Every time I think about moving back, I remind myself that I have kids in school and I'm closer to old than young. This will not end well for Texas...
Rimrocker, I agree with your concern. Overwhelming majorities in any legislative body is a prescription for disaster with caution often being tossed into the wind.
Texas is destroying every other state in job creation. Went to visit a buddy in Austin, he said the city is being invaded by Californians who wrecked their economy.
Allan Ritter is my rep, so I pay attention to him. Except for the 2009 session, when he took an unexpected turn to the left, he has always been one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. He was typically as conservative as the average Republican. His switch to the Republican Party will not affect the make-up of the House at all. Texas will be fine, though. We had robust debate and plenty of competitive elections for the 100 years of single-party Democrat rule, and we became the third-most powerful state in the union. Since the Republicans have taken over, that power has increased even more. I think we can survive a session or two of single-party Republican Party governance.
A supermajority is never a good thing. I'm all for gridlock. Legislatures shouldn't be efficient. They should be slow and deliberate. If there is anything that people of all political views can agree on, it would be that laws often have unintended adverse consequences. And since laws don't expire, I'd rather have a legislature that is very deliberate in what they're making law. In fact, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for all laws to expire on a regular basis. A law that was passed during one generation shouldn't constrain future generations.
Yeah, because there's no healthy compromise between giving the people everything they want without paying for it (California) and leaving everyone to fend completely for themselves because you've gutted every state program so that nobody has to pay that extra few hundred bucks in taxes.
Gotta love that pinata, California. GDP, 2009 CA:TX ratio = 1.65 (and that was a pathetic year for California) Estimated FY 2011 budget gaps: (Statebudgetsolutions.org) TX: official $1.3B (Texas Watchdog, 12/09/10, and Dallas Morning News in October, project $20-25B over next two budget years) CA: official $1.5B (Washington Post, 12/13/10, projects $25B over next two budget years) Current unemployment TX:CA ratio = 0.66 So, um, other than the unemployment figures, I'm not sure how Texas is this amazing paragon of economic health and California is a smoldering ruins. It's a great talking point though, so I'm sure the data won't get in the way of that.
Whatever problems California has aren't because of too many state programs. We also have some great state problems that have helped a lot of people.
Not a huge CA fan, but it's pretty obvious their downward spiral began when Enron and buddies screwed them over in 2000 to the tune of ~$66 billion. The other big issue is housing prices... the geography of Texas (lots of flat land) and the transportation subsidy to exurban growth, both help keep prices below that of other places where location is much more important. The housing bubble was simply not as big in Texas as other states. That fact, and nothing that was a result of policy has made it much easier for Texas to deal with the downturn.
You, along with your liberal comrad in the White House, fail to realize that.... Spoiler JOBS ARE KIND OF A BIG F'ING DEAL, BRAH ....and the unemployment you cited doesn't even factor in all the Californians moving to other states.
BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHA. When confronted with negative data, you default to blaming Enron (how LONG ago was that again, oh yeah, 9 years) and my new favorite, FLAT LAND. FLAT LAND, PEOPLE!! Let's flatten out California to correct this PROBLEM OF NOT ENOUGH FLAT LAND!!! Absolutely comic gold, Comrad
