsewhere and jobs disappear. Instead of berating Texas, California Democrats would be wise to learn from the Lone Star State. Not to mention Wisconsin.
NB: Tweaked the post to improve the flow and clarify a point.
>>>including the state’s draconian cap and trade law
Right. Let’s return to the 1960s when you could see, if not cut with a butter knife, the air you breathed in much of California. I doubt that you were much more than a twinkie in your dad & mom’s eye at that point, so you’re not expected to remember.
Bottom line: Anyone who would prefer to live in Texas – with all its negative, by all means, go for it. Google ‘U-Haul’ and hit the road.
What “negative”?
Further, ass loads of people have decided they would prefer to live in Texas. Many businesses have set up shop in Texas as well. Where’s the rush to get to California? Oh that’s right. It was 160 years ago.
Um, Miss Dogma, please address the points of the post to which you attach your comments. The state’s cap and trade law goes into effect this year.
I’m not asking for a return to the 1960s, but to repeal bad policies enacted in recent years. I trust you will acknowledge your error. Thanks!
ah yes.. AD goes for the All Or Nothing argument of the ignorant.
Because one wants a favorable business climate, one must also want a return to no waste laws and reversing years of cleaned air and water. Also used when we demand the legislative, judicial, and executive branches follow the Constitution we want to return Slavery and remove the rights of women to vote.
Ya know, there are some amendments I’d like added to the COTUS, but I’d be hard pressed to repeal any of them. I’d rather they be followed and not used as an excuse for things that are totally not connected with them.
Glad to be in Texas myself btw.
Auntie, your comments are always noticeable for their lack of sophistication, but I think you reached a new low.
Repealing CA’s draconian air law is not a return to the 1960s, it is a return to the 2000s. So you’re off by… oh, 4 decades.
Did they teach you math, when you went to school in the 60s or 50s or whenever it was?
The only thing that keeps me out of Texas is the climate; I like my autumns and winters too much.
And of the Lone Star State’s “Budget Woes,” 80% of the anticipated shortfall is because of the new ObamaCare Medicaid mandates… which all 50 states are getting walloped with.
V, do you have a link for that 80% figure?
Number is more like 70%, but but here is the link.
Auntie Dog-do crows: “Bottom line: Anyone who would prefer to live in Texas – with all its negative [sic], by all means, go for it.”
As a native Houstonian, I believe you owe me an apology. Of course, asking a socialist like you for an apology is like asking Bill Clinton to stay faithful.
There is nothing negative about this state, and I would rather live here than anywhere else.
You quickly lost what little respect I had for you. Now all I can say is, brace yourself, honey – because I will be the first to smack you down (verbally) from this point forward.
Don’t mess with Texas, bitch.
Regards,
Peter H.
“Anyone who would prefer to live in Texas – with all its negative”
Auntie, having been sationed in Texas when I was a young Lieutenant, I can safely say that you are talking squarely out of your ass.
Texas is a great place to live.
Bottom line: Anyone who would prefer to live in Texas – with all its negative, by all means, go for it. Google ‘U-Haul’ and hit the road.
You know, it’s kind of amusing that you say this. Check it out. Other than some of the Lone Star State’s laws, or lack thereof, regarding gays, I’d gladly take Texas over California. I certainly could find a job much faster…
Oh yeah, AF Vet has it right: as someone who lived in San Antonio for nearly 5 years and California for nearly 3, I found Texas to be an outstanding place to live far better than California. The best I can say about California is that it’s a great place to visit and stay for a brief period of time but not somewhere you should think about living there for life.
VtheK, the Texas Panhandle definitely has four seasons. I grew up there. Granted, there aren’t a whole lotta trees for the autumn colors, but the night skies, sun and moon rises/sets the year round do make up for the lack of trees.
Come on down. Give Texas a try.
Oh hell.
Come on fellow evil nazi racist devilmonster not-Democrats. We all know there are only two options: business destroying socialism with confiscatory tax rates, or third world hell holes with unbreathable air, no schools, third world working conditions, and business CEO’s that rule our wretched lives like warlords from a Post Apocalypse movie.
Everyone knows that a black wall of smog and tar begins right at the california border and stretches all the way to New York. Let’s not try to deny it and admit that the only conceivable state budget decision is the one California has made!
