Michael Hiltzik’s Hackery in Making Texas Sound As Bad As California
I don’t want to get off on a rant here, but . . .
. . . but Bradley J. Fikes passes along a link to Michael Hiltzik’s latest column titled What California should learn from the Texas budget crisis. The deck headline reads as follows:
The so-called Texas Miracle is in trouble, demonstrating that fashioning fiscal policies strictly along low-tax lines doesn’t protect you from budget deficits or business slumps or make your residents necessarily happy or healthy.
The column is researched with Hiltzik’s characteristically low regard for facts and fairness.
Hiltzik starts out by talking about how bad Texas is supposedly doing, and then quickly moves to weak criticism of the legislature’s response. You can’t help but chuckle at reasoning that could convince only an avowed leftist:
California’s Legislature has won national renown for its dysfunction, but Texas lawmakers know how to squeeze dysfunction until it squeals. The late Molly Ivins reported years ago that when a good-government group ranked the Texas Legislature 38th among the 50 states, the reaction among knowledgeable Texans was, “You mean there are 12 worse than this?”
Maybe things have improved in the Texas statehouse since Ivins’ day. But given that the legislators put off action on the budget this year so they could first debate an anti-abortion measure, a balanced-budget amendment for the U.S. Constitution and a voter-ID law, maybe not.
Well! If Molly Ivins didn’t like the legislature, that’s good enough for me! Never mind that her definition of “knowledgeable Texas” was basically “liberal Texans.”
And I’m with Hiltzik: why should a state fritter away time discussing a balanced budget amendment for the U.S. Constitution? Everyone knows that the federal budget is in tip-top shape under Supreme Regime Leader Barack Obama, and any minor multi-trillion dollar kinks are being quickly and professionally ironed out by our eye-on-the-ball Congress, which is moving to HACK and SLASH spending by MILLIONS of dollars at time — MILLIONS! I say — spending reductions that obviously reveal any discussion of a balanced budget amendment to be a frivolous waste of time.
Add that to wasting valuable legislative debate minutes worrying about abortion, which has snuffed out a mere 50 million or so lives since Roe v. Wade, and voter fraud, which is a non-issue according to such eminent authorities as Bradley Friedman and Senior Fellow of Senior Fellows Eric Boehlert, and the Texas Legislature’s skewed priorities come into even sharper focus, thanks to Hiltzik’s deft wielding of the policy microscope.
Pondering the problems of Texas isn’t merely an exercise in schadenfreude, the pleasure one takes in the misfortune of others (some examples evoked by the puppets of the show “Avenue Q”: “Football players getting tackled; CEOs getting shackled … “). The goal is to gain perspective on our own crisis and the conventional proposals to address it. The bottom line is that fashioning fiscal policies strictly along low-tax lines doesn’t protect you from budget deficits or business slumps or make your residents necessarily happy or healthy.
Hiltzik is no doubt about to prove this through a systematic state by state analysis of tax burdens and deficit sizes. This is why they pay L.A. Times columnists the big bucks: with a responsibility of only three columns a week, they have the time to do the research you and I can’t do.
The budget crises afflicting states coast to coast arise from a combination of the nationwide recession and obsolete or wrongheaded state taxing schemes. The National Council of State Legislatures says that at least 15 states face large deficits this year and 35 in fiscal 2012.
Proof coming any second, in the form of that comprehensive analysis!
As things stand now, the council’s figures place California’s projected 2012 deficit at $19.2 billion, or 18.7% of its general fund, and the Texas deficit at $7.4 billion, or 17% of its budget. States with broad-based tax policies that balance property, income and sales taxes are best equipped to ride out economic cycles, because those levies don’t all move in lockstep with the economy. Neither California, with its over-reliance on income and sales taxes, nor Texas, which has no income tax, qualifies.
We know Hiltzik is right because of his comprehens —
OK, by now you get the joke. There is, of course, no comprehensive analysis. It’s simply a comparison of one state to another: Texas to California.
So as long as we’re making that direct comparison, I’d like to point out one little fact that Hiltzik totally omits. The big debate in Texas is whether to tap the state’s $9.4 billion “rainy day” fund. Governor Perry says it’s not necessary — they can balance the budget without touching it, by making necessary budget cuts.
And California’s rainy day fund? We don’t really have one.
