We know... you can't stand it that the Texas economy is doing well. We know, you want all those people and companies to go bankrupt, like your cities, towns and people did. Very caring indeed.
The answer is the same for any state, the economy took a shit and everyone's budget is in a hole.
Texas has the worst air quality, worst or close to the worst water quality, and one of the lowest literacy and high school graduation rates in the country. None of those are even remotely true to NJ/NY/CA.
So in the end the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum are dealing with deficits, at least one ideological paradigm has something to show for it.
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
Svnla
Lifer
- Nov 10, 2003
- 17,986
- 1,388
- 126
and when the Mayor and School Chancellor tried to do something about it, they were kicked out. Back to status quo (more money spending and worse students). I know, I know...it is ALL Bush/Republicans/Whities/Fillintheblank faults.
Top (or worse in this case) 5 states with highest budget deficits:
1. Calif
2. Ill
3. Florida
4. New York
5. Michigan
Who were/are in control of those states, OP?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/cali...-crisis-unemployment-poverty/story?id=9856552
Last edited:
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
Why do you presume to know who I vote for? Lately I've been voting for a lot of libertarian candidates
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Deregulation, criminal conspiracies, (we now have a financial sector that is no better then a night on the town at vegas with a government ATM card), outsourcing (Detroit is a wasteland filled with mainly unemployed poorest left), wealthy politicians screwing us in collusion with big industry/defense while the mainstream media cheer it all on as they are all intertwined with one another thanks to said deregulation.
And the biggest reason? Bush's pointless wars affecting the biggest economies one by one over time.
Where have you people been since the 80s? You guys can get over the rah-rah conservative cult world and join us in reality anytime.
Last edited by a moderator:
CrackRabbit
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2001
- 16,642
- 62
- 91
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
So Democrats had no hand in driving those 3 states into bankruptcy? It was the criminal conspiracies?
lol...
spacejamz
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 10,961
- 1,661
- 126
http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/256614/no-paul-krugman-texas-not-broke
No, Paul Krugman, Texas Is Not Broke
January 7, 2011 2:37 P.M.
By Kevin D. Williamson
In terms of harbingers of the apocalypse, it isnt exactly dogs and cats living together or John Bolton exchanging facial-hair-grooming tips over sugary mint tea with ayatollahs, but, brace yourselves: Texas is facing a projected budget deficit. I know, I know: horrors, right?
Paul Krugman is practically rubbing his hands together with glee like some thin-mustached and top-hatted melodrama villain: Bwahahaha! If Texas goes down, conservative economics goes down with it!I shall rule the world! Look for the usual liberal snots to be talking up the story: Texas is finished, baby!
Keep your pants on, professor. Texas is not going to have a budget shortfall.
Texass present situation is not exactly unprecedented. It happens in Texas from time to time: You have a state with no income tax, property taxes assessed at the local level (where the taxpayers are apt to fire the taxspenders), and very little else, revenue-wise Texas has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country which leaves the state sales tax and the 1-percent franchise tax, which is a fancy way of saying a weird little business-revenue tax on firms with more than $1 million in sales. (Hey, New Jersey: Howd you like to trade your current state-tax burden for a 1-percent business tax and a 6.25 percent sales tax? You get most of the nations new jobs in the deal, too.) So, moneys always tight for Lone Star State government, and lots of Texans kind of like it like that.
But Texas, despite its small-government reputation, is not exactly Galts Gulch youve still got to pay those menacing state troopers and the surly fat lady down at the DMV, etc. On top of all that, Texas has a boomier-bustier economy than most other states do, mostly because of the outsize role the oil business plays in the economy, and hence in the tax-revenue stream.
Ergo, the occasional shortfall projection.
Except that Texas doesnt do shortfalls. Texas starts from scratch: Every year is basically Year Zero when it comes to the state budget there is no assumption that next years funding will match or exceed this years, and the states constitution explicitly forbids any legislature to tie the hands of a subsequent legislature, financially or otherwise. When necessary, Texas implements zero-baseline budgets, in order to keep the state living within its means, even if Paul Krugman thinks it beastly.