As someone who did indeed yahoo “UHaul,” and went with “Budget” because it had a better deal, I have loved living in Texas. When my job pulled me up to Oklahoma, there’s less than a dime’s difference between the states.
Yes, there’s a budget issue. Governor Perry and the legislature will be held accountable. One of the strength’s of the system has been Texas’s legislature is part-time – so the representatives and senators have a fair portion of the year in which they live under the laws they create as citizens (unable to change the law if it goes awry). No professional legislators, and none exempt from the law, as we see on Capitol Hill in DC.
Ford is making a killing since GM took the bailout. Can only imagine what would happen to California should it attempt to steal a bailout from the US of A. One would think, having been American, Californians would have some pride. Guess not.
Interesting name “dogma.” A religious doctrine proclaimed without truth. Very apt.
John, what’s fascinating about the graph you link is that in January 2006, Texas had an unemployment rate slightly below that of California. And while the rate in both states increased with the economic downturn, it skyrocketed across the country, but not nearly at the rate it did in the Golden State.
Seemed the Golden State’s upswing in unemployment began about the time then-Governor Schwarzenegger replaced his inner circle with a lot of people recommended by his Democratic wife.
I hate the tx vs ca debate. Homes and land is cheaper in tx vs ca. When housing prices crashed, california was hurt more.
Both states still have a bigger GDP than Canada. Both get huge amounts of federal money. Both states are full of assholes. Both have terrible schools. Both states have high crime. Both states have bad air quality. Texans are fat, Californians are whiners.
Come to MN the air is clean, the schools are the best and the economy is doing fine despite high taxes.
Oh, here we go. Gilltard has spouted his usual talking points. Let’s address them, shall we?
“Homes and land is [sic] cheaper in tx vs ca. When housing prices crashed, california was hurt more.”
Probably because the property taxes in CA are higher because of so many liberals in the government. In Texas, the tax assessment is bifurcated.
(Note to those of you in Rio Linda or the People’s Republic of Berkeley: that means they are set by each county, not by the state. It does not have anything to do with anything sexual.)
“Both states still have a bigger GDP than Canada.”
OK, you got one right.
“Both get huge amounts of federal money.”
Wrong, gilltard – according to the FY 2010 estimates, California was #5 in federal funding. Texas wasn’t even on the list. (Here’s the link in case you think I’m wrong: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/states-that-received-the-most-federal-funds/)
“Both states are full of assholes.”
Except that CA has more of them. We’re talking SF and Hollyweird here, girl.
“Both have terrible schools.”
Says who?
“Both states have high crime.”
Proof, please.
“Both states have bad air quality.”
You obviously haven’t been to L.A. recently, have you? (Apologies to Leah and Dr. Dan.)
“Texans are fat, Californians are whiners.”
Texas has Rick Perry (the GQ Guv). California has Rosie O’Donnell. No contest there.
“Come to MN the air is clean, the schools are the best and the economy is doing fine despite high taxes.”
And you elected Al Franken to the Senate. Not exactly a winning argument there, honey.
And Texas is doing wonderfully WITHOUT high taxes. Chew on that, girlfriend.
Match, set, game. You lose. We have nice parting gifts for you backstage.
Regards,
Peter H.
Hey, thanks for linking to my article Daniel. I appreciate it.
As for Auntie Dogma’s comment, as it turns out the joking suggestion about getting a U-Haul to Texas only serves to prove the point about Texas’ superiority. This was in Laffer and Moore’s great chapter on Tex. v. Calif., but my old colleague Kevin Williamson also highlighted it in his great NR piece on Texas’ economic performance:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/198329/texas-vs-california-unions-taxes-and-spending/kevin-d-williamson
“If you want to know where the future is headed, look where the people are going. And if you want to know where the people are going, check with U-Haul. Here’s an interesting indicator, first noted by the legendary economist Arthur Laffer: Renting a 26-foot U-Haul truck to go from Austin to San Francisco this July would cost you about $900. Renting the same truck to go from San Francisco to Austin? About $3,000. In the great balance of supply and demand, California has a large supply of people who are demanding to move to Texas. There’s a reason for this.
“Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance?” asks Laffer, who studied the issue for a detailed economic report, Rich States, Poor States. “What seems obvious to us appears as right-wing science fiction to many California legislators and pundits. They claim that serious reform of the tax code is unrealistic, that a large state has many duties to fulfill, and that it is irresponsible to call for a return to a 19th century view of the role of government. . . . Not only does Texas lack a highly progressive income tax — it doesn’t have one at all! We hasten to add that the last time we checked, Texas still had literate kids, navigable roads and functioning hospitals, which one would think impossible given the hysterical rhetoric coming from defenders of California’s punitive tax system.”
Best,
Mark
I don’t know if anyone pointed this out. Krugman said:
Among the states, Texas ranks near the bottom in education spending per pupil…
and yet, they rank 8th on this survey, while California ranks 30th, and re ahead of California here also. In fact, it’s hard to find a metric where Texas is not better than CA. So California spends much more per student than almost any other state, yet lags way behind the state that, in Krugman’s words, spends the least.
Makes you go Hmmmm…
Has it ever occurred to people that the public education bureaucracy has a built-in incentive against achievement? If the more schools fail, the more money the Government is going to shovel at them, where is the incentive to succeed?
No, V…. That’s not the problem. It doesn’t matter whether the schools do well or not, they still feel entitled to the money.
The problem with the education system is that they are always searching for a magic bullet to improve performance, in the for of the latest hot nugget of education theory. When I was getting my first teaching credential, most of my classes dealt with education theory, emphasizing the benefit of the “all inclusive” classroom, i.e. multiculturalism. A few studies showed that teachers who took into account the cultural uniqueness of native Americans in Ranchero schools saw test score improvements. One study replicated the results in a Chicago school, and we were off to the races (no pun intended). We saw the worst of that trend when everyone hopped on the “whole English” / whole math” bandwagon, even though the study that documented the success of those concepts was flawed and not replicated. They have abandoned that for the most part, but the effects of the “multiculturalism” agenda will last for decades.
We still have NCLB. Now, you may say it improved things, but what actually happened in that most of the improvements seen via this metric was due to school learning to game the system. That’s why all measures are showing that score results have flat-lined. Although Obama’s “Race To The Top” is a little more organic, and brings a bit more local autonomy, the same will happen with RTTT.
One of my professors was very pro-education theory and VERY anti-test. No. Really! He was a firm believer that test are basically a waste of time. He was also an education theory wonk – a walking encyclopedia of all the ed theory to be known. One night, we ended up parking next to each other. While walking to the cars, I ask THE question.
“If we’ve had so many advances in education theory, and we know so much more about how children learn than we did thirty years ago, then why are we doing so poorly now???”
He was honest, and said he didn’t know.
Something else to note.
The Texas budget deficit is partially the product of a two year budget process. They, like most other states, and the national govt for that matter, underestimated the severity of the recession, and overestimated the speed of the tecovery. This shortfall is a result of that. Krugman is (surprise) completely ignoribg this fact.
One should also add the fact that Texas has a nine-BILLION dollar rainy-day fund that it’s currently sitting on for just such an occasion.
Krugman is such a hilarious liar. It’s no surprise that he’s an Obama Party member and a paid propagandist for the Obama Party.
BTW, Sky King air charter is moving from Sacramento to Lakeland and Bing Energy (not the drink) is moving from Chino to Tallahassee.
And Jesse “The Body” Ventura as governor. Isn’t that vampire that wants to be president from MN?
Why do folks believe the false metric of $/student = success (or love of children)?
When one actually goes through how the money is divided up, one finds three key problems: overpaid education staff (principles, secretaries), overpaid educators, and educators who can’t impart knowledge to their students.
A teacher can teach a rock how to roll. An educator is credentialed, but otherwise incapable of teaching. Of course, educators and principles won’t be getting all that money if their students learn to read, and read things like laws, regulations, and then vote their minds.
If one wants to raise the level of education in America, do away with all public schools. Let parents fund schools/collectives, or home school.
Liberalism has absolutely NOTHING to do with accomplishing anything. The goal is to invent a problem, scare the shit out of everybody about it, dump an ass load of money in regard to it and then blame everybody else when it all goes to hell in a hand basket (nevermind that by then, we can’t even afford the hand basket).