Now that I have pointed out a teensy $10 billion difference between the two states, let’s do at least some of the work that Hiltzik isn’t doing. Here are the 15 states with the worst deficits, according to this source:
1. Nevada
2. Illinois
3. New Jersey
4. California
5. Mississippi
6. South Carolina
7. Minnesota
8. Texas
9. Connecticut
10. Louisiana
11. Oregon
12. Arizona
13. North Carolina
14. Virginia
15. Colorado
Meanwhile, what states are doing well on the budget front? Not too many. According to this source, 44 states are facing a budget shortfall.
Which 6 are not? Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, Arkansas, Alabama, and Delaware.
Does this prove up Hiltzik’s theory, that low taxes = bad fiscal situation?* Not quite.
Which are the states with the lowest taxes? It’s not as easy to determine as you might think. It’s not simply a matter of looking at income tax rates. You also have to take into account sales taxes, property taxes, and other miscellaneous taxes. For example, while Texas has no income tax, it has some of the highest property taxes in the nation, and a hefty sales tax to boot. I can’t find a good and comprehensive source that ranks all the states, but this source lists the five states with the lowest overall tax burdens as follows:
1. Alaska
2. Wyoming
3. Michigan
4. Pennsylvania
5. Colorado
The two best, Alaska and Wyoming, are two of the six states with no budget shortfall.
Of the other three, only Colorado (barely) appears on the list of the fifteen worst state budget situations above.
All of a sudden, Hiltzik’s little California/Texas comparison looks less like a valid column, and more like unresearched partisan hackery.
But I’m not done with Hiltzik yet.
Many state budgets will get worse before they get better, because federal stimulus funds used to close their gaps over the last two years are drying up. That points to a fact that hasn’t been widely remarked upon: President Obama’s stimulus program helped both California and Texas — indeed, many states — manage their deficits.
While Texas Gov. Rick Perry sucked up to the “tea party,” declaring himself opposed to “government bailouts” and prattling about seceding from the union, he papered over his state’s budget gap with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act funds, including increased federal handouts for education and Medicaid. So when you, the California taxpayer, hear talk of the Texas Miracle, you should take pride in having helped pay for it.
Don’t Texans pay federal taxes?
The only way Hiltzik’s assertion (that Californians are paying for Texas’s shortfall) makes sense is if California spends more in federal taxes than it receives in services, while Texas receives more in services than it pays in taxes. If Texas is paying more than it gets back, then Californians aren’t paying for the Texas shortfall — Texans are, with extra money going to the federal government.
You’ll be SHOCKED to learn that Hiltzik’s assumption is not borne out by the facts. At least as of 2005, which is the most recent year for which I could find data — as well as for every year since 1981 — both Texas and California have sent more money to Washington than they have taken in.**
If I’m a Texan, paying more to the federal government than I’m taking in, you’re damn right I’m going to take federal dollars — I’m taking back my own money. This is especially so since, like every border state, Texas is paying through the nose to deal with an illegal immigration problem that is the federal government’s responsibility — albeit one that it routinely shirks.
The supposed superiority of Texas over California in fiscal policy long has been a conservative article of faith. In 2009 the libertarian American Legislative Exchange Council published a report co-authored by the conservative economist Arthur Laffer underscoring the contrast. The report posited that “Texas’ superior policies over the past several years are making the Lone Star State more resilient to the current economic downturn.”
But Texas was hardly immune to the recession. From 2006 through 2010, the unemployment rate in Texas soared from 4.4% to 8.3%. Yes, that’s a better showing than California, which went from 4.9% to 12.5%, but the difference may reflect the huge effect on California’s economy of the popping of the housing bubble, which jumped our unemployment rate to a new magnitude and is likely to keep it there for a while.
This is supposed to be a slam on Texas? That California’s unemployment rate is 50% higher than Texas’s? Making that difference even more impressive is another factor Hiltzik entirely omits: Texas gained 4.2 million people from 2000-2010 — an increase of about 20%. Yet, after absorbing all those people, still has an unemployment rate stunningly better than California’s. California, by contrast, added only 3.38 million people from the 2000 census (33,871,648) to the 2010 census (37,253,956) — only about a 10% increase in population, compared to Texas’s 20% increase. This makes California’s skyrocketing unemployment even worse when compared to that of Texas.
(I know: Hiltzik probably still thinks the California population increase was 30%, like he told us a couple of years ago.)