Rick Perry established a pretty good standard for gubernatorial brass-dangling the last time there was a projected budget shortfall, in 2003. Governor Perry and his colleagues in the Texas legislature took a radical right-wing approach to government budgeting, inasmuch as they started by asking: How much money do we have? (Insane, right?) After they figured out how much money they were going to have, they then decided how to divvy it up, in total and radical and right-wingish contravention of the Washington model of budgeting, which goes: Spend everything you have, spend everything you can borrow, and then spend some more, regardless of how much you actually have to spend. And then spend some more; repeat. Which is totally how James Madison wanted it, I am sure.
In 2003, Governor Perry and Texas Republicans took the states budget baseline to zero, and told state agencies to write new budgets, based on what they actually needed to spend to accomplish their missions, rather than based on increasing by 3 percent or 4 percent or 30 percent or 40 percent what they spent last year. And the Republicans handled the politics pretty well: Instead of calling state agency chiefs down to the legislature to be dressed down by pompous elected types or denouncing them from the governors office, they had a bunch of what must have been drearily tedious private meetings with them, and helped them to sweat their budgets down in a rigorous but respectful way. It worked. Texas balanced the books, and the place does not look like Afghanistan.
Republicans like to brag that they balanced the budget with no tax increases, which is almost true (some fees and such went up, and some new ones were created). The franchise tax, which had originally kicked in at around $300,000 in revenue but had been pushed up to $1 million, is coming back down to a $600,000 threshold. Its a tax increase, but its not much of one. If congressional Republicans in D.C. performed as well as Republicans in Austin, wed be pinning medals on their chests.
Texass low-B.S. approach has had some salubrious effects, as Ive documented here and here. It also left Texas with surpluses that allowed the state to put about $10 billion in its rainy-day fund, which could come in handy now that the economy seems to be clouding up a little. Could, but probably wont: Republicans plan to introduce a budget that comes in within current revenue without touching the rainy-day fund. Get your head around that: Theres a multibillion-dollar pot of cash sitting there in front of politicians who must be just slavering inside at the thought of it, and they arent going to touch it even though they have a pretty good excuse. Imagine a Congress that could do that.
They havent delivered yet, but Perrys Republicans did the stand-up thing last time around and reaped the rewards. Expect them to do it again.
And it may not be all that hard: Pace Krugman et al., Texass potential shortfall probably is not $25 billion. The inside guys talk about $11 billion to $15 billion, spread out over a two-year budget. (Texas writes one budget every two years, and has a legislature that meets every two years.) Even the liberal bedwetters over at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities expect the budget hole to amount to about 10 percent of the whole enchilada, as compared to more than 50 percent in basketcase California.
Of that $11$15 billion, about $8 billion will be Medicaid and that is the real budget problem faced by Texas and many other states. Rules changes associated with Obamacare will add about 71 percent to Texass Medicaid expenses over the first ten years of implementation thats Texass out-of-pocket expense, not money that the feds reimburse under Medicaid an increase that quite literally threatens to bankrupt the state. Analysts predict that Medicaid expenses could outstrip all state revenue within a few decades meaning that Texas could not pay its Medicaid expenses, even if it dedicated 100 percent of its tax revenue to them. That is going to have to change, and Im going to bet that Texas has better ideas for fixing that problem than Paul Krugman does.
Texas doesnt need a new tax to fix it; it aint broke.
UPDATE: A reader points out something I should have pointed out:
Krugman points to our middlin unemployment rate, saying its about the same as the unemployment rate in New York or Massachusetts.
Well, that is true. But he forgets one thing. Texas has a 7.9% unemployment rate after a net inflow of 1.78 million job seekers and their families over the last ten years, while New Yorks 8% unemployment rate come after 847,000 people left the state.
If Mr. Krugman would look at the data with a more discerning eye, hed realize how amazing this statistic is.
Indeed, it is. I also winced a little at Krugmans assertion that Texas has to create lots of jobs just to keep up with all the people moving there. Why does the good professor think people are moving there in the first place? Ballet Lubbock is great and all, but I suspect its the jobs
No, Paul Krugman, Texas Is Not Broke
January 7, 2011 2:37 P.M.
By Kevin D. Williamson
In terms of harbingers of the apocalypse, it isnt exactly dogs and cats living together or John Bolton exchanging facial-hair-grooming tips over sugary mint tea with ayatollahs, but, brace yourselves: Texas is facing a projected budget deficit. I know, I know: horrors, right?
Paul Krugman is practically rubbing his hands together with glee like some thin-mustached and top-hatted melodrama villain: Bwahahaha! If Texas goes down, conservative economics goes down with it!I shall rule the world! Look for the usual liberal snots to be talking up the story: Texas is finished, baby!
Keep your pants on, professor. Texas is not going to have a budget shortfall.
Texass present situation is not exactly unprecedented. It happens in Texas from time to time: You have a state with no income tax, property taxes assessed at the local level (where the taxpayers are apt to fire the taxspenders), and very little else, revenue-wise Texas has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country which leaves the state sales tax and the 1-percent franchise tax, which is a fancy way of saying a weird little business-revenue tax on firms with more than $1 million in sales. (Hey, New Jersey: Howd you like to trade your current state-tax burden for a 1-percent business tax and a 6.25 percent sales tax? You get most of the nations new jobs in the deal, too.) So, moneys always tight for Lone Star State government, and lots of Texans kind of like it like that.
But Texas, despite its small-government reputation, is not exactly Galts Gulch youve still got to pay those menacing state troopers and the surly fat lady down at the DMV, etc. On top of all that, Texas has a boomier-bustier economy than most other states do, mostly because of the outsize role the oil business plays in the economy, and hence in the tax-revenue stream.
Ergo, the occasional shortfall projection.
Except that Texas doesnt do shortfalls. Texas starts from scratch: Every year is basically Year Zero when it comes to the state budget there is no assumption that next years funding will match or exceed this years, and the states constitution explicitly forbids any legislature to tie the hands of a subsequent legislature, financially or otherwise. When necessary, Texas implements zero-baseline budgets, in order to keep the state living within its means, even if Paul Krugman thinks it beastly.
Rick Perry established a pretty good standard for gubernatorial brass-dangling the last time there was a projected budget shortfall, in 2003. Governor Perry and his colleagues in the Texas legislature took a radical right-wing approach to government budgeting, inasmuch as they started by asking: How much money do we have? (Insane, right?) After they figured out how much money they were going to have, they then decided how to divvy it up, in total and radical and right-wingish contravention of the Washington model of budgeting, which goes: Spend everything you have, spend everything you can borrow, and then spend some more, regardless of how much you actually have to spend. And then spend some more; repeat. Which is totally how James Madison wanted it, I am sure.
In 2003, Governor Perry and Texas Republicans took the states budget baseline to zero, and told state agencies to write new budgets, based on what they actually needed to spend to accomplish their missions, rather than based on increasing by 3 percent or 4 percent or 30 percent or 40 percent what they spent last year. And the Republicans handled the politics pretty well: Instead of calling state agency chiefs down to the legislature to be dressed down by pompous elected types or denouncing them from the governors office, they had a bunch of what must have been drearily tedious private meetings with them, and helped them to sweat their budgets down in a rigorous but respectful way. It worked. Texas balanced the books, and the place does not look like Afghanistan.
Republicans like to brag that they balanced the budget with no tax increases, which is almost true (some fees and such went up, and some new ones were created). The franchise tax, which had originally kicked in at around $300,000 in revenue but had been pushed up to $1 million, is coming back down to a $600,000 threshold. Its a tax increase, but its not much of one. If congressional Republicans in D.C. performed as well as Republicans in Austin, wed be pinning medals on their chests.
Texass low-B.S. approach has had some salubrious effects, as Ive documented here and here. It also left Texas with surpluses that allowed the state to put about $10 billion in its rainy-day fund, which could come in handy now that the economy seems to be clouding up a little. Could, but probably wont: Republicans plan to introduce a budget that comes in within current revenue without touching the rainy-day fund. Get your head around that: Theres a multibillion-dollar pot of cash sitting there in front of politicians who must be just slavering inside at the thought of it, and they arent going to touch it even though they have a pretty good excuse. Imagine a Congress that could do that.
They havent delivered yet, but Perrys Republicans did the stand-up thing last time around and reaped the rewards. Expect them to do it again.
