Monday, June 20, 2011

A Tale of Three States

Saturday for me started in California, stopped in Texas, and ended in Indiana. On the flight to Texas, I sat next to a business woman who started in California and moved to Texas for a better business environment.

Texas is of course Tea Party heaven. The legislature only meets once every other year to set a budget. It's really the counties that run their own show. There's no income tax. Not a great place to be poor, I suspect.

California is over-regulated and over-burocracied on every level. The legislature couldn't balance its budget to save its life. Great place to be if you aren't interested in working... ever.

Indiana is somewhere in the middle. I think our welfare system needs massive fixing too. A lot of waste there, but it's not like we have a lot of jobs right now either.

I'll just leave it at that. The contrast just struck me as I was traveling. I'm not in a position to try to fix anything. And I can't imagine any politician having or being able to pass a balanced solution anyway.


Dick Norton said...

There are other good things about Texas. Amazingly, 37% of ALL PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS that have been created since the beginning of the recession have been created in Texas! People are voting with their feet and moving to Texas. Businesses are moving there. The 2010 census has allowed Texas 4 new congressional seats, while other less business friendly states are losing them. All of this points out the wisdom of our founders in creating a republic where competition can flourish between the states and people can be free to employ their entrepreneurial skills which, in turn, provide jobs and employment for people. Our republic is like a laboratory where all kinds of social and financial ideas may be attempted. Some will succeed and some will fail. And the states where successful ideas take root and prove themselves become models for other states to follow. May God help us to keep this wonderful gift intact!

Ken Schenck said...

I hesitate to say it but I tend to agree with you that Texas is much more where the States should be starting in their thinking about the role of government in society. I personally want more in terms of safety nets too, but I want safety nets that empower and motivate rather than ones that seem to encourage stagnation. You all will be surprised to know that I still maintain agreement with Thomas Jefferson, "That government governs best that governs least." The debate is what the best "least" might be.

Anonymous said...

... And yet Texas has a higher unemployment rate than New York or Massachusetts. Plus, Texas tied with Mississippi for the greatest percentage of minimum wage workers. So, while Texas added twice as many jobs as NY, they also have twice as many min-wage jobs as the Empire State. Add in Texas' rankings in education and health and the economic paradise loses a bit of it's luster.

I for one am not ready to sign on to the supposed Texas Miracle. All I am saying is that a state's challenges aren't met by scoring a big number on one chart or another. Policies that favor one area of activity may be a millstone around the neck of another.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Scott F.
Were these state taken with population dicrepancies between NY or Mass. and Texas? and you say that there are more minimum wage jobs, meaning that there is probably a correlation to educational levels and job salaries....

What about the immigrants that populate these States? Are there more uneducated immigrants in Texas? would that be because of Texas bordering another country? How does teaching bi-lingually affect the ability to educate?

The position of States deciding on "local policies" is a good idea, as only the local can know the local and have a vested interest in the local.

Anonymous said...

Texas' success is over blown. Its a great place for the rich to get richer meanwile they cut more and more from the poor and needy who can't just pick up and move to somewhere that isn't so hostile to them. This only helps the rich find cheaper labor and make more money. Makes me wonder if the purpose of Texas is so that eventually businesses no longer feel the need to ship jobs to 3rd world countries because it's now just as cheap to ship them to Texas.

The politics down here are a joke. I really hope Perry doesn't get the Republican nomination for president. Still, if he does at least he won't be able to dodge the media and tough questions this time the way he did in the last election for governor.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Ken did NOT say that he believes "government governs best that governs THE least"!!!

Really, "the poor" is a group identification that tends toward granting rights, above and beyond the individual, just as "Black politics" or "Islamic tolerance" or any other type of group identification factor! This is dividing our country in SO many factions that we can hardly function, because instead of individual's taking responsibility for their own life, the State wants to ensure safety nets all over the "the poor" are ensured housing, healthcares and everything else that should be earned!

We were not founded on the principle of 'entitlement" defined along group lines...!!!

Anonymous said...

Sorry I'm not following you. Are you suggesting that those who are poor and needy are that way because they haven't taken responsibility for their life and that the rich are the ones that have? The rich earned everything they have?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

The "ideal" answer is "yes", that was the basis of private property, individual ambition, and right to pursue one's own interests. Incentives were the "outcomes" of effort/work.

Today, "the poor" have been useful for beaucrats (special interests) to further enlarge our taxes to "provide" for the unfortunate, but corruption abounds, if not consciously, unconsiously, as government has not consience. It is Leviathan! And that was NOT our Founder's "ideal" of individual rights....Look at the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or A.C.O.R.N. tragedies...all collectives tend toward corruption, because there is no accountability to the "lone voice" or "the people".....big business overtakes any little business because of their ability to compete for labor, and give incentives that the small businessman can't afford...It is the small busninessman that are "start ups" that might be productive for a "free market", but will not have a chance if government or big business doesn't get out of the way...

The "poor" are taught that they can make more by doing nothing than taking a minimum wage job and many times such can't afford to because of childcare needs, or other issues that impose themselves on their lives..IT was the system of "compassionate" governing that led to such issues we have today!!!

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry Angie, but I don't understand Libertarianism speak. It's so foreign to me and I have no idea what any of it is based on. I would eventually like to be able to understand it better. Maybe I'll even read your blog to help push me into examining it more especially since it's all the rage these days (and reading things I disagree with makes me want to read more : ).

I do however know there are real people who are poor and real people who are in need. They are already like that and can't go back in time to change how they got into that predicament whether they got themselves into it or were just unlucky in the game of life. These are the people who are receiving less and less help in Texas so we can balance the budget, meanwhile we're "open for business" and business is great. When Texas can be such a great environment for the rich to come to and such a bad place to be poor and in need then that tells me something is up with the political system here.

That's my concern.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

If that is your concern, it is a free country. Make that concern a "cause" or a "purpose" for your life! Then, you can make a difference in the area you have chosen!!