As with the above unemployment statistics, it is amusing that when Hiltzik does cite the occasional fact, it turns out to be a fact that fails to support his thesis, but has to be explained away. (Texas is awful! OK, their unemployment is nowhere near as bad . . . but that’s probably the housing bubble!) Another such awkward fact:
Curiously, Texas’ reputation as a low-tax, business-friendly state survives although its state and local business levies exceed California’s as a percentage of each state’s business activity (4.9% versus 4.7% in 2009, according to a report by the accounting firm Ernst & Young). What’s different is that Texas business taxation relies more on property, sales and excise taxes and government fees than California, which relies on taxing corporate income.
Uh, I thought your whole point was that Texas is doing horribly because of its awful, terrible, conservative policies. Now you’re telling us that it really has some fairly high taxes too?
Maybe that’s why you should have looked at a few other states. There are 48 other ones, you know. (55, if you go with Our Heroic President’s count.)
But if you insist on talking about California, Mr. Hiltzik, you really ought to acknowledge that our fiscal situation sucks rocks. When you toss into the mix our pension liability, plummeting corporate tax receipts, the worst bond rating in the country, and a host of other problems, California’s fiscal situation is one that no responsible business columnist should be defending, especially with a bogus comparison to Texas like this one.
But then, who ever said Michael Hiltzik was a responsible business columnist?
___________________________
*Purists might argue that Hiltzik is not arguing low taxes = bad fiscal situation; he is arguing that low taxes does not mean good fiscal situation. Aside from the fact that he hasn’t proved this, so what? If you have a choice between living in a state with a poor fiscal situation and high taxes, or a state with a (not quite as) poor fiscal situation and low taxes . . . which one are you gonna go with?
**This may well have been different under Barack Obama, who showered states with all kinds of federal money we couldn’t afford to spend, but if so, it’s true for California too. And indeed, lawmakers have estimated that under the stimulus, California was getting $1.45 back for every dollar spent.
Rather than California paying for Texas, it’s more like our grandchildren paying for all of us.
PAt.
Texas does not have a budget deficit – th governor has denied the TEA’s increased request for 7 billion to buy laptops for dropouts and outcome based educational requirements.
He also dropped 5 billion from Health and human services who also increased their requests as well
Proble solved – someone said no – even if the legislature passes these departments requests – he can veto them after the legislature is out of session
Takes someone to say no
EricPWJohnson (0c721c) — 2/9/2011 @ 9:39 pmAs far as Alaska – here is the Gov’s latest article
http://www.adn.com/2011/02/09/1693168/cutting-oil-taxes-will-increase.html
EricPWJohnson (0c721c) — 2/9/2011 @ 9:47 pmWell, he isn’t the first and I can pretty much guarantee he isn’t the last leftist to just refuse to understand that all government is spending too much money…
Now he’s just whining “But, but, but!” because he hasn’t the sense to see that the party is over.
There will be cuts, big cuts to California’s government. The Feds will not bail us out, and if and when it gets to a vote California taxpayers will not approve extending the taxes.
Only thing left is trimming down all the programs, agencies, and departments in the State. All of us will be unhappy about one loss or the other, but there is no choice.
Hiltzak just refuses to see the obvious, and wants to hide the fact that California’s leftist dream is over.
flicka47 (ed77bd) — 2/9/2011 @ 10:00 pmSo the lesson is that everyone should be like California? With a crime rate so bad that one does not want to leave the airport? Which is creepy enough as it is when you get down to baggage claim. How many airports have police cars parked in front constantly so that one does not get mugged?
pat (f1bffe) — 2/9/2011 @ 10:06 pmI love it when lefties complain about Texas having a legislature that is difficult to work with, and slow to get in our way, and spends most of its time not being in session at all.
Oh no, we should be more like Illinois! A super involved legislature will work fine in Texas, unlike all the other states it’s dominating!
We can’t pretend Texas is immune to economic problems, but it’s hilarious if the left is going to start attempting to debunk or discredit the ideas that are actually working out. It betrays an unseriousness about our hard problems to be that petty for the partisan’s sake.
Anyway, HIltzik’s next column will list all the companies moving from Texas to California and creating jobs. Because, after all, that’s where the damn economy comes from, rather than a well oiled room full of philosopher kings.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/9/2011 @ 10:09 pm===================================================================================
I’ve made this point many times before, I’m certain I’ll make it many times again:
As long as governments are not required by LAW to use GAAP in their
accounting practices, any “balanced budget amendments” that get passed
are NOTHING MORE THAN handwaving distractions and slight-of-hand
folderol, as the State of New York’s government, which has ***exactly****
such a requirement, has amply shown.