And it may not be all that hard: Pace Krugman et al., Texass potential shortfall probably is not $25 billion. The inside guys talk about $11 billion to $15 billion, spread out over a two-year budget. (Texas writes one budget every two years, and has a legislature that meets every two years.) Even the liberal bedwetters over at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities expect the budget hole to amount to about 10 percent of the whole enchilada, as compared to more than 50 percent in basketcase California.
Of that $11$15 billion, about $8 billion will be Medicaid and that is the real budget problem faced by Texas and many other states. Rules changes associated with Obamacare will add about 71 percent to Texass Medicaid expenses over the first ten years of implementation thats Texass out-of-pocket expense, not money that the feds reimburse under Medicaid an increase that quite literally threatens to bankrupt the state. Analysts predict that Medicaid expenses could outstrip all state revenue within a few decades meaning that Texas could not pay its Medicaid expenses, even if it dedicated 100 percent of its tax revenue to them. That is going to have to change, and Im going to bet that Texas has better ideas for fixing that problem than Paul Krugman does.
Texas doesnt need a new tax to fix it; it aint broke.
UPDATE: A reader points out something I should have pointed out:
Krugman points to our middlin unemployment rate, saying its about the same as the unemployment rate in New York or Massachusetts.
Well, that is true. But he forgets one thing. Texas has a 7.9% unemployment rate after a net inflow of 1.78 million job seekers and their families over the last ten years, while New Yorks 8% unemployment rate come after 847,000 people left the state.
If Mr. Krugman would look at the data with a more discerning eye, hed realize how amazing this statistic is.
Indeed, it is. I also winced a little at Krugmans assertion that Texas has to create lots of jobs just to keep up with all the people moving there. Why does the good professor think people are moving there in the first place? Ballet Lubbock is great and all, but I suspect its the jobs
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
What does the state have to do with Medicare, a federal program?
States are given matching funds from the feds to do so, but are states mandated to provide Medicaid?
Buzzzzz!
CA and NY are slightly on *par with Texas in terms of graduation rates. NJ is ahead of all 3.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010341.pdf
(*2007-2008 Report used in June 2010 NY Times article on the subject.)
Edit: The highest state was WI with an 89% graduation rate. Nevada and DC were shitastic at 51% and 56%.
Last edited:
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Very good article. Hopefully Krugman will never get the chance to give Texas the same professional expertise he sold Enron.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Spacejamz, that opinion laden partisan piece just goes to show what the rest of the country knows: Texas should start it's own Olympics...vertical bullshit stacking.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Hey, not every journalist can be Krugman. Most of them have integrity and logic and frontal lobes and such that make Krugman-emulation impossible.
Besides, your plan is impractical; Texas is too big and has too few progressives to stack them vertically.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
My mistake about Medicare.
I do believe states are mandated to provide Medicaid, but their rules on who qualifies etc varies. One of the big complaints by states about Obamacare concerns Medicaid. If I understand correctly, Obamacare will make the less generous Medicaid states increase their coverage at (eventually) great expense to the state. I say "eventually" because the HC bill initially has the feds giving big bucks to help cover the states' costs, but that's only for a limited period
Fern
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Go google some other reports etc on the Texas situation. It will become clear Krugman is playing 'chicken little' for his his own partisan reasons.
Fern
CrackRabbit
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2001
- 16,642
- 62
- 91
Ever roll down your windows or turn off the A/C recirculator?
To answer your question, I lived there for 23 years and I visit fairly often. Been just about everywhere in the state.
Would you rather pay a 2-3% tax on a $200,000 mini McMansion or pay a 1% tax for the same house selling for $750,000 to $1+ million in California or New York?
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-living-calculator.aspx
How is paying a 1% property tax on a house worth $600,000 any different from paying 2-3% on the same exact house worth $200,000 in Texas?
Texas also doesn't have any income tax.
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Nope and that's why Texas is going to start looking at their own co-op and getting out of Medicaid altogether.
Last edited:
CPA
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 30,322
- 4
- 0
Are you that moronic or did you not read the article. How is "starts with a zero baseline budget" an opinion?
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,286
- 12,849
- 136
this. i was about to say "look at DC" but i see JS80 has preempted me by quite a bit
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 397
Facebook
Twitter