Don't waste your vote on either of those two. Doing so will only encourage the Dem and Rep Parties of Texas to give us two more completely unqualified candidates next time around. I voting Green or Liberterian.
But are personal injury trial lawyers the reason the cost of home owners policies have gone up? Versus say TS Alicia? If the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, somehow all of your problems start looking like nails.
Another Anti-Perry ad in my mail today. Am I being targeted or are you all getting these too? I wish they would stop wasting paper trashing each other. It they want to sling mud sling it on the TV and Radio so I can just change the channel.
It's a difficult question. On the one hand you want a balanced budget. On the other hand you already have senior citizens being forced to sell the homes they worked their whole lives to buy so that they can pay the increased property taxes due to wild increases in property values over the last 10 years. An increase in sales taxes would require consent in the form of a statewide referendum. What's left? The problem is that given the fact that the recession has hit Texas very hard, I don't think the right thing to do is increase the tax burden on the citizens. That could needlessly force people out of their homes and/or make necessities more expensive. I don't find that to be a good answer to the problem. I have no doubt that we could recapture a good chunk of the deficit by eliminating waste in every agency. I just don't think we can recapture all of it. Some agencies are going to have to face a budget cut. There are some agencies which I don't want to see face that cut. Like I said...it's a difficult problem.
I understand your point. But Texans pay twice as much for their homeowners coverage as ANY other state. Does Texas generate more claims than California? I doubt it. California had a huge problem with mold as well. Yet we pay twice as much as those in California. It just seems fishy to me. No...I don't think lawyers are the problem. I think blaming everything on lawyers is a simplistic answer to a deep problem. It all starts with the companies themselves. I merely stated what I did in response to a question about how PI lawyers could influence homeowners rates. I never said that I feel it is a huge % of the problem.
I'm either voting for myself, or Darrell Royal. Haven't quite figured that one out yet. I'm a pretty big Democrat, and solidly on the left side of the political spectrum. I don't like Rick Perry, he seems like a stupid pretty boy; that veto crap he pulled with the last legislative session irked me somethin' wicked; and I don't like having my insurance company tell me that I "have a purty mouth". I don't trust Sanchez further than I can throw him, but since he's a midget, that might be pretty far. I think he's a better candidate than Perry, but that's not saying much. I think I would be a better governor than both of them, and I don't think I'd be a very good governor.
The record of Rick Perry in regards to insurance is abominable...especially since I have a doctor in my family. He vetoed the legislation which would have ensured that he would at least be paid when services are rendered. I doubt Sanchez will actually do anything about it either. This is the most important issue facing Texas today...because if the doctors go belly up...it won't matter what healthcare plan we have...there simply won't be any providers there to perform the services.
Ok Batman and Refman, I'm going to answer the no new taxes vs. balance the budget question once and for all. In the context of an economic downturn such as the one we are presently in: 1. Raising taxes imposes a fiscal restraint on the economy. It is the absolute worst policy you can ever dream of implementing when consumer confidence is low and consumer spending is the only thing that is propping up a very unstable economy. In today's ultra-low interest rate environment, monetary policy is a tool that has basically been run dry. We can't take rates much lower than they currently are. Corporate credit spreads are at a relative high (spreads are the difference between the risk free rate (30-yr treasury) and corporate bond interest rates). A floor has been imposed on borrowing costs. Cutting interest rates just isn't going to dramatically affect the economy in the same manner that it used to. In the absence of monetary policy, fiscal policy is the only remaining tool. One way to stimulate demand in a downtrodden economy is to *cut* taxes, thereby increasing purchasing power, confidence, and consumer spending. Raising taxes will further depress consumer spending -- a component of the economy which comprises two-thirds of the U.S. GDP. 2. A balanced budget is NOT always a good thing. What a balanced budget achieves is downward pressure on interest rates. A balanced budget achieves this by reducing the number of treasury bills in circulation (treasuries are used to pay for government debt). This drives up the price of treasuries (through decreased supply), and thereby drives down their yield (yield exhibits an inverse relationship to price). The yield on the treasury is essentially a barometer for borrowing costs. After reading the explanation to point #1 above, you can see that interest rates can't go down much further -- and with the high levels of corporate credit spread, the market isn't granting lower borrowing costs to corporations just because benchmark rates are lower. In times of economic doldrums, the best thing for the economy is to run a budget *deficit*. Automatic stabilizers essentially ensure that this happens, as tax revenues decline (due to lower taxable income), and government outflows increase (due to increased jobless claims). By running a budget deficit, spending increases, which drives demand, and provides an impetus for an economic rebound. Clearly, what is best for this economy is a budget DEFICIT and lower taxes. CASE CLOSED
Trader-- Excellent post!!!! Ultimately we need a balanced budget...but your points on fiscal policy in a recessed economy are right on the money. This is one of the few times that I will concede your CASE CLOSED.