Such action IS a true waste of time. The Texas State Legislature would do just as well — better actually, since a lot of people would recognize how foolish it would be — to pass a resolution defining “pi” to be exactly 3.14 or some other “rational” value.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/9/2011 @ 11:14 pmAh, well, THERE is your problem…
That ain’t no microscope.
That’s a proctoscope you’re using.
Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/9/2011 @ 11:17 pmWell, I’m told the feeling is mutual. They don’t like her, either…
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/9/2011 @ 11:21 pmWell, then, dammit, I want more of what they’re paying for!!
This is not my beautiful house!
This is not my beautiful wife!
How did I get here…!?!?
Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/10/2011 @ 2:33 amI blame Bush. And Sarah Palin.
JD (822109) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:55 amTexas’s unemployment rate is 34% lower than California’s, not 50%. (8.3% vs. 12.5%)
Joshua (14882b) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:36 amThe only way to make this real to Californians is to force them to sell their assets – state parks, public buildings, etc. Make them pay their debt, even if they get five cents to the dollar on what they sell.
Make the legislature meet in a warehouse and the governor live in a trailer before they get a penny from the other 49.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:41 amJoshua,
I meant to say California’s unemployment rate is 50% higher than Texas’s.
Fixed the wording. Thanks.
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:45 amHiltzik condemns Texas legislature for considering other measures ahead of their budget?
The Democratic controlled House and Senate at the Federal level never passed a FY 2011 budget.
Sheesh, what an incompetent hack.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:48 amYes, but what would Molly Ivins and “knowledgeable Americans” have said about the Democrat-controlled Congress?
Patterico (c218bd) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:03 amSomething half-assed folksy that implied their incompetence was cute while the Republicans were evil incarnate.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:10 amI’m certainly glad you decided not to rant; otherwise this article would have been double plus good.
Molly Ivins did have a way with words, especially if you agreed with her.
PatAZ (3f81c9) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:46 amSeeing the way, the Florida legislature works (or doesn’t as the case may be) I have to agree. But she took up cornpone tone, to hide she was a Seven
narciso (e888ae) — 2/10/2011 @ 7:51 amSisters and Sorbonne educated daughter of a Dallas
banker, you know just folk.
Seeing the way, the Florida legislature works (or doesn’t as the case may be) I have to agree
This year we might want to order in some extra popcorn: newly elected Gov. Scott is sending in a budget that even the GOP leadership (it’s possible I should be saying “especially the GOP leadership”) thinks is cutting too much, or at least making the wrong cuts.
The main problems seem to be 1)dipping into the special purpose trust funds set apart for things like roads, etc. so as to fund general revenue shortfalls and 2)much less money coming in from the Feds because of the end of the stimulus money.
There’s not much anyone could do about the second one, but Scott is against raiding the trust funds and the legislature is, if not for the idea, at least willing to think about it
If I remember correctly, Florida has already used up its rainy day fund over the last two years.
kishnevi (cc1ec4) — 2/10/2011 @ 8:51 amComment by SPQR — 2/10/2011 @ 7:10 am
More likely , they would have blamed it on GOP obstructionism. “Those nasty Republicans wouldn’t let us use our overwhelming majorities to pass the budget we really wanted!”
kishnevi (cc1ec4) — 2/10/2011 @ 8:53 amRecently there has been a plethora of left wing written articles claiming what bad shape Texas is in and how it has no right to make claims of better fiscal solvency than California (the Progressive utopia) does.
One article slammed Governor Perry for taking certain “stimulus” funds, with their “gotcha” comments about how he should not have done that if he wanted to remain such an independent thorn in Obama’s side. How dare Perry, who knew that Texans had paid that money into the federal government coffers to begin with, think he had a right to get some of that money back.
Maybe California should start fixing their fiscal house by reducing the amount their elected officials, like Congress critters, are paid annually to the Texas rate of $7,600./yr. Or limit the amount of time those Congressmen can spend in session doing everything they can to drive California deeper into debt.
If you want to understand the economics of a state, just check U-Haul rental rates. Why does it cost more to rent a U-Haul truck to move from California to Texas than it does to move from Texas to California? Let’s see…………. could it be because no one who is a job creator wants to move to California? Or maybe we could check the price of goods in California compared to Texas? Gas? Groceries? Housing?
Yeah, our property taxes are high but how high when you compare that a home in Texas that can be bought for $150K would cost you $250K in California? Or that you would have to make a lot more just to have the same life style living in California compared to Texas?
Maybe California should look at what they pay their civil servants. When you have AA police chiefs dragging down as much as the POTUS, something is radically wrong.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:37 amAccording to inflationdata.com, if you make $100K/yr living in Houston, you will need to earn $165K/yr to have the same living standards in Los Angeles.
So basically, you can leave Los Angeles, take a $65K/yr cut in pay, and live just as well in Houston.
Tell me again how great California is again.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:40 amreducing the amount their elected officials, like Congress critters, are paid annually to the Texas rate of $7,600./yr.
What?
I don’t believe Texas, California, or any other state can determine how much Congresscritters are paid. That should be a matter for federal law.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:46 amreducing the amount their elected officials, like Congress critters, are paid annually to the Texas rate of $7,600./yr.
What?
I don’t believe Texas, California, or any other state can determine how much Congresscritters are paid. That should be a matter for federal law.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:46 amaphrael, I know you were not trying to be obtuse, so I will explain to you in very slooooowww terms. I said their Congress critters, meaning the state Congress critters, not federal. Or did you think that the austerity programs each state is now facing will eleminate STATE Congressmen?
And yes, California sets the pay scale for their own state Senators and Representatives.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:54 amRetire05: maybe this is a linguistic argument, but I think the word “Congresscritters” always applies to federal Representatives; “Congress” applies to the federal legislature only.
Representatives at the state level have a different name. Here in CA, they’re Assemblypeople.
This may be a dialect issue.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/10/2011 @ 9:59 amI think the argument for paying a legislature next to nothing, or presidential candidates promising to forgo their salary, is the exact opposite of conservatism. It’s elitism. I don’t need a government run by millionaire elites. I would rather have citizens take a couple of years to help steer government out of our private lives as much as possible.
Texas pays their legislature too little, even though they only meet every other year. I have a big problem with the fact that most Texans simply couldn’t afford that work. Accordingly, our legislature is full of people who are insulated financially, or even try to use our process to reach financial ends (a problem I think is rampant in many states). These people are supposed to be apprised of what’s going on in their district. It should be work.
No, pay our US Congress, state leg, judges, etc a professional’s salary. If they meet every other year, pay them every other year.
There are much better places to cut spending. Fewer bureaucrats, pensions that are no higher than 80% of the private sector equivalent, longer terms needed to vest. I see millionaires forgoing their pay as very suspicious.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 10:11 amI’m going with Aph on this one. At first I thought you were talking about US Congress, Retire.
Try not to condescend to aphrael, ok dude?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/10/2011 @ 10:19 amaphrael, here in Texas we call our elected House of Representative officials “Congressman”. Not Congress people, Congressman/woman. But you can call them bunny rabbits for all I care. The “assembly persons” in CA make too damn much money.
Dustin: Most of our elected officials in Texas are not wealthy “elite”. My own local Congressman is a cotton farmer, not exactly a catagory that would put him in the ranks of John Kerry. The fact that he works, as a Congressman, 140 days a session, allows for him to run his own farm. And he would be hard pressed to be considered a “millionaire” by anyone’s standards.
Now, perhaps you call tell me what Benjamin Franklin thought about paying elected officials anything at all?
Serving the public in the capacity of an elected official should be a calling to service, not a path to financial wealth.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 10:26 amScott Jacobs, since I was clear that California “Congress critters” should spend less time driving California deeper into debt, any rational thinking person, who understands that FEDERAL Congressmen have nothing to do with California’s economic policies, would know that I was speaking about STATE Representatives, not FEDERAL.
I would tell you to take a reading comprehension course, but you would think I was being “condescending.”
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 10:30 amNo, I’d just think you were being a bitchy little f**kwit.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/10/2011 @ 10:56 amScott Jackobs, judging others by your own reflection is not a good policy.
Or do you think that the use of perjoratives is a legitimate tactic?
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 10:59 amgood for him, but that’s not the norm. Most of the Texas reps and senators I know are lawyers.
Firstly, I’m talking about paying them a professional’s wage, not making them rich. Your farmer should be paid for his work, and he isn’t. What’s his name, BTW?
