Texas has no income tax, a part-time legislature, an enviable economic record — and Senate Republicans there have just introduced a budget that limits the level of spending to the state’s expected revenue. That’s the real killer for liberals: In Texas, revenue determines spending, not the other way around. And liberals hate it. More here.
So what? California once had Reagan as governor.
Does Texas have a rapidly growing Mexican immigrant population that will reliably vote for leftist Democratic policies and candidates, under virtually all circumstances?
Are the wonderful businesses located in Texas ready to move offshore under any circumstances except third-world labor and third-world levels of government cronyism?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIdentity Politics is not yet toxic in Texas (nor Florida). With luck and a welcoming, conservative GOP, it may never be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust to add to Never_Outrageds point no only immigrants from the 3rd world bring their 3rd world viewpoints, you have Americans fleeing from Blue States to Texas and bringing the very attitudes that has lead to the economic stagnation of places like CA, NY, IL etc. All you need to do is look at what ex-patriate NYers have done to South Florida, Vermont, New Hampshire and what has happened to Oregon and Washington and soon Nevada as CAers have fled.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTexas gets back almost one dollar in Federal spending for each dollar in Federal tax paid. NJ gets back around 70 cents for each dollar. Thus, NJ is subsidizng Texas. I wonder how long Texas could keep its taxes artifically low without this funding.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Texas was getting $1.30 back for every $1, then New Jersey would be subsidizing Texas. Right now we're one for one. I fail to see a problem with that.
It's sad that what our legislature is doing seems so, well, unusual. But it THE only way a state - or anyone else, for that matter - can remain solvent. It is also the only responsible way to run any organization. Debt is a killer, both in the personal budget and public budget.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"WPMCCC
...NJ gets back around 70 cents for each dollar. Thus, NJ is subsidizng......"
yup, sure sucks when you realise the gov'mnt is sloshing your money over to other people. That is sorta the root problem with socialism, no?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Texas gets back almost one dollar in Federal spending for each dollar in Federal tax paid. NJ gets back around 70 cents for each dollar. Thus, NJ is subsidizng Texas. I wonder how long Texas could keep its taxes artifically low without this funding."
Find it funny Blue Staters get all upset at the results of the policies they push. The reason states like NJ get only 70 cents on the dollar they send to DC is because of the progressive income tax combined with the Federal welfare state. If you people from NJ want to keep more of their money then you should repeal of the 16th Amendment and go back back to the pre-Progressive days when Federal taxes had to meet this requirement, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse---"Texas gets back almost one dollar in Federal spending for each dollar in Federal tax paid"---
Which means, in the real world, Texas pays more in federal taxes than it gets back in federal spending, and that has been the case from 1981-2005. External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said, Michael K.
This business of "We got back less in largesse than we paid in taxes" while pointing a finger at states with higher poverty populations like the South is a direct result of the policies of the left.
You want your affluent, whiter states to be taxed "progressively" - usually with heavy regulations and heavy union presences too, which pushes up costs-of-living, and thus incomes to go with it. And you want the poor to receive transfer payments. The net effect of that is areas like the South get back more federal dollars than they send in.
So stop the smugness over how you're "subsidizing" us, because it was your idea to begin with!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTo anyone who doesn't think Texas has a rapidly growing (Mexican) immigrant population, I would like to know what you are smoking.
Go to any major city in Texas. There are plenty of areas (in some cases almost the entire city) where you would swear you are not in the US.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThink of all the military bases, as well. In these studies they often incorporate the military bases. But these aren't part of the transfer of payments, and if they left Texas, they'd still have to be paid for by the taxpayers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I've been advocating in the comments for the Costa article today, what we need to do is not limit the budget to projected spending, but to last year's spending. That's a hard number that is know, and it would make tax policy much more rigorous since you would need to actually understand how the tax code affects revenue, rather than making pie-in-sky assumptions. There would be consequences to bad decisions.
Naturally, this is never going to happen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOoh - Suddenly had a genius idea. These pop up sometimes.
Limit the budget to the revenue from five years ago. That way you will have a few years of revenue to plan ahead for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse