Lost Jewish Tribe In Zimbabwe  |   Home  |   No Lawyers for Animals

Comparing California and Texas

Michael Barone makes some good comparisons.  Which one of these states is Wisconsin more like?

No one would include Perry on a list of serious presidential candidates, including himself, even in the flush of victory. But in his 10 years as governor, the longest in the state’s history, Texas has been teaching some lessons to which the rest of the nation should pay heed.

They are lessons that are particularly vivid when you contrast Texas, the nation’s second most populous state, with the most populous, California. Both were once Mexican territory, secured for the United States in the 1840s. Both have grown prodigiously over the past half-century. Both have populations that today are about one-third Hispanic.

But they differ vividly in public policy and in their economic progress—or lack of it—over the last decade. California has gone in for big government in a big way. Democrats hold big margins in the legislature largely because affluent voters in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area favor their liberal positions on cultural issues.

Those Democratic majorities have obediently done the bidding of public employee unions to the point that state government faces huge budget deficits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to reduce the power of the Democratic-union combine with referenda was defeated in 2005 when public employee unions poured $100 million—all originally extracted from taxpayers—into effective TV ads.

Californians have responded by leaving the state. From 2000 to 2009, the Census Bureau estimates, there has been a domestic outflow of 1,509,000 people from California—almost as many as the number of immigrants coming in. Population growth has not been above the national average and, for the first time in history, it appears that California will gain no House seats or electoral votes from the reapportionment following the 2010 census.

Texas is a different story. Texas has low taxes—and no state income taxes—and a much smaller government. Its legislature meets for only 90 days every two years, compared with California’s year-round legislature. Its fiscal condition is sound. Public employee unions are weak or nonexistent.

But Texas seems to be delivering superior services. Its teachers are paid less than California’s. But its test scores—and with a demographically similar school population—are higher. California’s once fabled freeways are crumbling and crowded. Texas has built gleaming new highways in metro Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.

In the meantime, Texas’ economy has been booming. Unemployment rates have been below the national average for more than a decade, as companies small and large generate new jobs.

And Americans have been voting for Texas with their feet. From 2000 to 2009, some 848,000 people moved from other parts of the United States to Texas, about the same number as moved in from abroad. That inflow has continued in 2008-09, in which 143,000 Americans moved into Texas, more than double the number in any other state, at the same time as 98,000 were moving out of California. Texas is on the way to gain four additional House seats and electoral votes in the 2010 reapportionment.

Posted by Owen at 2142 hrs
Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Texas

1. There was a great read in today’s Journal by Alan Borsuk.  Essentially the cliff notes version is that MPS employees have their choice of two health plans.  One that costs the district $16k a year and worked fine for Alan’s daughter and her serious illness.  And a second Cadillac plan that costs $23k a year. 

   There is no incentive to choose either plan necessarily, so 80% of MPS take the $23k a year plan.  Borsuk calculated that MPS could save $47 million this year and countless jobs if they mandated the $16k plan for all employees. And again he backed up that said cheaper plan provided great care for his daughter. 

   Then they interviewed the Union hack who said no way, no how, no dice.  “We deserve the Cadillac plan—-people have counted on that type of plan for the last 20-years…blah, blah, blah…”

   Until we solve that type of problem here in Wisconsin, we are destined to be California as well.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 07, 2010 at 2227 hrs
   
   
   

2. Before this turns into another chorus of parroting about how conservatives are great and liberals suck, let me also point out another major difference between Texas and California.  California affords its citizens the opportunity to legislate directly via both initiative and referendum, while Texas affords its citizens neither.

   As we’ve seen time and again in California, people tend to vote themselves additional services, and also tend to vote to allow the state fewer and fewer ways to collect the revenue to support that spending.  California’s biggest problem is human nature, and the tendency for people to want someone else to do everything for them so long as they don’t actually have to pay for it.

   The reason California is so dysfunctional is because its citizens consistently vote to make it that way.  Texas is smart enough to keep its citizens in the backseat and away from the steering wheel of democracy.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 07, 2010 at 2307 hrs
   
   
   

3. RS:  The founders intended it that way.  Hence a Representative Republic.

   But you knew that.

   Posted by Steve on March 08, 2010 at 0558 hrs
   
   
   

4. The excerpt glosses over the effects of the influx of population on Texas’ economy.  New money can mask a lot of problems for a little while.

   In the meantime, Texas’ State School Board is a laughingstock, their consumer protection laws are being gutted and their death row holds more people than a lot of Third World countries.

   Texas isn’t the shining city on a hill that folks make it out to be.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 0601 hrs
   
   
   

5. Sure, grumps.  Whatever you say.  so they’ve masked a horrible economy for 20 years now?  That’s what you are telling us?  Because that’s how long it’s been.  After the oil bust in the 80’s, TX moved toward a business and manufacturing-friendly policy.

   And people on death row?  Not sure I have a problem with that.

   Posted by Steve on March 08, 2010 at 0608 hrs
   
   
   

6. You ignore perhaps the biggest advantage which Texas enjoyys over most of the other 49 states:  Texas has energy resources which it can tax the rest of the states for using.

   Consider school aids, for example.  Texas imposes an energy tax which is used to fund K-12 education in Texas.  (In addition, of course, for years Texas citizens were content iwth providing second-rate K-12 public education; remember that H. Ross Perot came to politics to improve Texas schools). 

   The energy taxes generate enough money each year to find K-12 public education in Texas and also provide a generous surplus.  What happens to the surplus?  The school fund has invested heavily in wind energy in the northern part of the state, which is perhaps the best wind energy field in the country.

   Owen, you should admit that one of the major factors in the health Texas economy is the ability of the state to suck off the rest of the country.  It’s almost the same story in Nevada, except Nevada sucks off the idiots who travel there to lose money.  Texas holds the rest of us up even though few of us travel there.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1008 hrs
   
   
   

7. Actually, the biggest thing in the favor of Tx is that their legislature is only part time.  They meet for 140 days in odd numbered years unless called in special by the Governor.  If the gov calls them in, they can only work on what he called them for.
   Sounds good for minimizing the damage.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1111 hrs
   
   
   

8. Yes, most of what this article says is true. Of course we also have burgeoning populations and our interstate and state highways can barely keep up with the flow between cities. Crime committed by illegal or semi-legal aliens is a constant problem, as are high teen pregnancy rates and diminishing water supplies.

   So, can some of you other states shape up enough to attract your former citizens back home? Please?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1128 hrs
   
   
   

9. Ah, not to mention the huge influx of funds from the Barnette Shale oil fields in
   the northern part of the state. 
   I am not sure all the highways mentioned are funded by the state…I dare say many have federal funds or are federal highways.  The school and college funding formula is completely different and as mention above are oil/gas funded in large part. 
   Every time I visit I get so damn mad how many people are there and I can hardly drive…..but they keep moving to Texas.
   Perhaps the lack of mudslides, fires, earthquakes, state taxes, and very little legislation have something to do with the movement of people too.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1339 hrs
   
   
   

10. Other note.  The school test score comparison.  Each state currently uses their own “test” and are very uneven.  Unless the author is referring to SAT or ACT there is no apple to apple comparison.  One issue BO with race to the top money need to revise is there needs to be a national test for 4th and 8th graders.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1341 hrs
    
    
    

11. Another article was published not long ago on the Texas/California comparison.  I think I bookmarked it on my office pc, but I’m currently at home so I don’t have the link.  Anyway, they basically started the article with the assumption that California’s objective is to have the best schools, best parks, and generally best government services out there but also have the high taxes to pay for them and Texas’s objective is to be the low cost alternative.  Then they examined school test scores and all kinds of other stuff and found that Californians are getting almost nothing for the extra money. 

    To be fair though, the reason people move to Texas over California probably has more to do with housing costs than taxes.  I mean the tax difference is big, but big meaning maybe 2 or 3 grand/yr tops for the median family.  They probably give that up in salary since California jobs probably pay a little bit more on average.  On the other hand, housing in Texas is less than half as pricey as California.  So basically you can cut your mortgage payment in half by moving there.  That doesn’t let California government off the hook though.  One of the main reasons for high housing costs is excessive regulation and Cali has plenty of that.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 2307 hrs
    
    
    

12. “One of the main reasons for high housing costs is excessive regulation and Cali has plenty of that.”

    “Excessive regulation” is way down on the list.  The bigggest reason for high housing costs in California is the old real estate mantra:  Location, location, location!

    In Texaas you can keep building busdivisions out onto the desert, just like in Arizona.  That’s one reason that re-sale is so difficult in these places—you are competing with new construction a few miles away.

    Houses are expensive in much of California because everyone wants to live in the same place.  There is nothing you can do to make Newport or Santa Monica any bigger.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 0918 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.