Your idea works great for the John Kerry types out there, but it’s not so great for the Sarah Palin types. Personally, I don’t trust someone who wants to work for free, with control over large sums of money.
And let’s be honest: this simply isn’t a fiscally conservative approach you’re taking. It saves less money than a rounding error. It’s an argument for rich people to have all the power.
You might trust legislators as noble servants following a holy calling, and willing to do it all for free, but I don’t. I think US Congressmen in particular are underpaid. I think federal judges are ridiculously underpaid.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:03 amhere in Texas we call our elected House of Representative officials “Congressman”
Fair enough. As I said: it’s a dialect issue. I suspect that for people who live in states where the local officials aren’t called “Congressman”, the term “Congressman” implicitly refers to the feds, not the state – and that the natural reading of your statement by someone unfamiliar with Texan usage is to think that you’re saying California should reduce the amount that federal legislators elected by the state are being paid.
From my perspective, this is a misunderstanding arising from each of us assuming that our dialect of English is standard and interpreting the others’ words as though they were uttered in our dialect. It’s a common problem, and nothing serious or worthy of getting worked up over.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:04 amI don’t see what about this argument requires people to get pissed off, btw. It’s a relatively minor issue.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:05 amDustin, just who are the “most of the Texas reps and senators” you know? Name them.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:16 amDUSTIN, @35 TALKING ON THE INTERNET IS ALL ABOUT BEING CONSTANTLY PISSED OFF, YOU *!*$*!
(sorry. once in a while I can’t resist. :P)
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:19 amOnly when I’m talking to a f**kwit…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:20 amJose Rodriguez, Kirk Watson, Veronica Gonzales, Rafael Anchia, Pete Gallego.
I could go on. And I’ll admit, I deal with a lot of people in the legal profession. But my impression is that the Texas Leg is mostly lawyers.
Anyway, I see no reason for you to be so confrontational about such a benign point.
Now, what’s the name of the farmer legislator?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:23 amBTW, I don’t really know Kirk Watson aside from living in the Austin area and being familiar with the former mayor.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:24 am#38………..
Well, if you think that using perjoratives gives clear example of your intellect, knock your lights out.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:29 amI’ve always called it the Texas Legislature. It hasn’t been the Texas Congress since 1836-1845 when we had the Republic of Texas. Then again, I guess it’s not really a mistake to call it a Congress since, unlike other states, Texas actually had a Congress during its history and we Texans grow up hearing about the Republic of Texas at school and play.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:30 amI had a nice chat with Carol Keeton (Rylander etc.) a couple of years ago when I was filling up my car in Austin. By Texas standards, that practically makes us good friends.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:33 amAnyway, what I’d like to see are more pharmacists, teachers, doctors, and especially other people who work in applied sciences like engineers run for office.
We have a lot of people whose resumes as attorneys are bolstered by being a state legislator. It’s a big boost to their career, and they eat the cost of serving. But what we need are more people outside the legal profession. They have access to researchers and professional writers if they need to craft bills, so I don’t see why our lawmakers should be legal professionals themselves.
Would the federal government entertain another train boondoggle if they were engineers? Would Obamacare be the same if we had 50 doctors in Congress?
I think, to get there, we need to make it so that the guy working at the drugstore can afford to serve. Part of that is some major change in the way voters consider candidates, and I really don’t know what it would take.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:35 amI like this post. It’s well written and covers my two of my favorite internet topics: Texas and watching Patterico skewer the LA Times.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:36 amDustin, all Democrats, ummmm?
Are they feeling pretty lonely lately?
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:37 amDustin,
I agree with you about Congress but I’m not sure about the Texas Legislature as long as the sessions are so limited. Few jobs are flexible enough to let people combine legislative service and regular employment, and I wouldn’t want to change that. The negative of having so many lawyers is offset by the positive of giving them less time to legislate.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:40 amretire05,
My guess is Dustin knows a lot of Austin Democrats because there are a lot of Democrats in Austin.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:42 amDRJ, that’s a good point.
I don’t want to make them full time employees, and I’ve been trying to figure out some kind of comment proposing how normal people could quit their dayjob for a few months… but it’s not going to happen.
Agreed completely about keeping the sessions every other year and as short as possible.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:44 amI wish I could get the dem cooties off me, but it’s really not so bad as long as I don’t run into Leslie Cochran.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:44 amDRJ, we can thank the Austinites for the reelection of one of the biggest crooks in the Federal House of Representatives; Lloyd Doggett, who has managed to parlay his seat into a multi-million dollar’s worth of personal wealth.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:51 amThey like trains, too, retire05.
