We agree that a supermajority is never a good thing, but not for the same reasons. Gridlock is not a feasible goal to me because, like you, I want well reasoned law that benefits as many citizens as possible. Supermajorities have a tendency to oppress the superminorities. When all sides of an issue are represented, the people tend to get moderate, non-oppressive laws, whether those laws are center left or center right or, rarely, dead center. Extreme shifts to the extreme left or extreme right are fine for a speedboat but not for our ship of state.
In 2001, the planned budget for the State of CA was about $80 billion. That's roughly equivalent to the current budget of Texas (2010= $85b). In a few short months during that year, they had to pay an unplanned for $20 billion for energy to run state facilities because of the jump in prices, $40 billion to stabilize the energy prices, and another $6 billion to buy extra power during the blackouts. There is no way the State of Texas could throw away 3/4 of a year's budget and not feel the effects for a long time. (Not to mention the political changes that the whole episode started.) And really, if you don't understand the importance of geography, I don't know what to tell you. The geography of Texas has allowed for sprawl to be dominant and has kept housing prices relatively cheap. (Heck, you pass more Taco Cabanas and mega churches between Austin and SA than you pass exits between DC and Boston.) Again, the fact that the housing bubble was not as big in Texas as other states had nothing to do with any policy or some inherent virtue in the hearts of Texans. And by the way, there's an "e" on the end of "comrade." Without it, you just look like you're misspelling Robert Conrad's last name.
These statistics don't portray the entire picture. A typical problem with any statistics. GDP only tells you the volume of production for some period of time. But what good is production if people can't afford to consume? Your GDP figure should also be adjusted for inflation (which you probably know). It would give a clearer picture to include figures concerning Texas and California's imports and exports, which sectors each state specialize in, each state's population, and which sectors of the economy people are employed in. There are a lot of other measures that would probably show marked differences in the two states.
Maybe it is a poor assumption, but wouldn't we have better laws if the legislature had to go through a deliberate bargaining process? Maybe 'gridlock' is the wrong word here. What would you think of have laws expire after some period of time?
Agree. Nothing but the entire picture portrays the entire picture. By showing a few brush strokes, I put the lie to a common oversimplification used on this BBS. Namely, that Texas has a wonderfully healthy economy compared to California. That's not the whole story.
Why should his GDP figure be adjusted for inflation when it's just a ratio between the 2009 GDPs of California and Texas? I don't understand what your point is here.
In somewhat related news, I got a survey call a couple nights ago asking if I supported the Texas legislature legalizing gambling and casinos in Texas as opposed to sending money to Louisiana and other states. I said yes. Galveston could sure use that shot in the arm. Perhaps the legislature can get us some casinos instead of me having to take trips to Louisiana. Rather that tourism money go back through local channels.
There is the potential for different rates of inflation within each state. It is also good to know how much inflation each population is facing. It might even be worthwhile to break down the state into small economic regions to gain a better understanding of what's going on. My whole point is that there is more to consider. B-bob got it, and he clarified the point of his post.
College students who don't come from middle- or upper middle-class families or higher: Good luck with continuing your college education, because these assholes are gonna cut the remaining state funding for Texas higher education. I stayed in Texas because there were so many good and affordable schools here. What a shame.
This does concern me. While I much prefer a Republican super majority to a Democrat one, I also know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Republicans better be careful. They can fix a lot of problems but could easily cause a lot too. If they screw up, they could turn this state back over to the Democrats which would be a disaster IMHO. While Texas is far from perfect, the states that have been controlled by liberal democrats for a long time California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York are in REAL trouble and could face bankruptcy and need bailouts. Allan Ritter is my state rep. and was one of the few Democrats that I voted for. He is generally conservative and has been an excellent representative. I expect him to continue to be a good representative as a Republican and he has locked up my vote for a long time.
So what you are saying is that Texas has hit a similar point as California in terms of budget deficits but still maintains better employment numbers, better cost of living numbers and a better tax situation for its citizens yet you want me to believe Cali isn't worse off?
It's half-time so I will be brief. Deliberate bargaining with give-and-take compromise generally results in the healthiest legislation. I also like sunset laws because the legislature (and Congress) have to revisit them from time to time, which means a forced review their effectiveness is ensured periodically. BTW, with gridlock nothing gets done and that is not healthy for the nation's (or state's) business.
wow. Where do I even begin. A better question is why should I invest the time to educate you? sigh. 1. Kalifornia went about electricity deregulation completely wrong. They left retail price caps but tried to deregulate the wholesale market. Fail. You can thank their idiotic state employees who crafted that turd. The power marketers exploited the hell out of it. To pin the entire Kalifornia energy crisis on Enron is going way too far. 2. Kalifornia also has wide open flat spaces. Ever driven east from LA? What about from Oakland? Plenty of room for sprawl. Land usage restrictions and regulations also contribute to housing price run-ups.
If anyone cares, which I wonder about, whether the horrid job the President did leading his party in the midterm elections had a down ballot impact, simply look to Texas. It was a disaster both for the Democratic Party in this state and for Texans in general, despite the dribble from the usual crowd on the right babbling the usual nonsense (with a few exceptions). Yes, Mr. Obama, you did a fine job of boosting the GOP in Texas right before redistricting and smack in the middle of possibly the worst financial crisis this state has ever experienced. Forget the crap Perry spouted during the election... we are in deep ****. Deep ****, and Barack Obama didn't help things one damn bit. Quite the opposite. No coherent message. Accomplishments the American people, yes, including Texans, knew next to nothing about. Simply outstanding. Groovy. Just far out, people.
I agree with the bolded statement although I would add it is not good for the country either. The Republicans could easily blow there new supermajority by shutting out the Dems much as what we witnessed after the 2008 national elections. The Dems pretty much shut out the Republicans in Washington and it hurt them badly in the midterms. I certainly hope that does not happen in Texas. The new majority should stay just a tiny bit right of the center. If they swing too far to the right the pendulum will swing back hard to the left in the next election.
I live in Nederland. As a matter of fact Ritter used to live about a block from me but recently moved. I have never spoke to him personally, however my brother-in-law used to date his step daughter. My brother-in-law says he is a great guy.
Care to explain their problems? Besides the Enron fiasco and not having enough flat land? So in other wards, as long as you are helping people, unlimited spending is justifiable.
Supermajorities in the state legislature vs congress are very different. While political parties at the state level certainly make a difference, they are no where near as polarized on the federal level. While I could vote for a Democrat candidate for the state, I can not see myself voting Democrat for presidential or congressional candidates as they more often than not vote straight down the party line. State legislatures tend to work for their state vs the career politicians in Washington who are more interested in protecting their parties interests. As long as the supermajorities in the state steer clear of corruption and run away spending, its not that big of an issue. At the end of the day, if you do not like how your state is being ran, you can get up and move to another state. This is why some states, both liberal and conservative, continuously have issues. Unfortunately, when our beloved politicans in Washington pass horrid legislation like the stimulus package and HCR, I do not have the luxury of moving to another country.
