Home › Blogs › Cahnman's blog ›

Texas vs. California - #1

Submitted by Cahnman on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 20:05
in

This is going to be a recurring series on the wildy divergent economic performance of Republian Texas and Democrat California the past few years.

On that note, California will be completely broke in less than two months; this still won't stop labor unions from suing the Governor.

Texas, meanwhile, has an $11 billion surplus.

Which model works better?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

The one wilth lots of oil and natural gas.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 22:21.

"In Texas, fiscal 2008 revenues from state taxes based on market prices of oil and gas were $4.1 billion, up from $2.7 billion in 2007, according to the Texas Comptroller's Office. Those collections support the state's largest public funds — Texas public schools and a general fund that provides money for public transportation, health care and other programs." link

 

 

Even if you remove ALL oil & gas tax revenues....

Submitted by St. Louis Conse... on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 22:28.

...Texas is still in the black, with cash to spare.  California also has significant oil & gas production as well, in case you forgot.  I believe California may be right behind Alaska in terms of oil production if I remember correctly.

Funny that NextLeftyTrollNando

Submitted by RedMango on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 22:30.

Texas made money doing what you wackos told the country not to do--exploit petroleum resources.  Now instead of experiencing several years of budget deficits like California, Texas is going to (and has been) experiencing several years of surpluses where no need will be unmet from schools to infrastructure.  It is Texas' sharp CONSERVATIVE financial management that will enable it to spend on claptrap that you progressive so love.  Get the picture here?

Plus, learn math.  If you are insinuating that TXs $11 billion surplus is due to only oil, then you just proved that only $4.1 billion of that is due to oil and gas.  TX will have a surplus with or without oil. 

how rude!

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 10:00.

somehow despite your obstreperousness, I feel compelled to respond.

California is in trouble because of conservative financial deregulation.

Conservative Environmental Policy in Texas would be less drilling. but you knew that.

Greedy Environmental Policy is NOT conservative.

Be Respectful

Submitted by Liberally Conse... on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 13:16.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is a secret leftist spy, or an idiot.

I doubt that anyone would say that drilling for oil wouldn't be profitable. The Left's argument against drilling is that we'll run out of oil eventually, and we need to gradually learn to live without it. Much like if you knew you were going to lose your job since your company was going broke, then you would spend less and save more.

I think that, in general, Democratic states have budget deficits now because they provide the services that they think people need, but are too far Left to be ratified by the US Government, like Massachusetts and universal health care, and now they don't want to get rid of them, since that would be very unpopular, kind of like the situation that the US Government is in with Social Security.

That and conservative states have been very forward-thinking with fiscal conservatism, saving money for a recession, while liberal states have been more reactive.

I For One, Welcome Our RepubliAN Texas Overlords

Submitted by RedMango on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 22:24.

Californian here, and I am SOOO glad that some of my friends and family are turning around to the fact that Californians don't know any better and that its far-left political culture is to blame for its woes. 

In before "But,.but Texas has oil!".  California's largest company is Chevron pal, and yet it's not rolling the dough like Texas.  In fact, by all evidence, California should be better off than TX because of industries not seen in Texas:  entertainment, high-tech, bio-tech, nanotech, stem cell research, and so on. 

You wanna know how bloated CA bureaucracy is?  Click on to this website--http://www.ca.gov/About/Government/agencyindex.html--and just know that not ONE of these agencies are targeted for elimination. 

And the one with lower population density

Submitted by NextRightNando on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 23:00.

CA, 11th most densely populated state with 234 people per square mile; Texas, 26th with 92.1 per sq. mi. Amusingly referred to as "the dirt gap"

The population density list  is actually quite interesting - the red state/blue state trends are so obvious as to not require comment.

 

What does population density have to do.....

Submitted by St. Louis Conse... on Mon, 12/22/2008 - 23:35.

....with the fact that California is $40 billion in debt and Texas is running a surplus?

I'm not commenting on the debt

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 09:52.

The provision of essential services is going to cost them more per capaita, becasue the the costs of providing public services increase with population density.

I've been in "towns" in the midwest where there was nothing but electricity - no water, no sewer (becasue everyone had private wells/acces to their neighbor's well, and every house had a septic tank); no police (they called the county sheriff if a something went amiss), no fire department (relied up the volunteer fire department from much larger town 25 miles away); no trash (people burned their trash in a barrell in their backyard).

Obviously, that is an extrmeme example.  Here is a more formal look at the subject.

Population density has a second major impact - the dirt gap, referenced above.

However, neither of these are the total explantion - but then again, neither is "which party is in power". Have a look at blood-red Georgia. (The state, not the country).

And I wouldn't be too gleeful about the crisis in California, if I were you - what is the party affiliation of the the most famous and powerful politician in that state? California could just as easily be seen by the rest of the country as another case of a Republican executive who can't govern effectively as a case of out of control Dem spending.

correlation does not equal causation.

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 10:06.

the dirt gap article you cite is nonsensical, given that Obama won parents by a good margin.

Rather, you can point to evangelism as the rough determiner of which states are Most Likely to vote Republican. After that, you can point to ruralness. Montana was much more likely to go Democratic than South Carolina.