Anyway, who’s this farmer legislator you mentioned?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:53 amJust avoid Rep Jackson-Lee, and the regular treatments should be able to prevent your case from turning acute. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/10/2011 @ 11:55 amBTW, there’s nothing wrong with criticizing Austin politics. I think if we pay attention to Austin it’s clear that what’s great about Texas will go away quickly if we aren’t vigilant. Many would happily ignore reality for an expensive bike lane, or a train no one wants, or getting in the way of business.
But I think Austin itself is a great mix of conservatives and liberals, and the most interesting place in Texas.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:00 pmDustin, Dist. 17.
You figure it out. Has a law degree, still has a partnership but no longer practices.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:01 pmDustin, you think Austin, with its 70% Democratic leanings, is a good mix?
If it wasn’t for the small pockets of Republicans (Lakeway and Mount Bonnel areas) you would be living in San Francisco.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:11 pmretire05 and Dustin,
I like watching Austin politics because, from out here in West Texas, it seems as if more conservative suburbs (like Round Rock) are gradually encroaching on Austin’s liberal mindset. I could be wrong and even if I’m right, it’s a slow process … but it’s still fun to watch. However, I admit it wasn’t fun to see Doggett win. At least it was by a smaller margin (53%-44%) than in past elections.
As for living in Austin, I’ve lived there before and that was enough.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:15 pmTim Kleinschmidt’s a rancher, rather than a farmer, retireo5. and he’s an attorney after all (not that there’s anything wrong with it) but I think you were mistaken in your initial description, and a bit out of line in your challenge that I name lawyers in the legislature.
Your whole line of comments sounds like you think we’re fencing rather than having a conversation.
His law firm’s website says he’s still practicing, and he’s the president of the County Bar. He’s a lawyer who boosted his standing and career by serving as a Representative, rather than some farmer. This is the norm, IMO.
From what I can tell, you’ve got a great representative. I’m not too big on his idea of new lottery tickets, but I guess that ship has sailed and I shouldn’t stand on too many soap boxes at once.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:20 pmDRJ, Doggett took Travis County by 66%. Then he promply proceeded to sell out his own state for the sake of Nancy Pelosi. The reason Doggott won by only 53% overall is that Dr. Campbell tromped him in all other counties.
Austin is a disgrace, as is the University of Texas who gives tenure to people like Robert Jensen.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:23 pmWell, I hope so. Maybe I’m too close to see it, but it seems like the progressives here are entrenched and not going anywhere. There’s so many people in academia and government bureaucracy here.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:24 pmDustin, if you are a Texan, you know that even cotton farmers are called “ranchers” by the unknowing. Tim raises cotton in Lee County (he also has cattle, but then, Lee County IS in the State of Texas). He predecessor, Robby Cook, was also a cotton farmer (and rancher).
And no, Tim no longer practices. But his brother does.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:28 pmI guess it’s all how you look at it, retire05. For Doggett to get *only* 66% of the vote in Travis County is practically a GOP win to me. The percentage would have been even more lopsided when I lived there.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:37 pmI see they were listed by percentage of the total budget.
Who would have thought Nevada was worse off than California?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:44 pmI will say, for the most part, Tim’s politics seem great, and if he’s just some farmer going down to Austin to keep the government out of our way, he’s a great example of what I’d like to see more of.
He probably should update his lawfirm’s website to change the part where it says he’s practicing law currently and highly active in the bar association. If that’s not true, anyway.
I’m a lifelong Texan, retire. I didn’t know cotton farmers were called ranchers, but at any rate, I don’t hold one in different esteem than the other. He does seem like a good rep.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:44 pmI used to live in Lubbock and they call them cotton farmers there, not ranchers, but Lubbock is a long way from Giddings.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:56 pmI read that over and over, and all I see is “No true Scotsman”…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/10/2011 @ 12:58 pmBack on track…
I’ll take Hiltzik’s little gotcha hijinks more seriously when he starts wondering why the CA Legislature can’t do the entire legislative business of the state in 140 CALENDAR days every other year.
And besides, I have a hard time taking seriously the notion that TX (or Louisiana, for that matter) has a high deficit in a time of increasing oil prices. After all, if ND and WY don’t have one….
Brad S (9f6740) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:03 pmAnd it’s not that surprising that Nevada is worse off than CA, considering how dependent Las Vegas has been on SoCal tourist and homeowners fleeing SoCal.
Brad S (9f6740) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:05 pmScott Jacobs: “I read that over and over, and all I see is “No true Sctosman”…”
Yeah, we Texans all know that someone moving to our state from somewhere else is as rare as armadillo fur.
My bad.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:09 pmBrad’s got a point. Texas’s deficit will be lower because of oil prices going up.
And something else we should remember, Texas has a economic stability fund (a rainy day account) of 9 billion dollars. We’re not like California in a very fundamental way.
Our deficit is a lot more than the fund, but we’re better prepared to weather the economic problems our country is going through, and the real reason is that our economy is less hampered by state government.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:10 pmOf course, what do the democrats want to do with our rainy day fund? Spend it away.
It’s hard to hear anything over this broken record.
Anyway, as states default from pension promises, and have other crises, states like Texas will be relatively stable because we actually saved money.
What I see the fund as is a good way to handle the fact oil and gas prices will lead to huge surpluses (that some politicians will want to adjust to very quickly with tax cuts or increased spending).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:14 pmI think we can all agree on the following :
JD (822109) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:17 pm1) Hitzlik is a cowardly dishonest sockpuppeteer.
2) Rutten is equally bad
3) Kmart, yelverton and their brethren are worse.
4) Barcky is worse yet.
The Texas Comptroller’s office released the February sales tax numbers today, based on the sales made during the Christmas shopping season in December. They show an overall 5.4 percent increase in sales tax collections from the previous year for cities and counties across Texas.
Combine that with the increase in royalties from increases in oil drilling and the business activity surrounding the drilling activity, and the $10 billion deficit is less than meets the eye (albeit not all that bad a thing to be worried about while the Legislature is meeting, because Texas politicians are not much different than others when it comes to a big windfall of cash being put in front of them — they will spend it, often on projects that require ongoing bi-annual appropriations that remain even after the cash injection has been spent).
John (71f52f) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:17 pmI can see that increased demand for oil means more Texas jobs, and more jobs ultimately means more sales and other tax revenues and thus a smaller deficit. That’s good for Texas but it could be good for several other states, too, especially in the West. They and/or the federal government have chosen not to explore for their oil and gas resources.
DRJ (fdd243) — 2/10/2011 @ 1:22 pmThe point was that the GOP was elected on a platform of economic conservatism in Texas and they’re spending their time on social issues instead.
Jim (ad29d8) — 2/10/2011 @ 5:08 pmAnd that is what we need.
Oil that is not tapped might as well not be there at all.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/10/2011 @ 6:47 pmThat’s misleading. It sounds like an apples to apples comparison but it’s not. To use round numbers, let’s say each state’s deficit is 20% of their general fund. If hypothetically TX is spending $2000 per capita, and CA is spending $4000 per capita, then the per capita deficit is $400 in TX and $800 in CA or double. The budget deficit is twice as bad in CA as TX, using this example.
Gerald A (389a16) — 2/11/2011 @ 11:13 am“Jim” eats boogers. And is basically a douche. I suppose you can support the idea that they we only elected because of their economic positions. It is comical how you leftists cry racism, and hypocrisy, and BUNNIES so predictably.
JD (ae44dd) — 2/11/2011 @ 11:16 amHuh? Whose point was that? And who cares if Texas goes a different direction than Cali on social issues? It’s a state. Move. I wish you were right, and this was about social issues, but alas, we barely have any room for federalism.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/11/2011 @ 11:28 amThat sentence doesn’t make any sense. Generally income taxes do move with the economy. Sales taxes would tend to reflect the economy as well one would think. Maybe property taxes move less in tandem with the economy. So if the objective is taxes not closely tracking the economy, that would imply heavy reliance on property taxes compared to the others, which is apparently what Texas has. Saying you need a balance of taxes for downturns is a non sequitur.
It seems like he writes his columns while watching his favorite TV shows or something.
Gerald A (389a16) — 2/11/2011 @ 12:52 pmGerald, that’s a good point. Texas does have a variety of taxes, but also an fund meant to handle oil boom surpluses.
And, after all, Texas relies on the very tax you note is less effected by downturns.
he was just being ad hoc from a to z. There’s a reason the left isn’t talking about denying Texas a bailout.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/11/2011 @ 1:02 pm