There’s no point in trying to compare Texas and California, sir:
“Stop messing with Texas!” That was the message Gov. Rick Perry bellowed on election night as he celebrated his victory over Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Republican primary for governor. In his reference to Texas’ anti-littering slogan, Perry was making a point applicable to national as well as Texas politics and addressed to Democratic politicians as well as Republicans.
His point was that the big-government policies of the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leaders are resented and fiercely opposed not just because of their dire fiscal effects but also as an intrusion on voters’ independence and ability to make decisions for themselves.
No one would include Perry on a list of serious presidential candidates, including himself, even in the flush of victory. But in his 10 years as governor, the longest in the state’s history, Texas has been teaching some lessons to which the rest of the nation should pay heed.
They are lessons that are particularly vivid when you contrast Texas, the nation’s second most populous state, with the most populous, California. Both were once Mexican territory, secured for the United States in the 1840s. Both have grown prodigiously over the past half-century. Both have populations that today are about one-third Hispanic.
Wait a minute—what does that have to do with anything? Comparisons between Texas and California cannot simply come down to the 1840s and the number of Hispanic people who chose to live there, can it? How simplified is that?
But they differ vividly in public policy and in their economic progress — or lack of it — over the last decade. California has gone in for big government in a big way. Democrats hold big margins in the legislature largely because affluent voters in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area favor their liberal positions on cultural issues.
Those Democratic majorities have obediently done the bidding of public employee unions to the point that state government faces huge budget deficits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s attempt to reduce the power of the Democratic-union combine with referenda was defeated in 2005 when public employee unions poured $100 million — all originally extracted from taxpayers — into effective TV ads.
Californians have responded by leaving the state. From 2000 to 2009, the Census Bureau estimates, there has been a domestic outflow of 1,509,000 people from California — almost as many as the number of immigrants coming in. Population growth has not been above the national average and, for the first time in history, it appears that California will gain no House seats or electoral votes from the reapportionment following the 2010 census.
For one thing, the people of those states have voted for their interests. Voters in California have chosen their high-services form of government and Texas voters have hung on to their lack of a state income tax and traditionally low services. Employers in both states have thus adjusted what they do for employees, and so have small businesses. One is not better or worse than the other. They are both a reflection of the politics in the state over the last few decades.
You can see the problem with pieces like this—the conclusion that “California Sucks!” is embedded in every aspect of it. But let’s snip away a graphic and run the states head to head:
California and Texas Services Compared
If you think taxes are low in Texas, think again. Property taxes in Texas are notoriously high; property taxes in California are under strict controls thanks to Proposition 13 legislation. Neither is a reliable bellwether for “low taxes” or “sane fiscal policy.” To make a comparison based on that is ludicrous. Neither state is on the same footing or uses the same system. If you look at actual numbers, California and Texas aren’t that far away from each other:
It is estimated by the Tax Foundation that the nation as a whole will pay on average 9.7% of its income in state and local taxes in 2008, down from 9.9% in 2007 primarily because income grew faster than tax collections between 2007 and 2008. This is the latest report the Tax Foundation has issued.
New Jersey residents paid 11.8%, topping the charts. New Yorkers were close behind, paying 11.7%, and Connecticut was third at 11.1%. The top 10 were rounded out by Maryland (10.8%), Hawaii (10.6%), California (10.5%), Ohio (10.4%). Vermont (10.3%), Wisconsin (10.2%) and Rhode Island (10.2%).
Alaskans pay the least, 6.4 percent in 2008, but Nevada is close at 6.6 percent. In four states the residents pay between 7 and 8 percent of their income in state and local taxes: Wyoming (7.0%), Florida (7.4%), New Hampshire (7.6%) and South Dakota (7.9%). Four other states round out the bottom 10: Tennessee (8.3%), Texas (8.4%), Louisiana (8.4%) and Arizona (8.5%).
That amounts to a difference of 2.1% for state and local taxes, which is really not that much money. Given that a family in California has a much wider array of services than a family in Texas, it’s reasonable to conclude that the family in California has had no qualms voting for what they receive; the family in Texas can only wish for such things while continuing to pay more in taxes than families in Florida or New Hampshire.
Simply saying “California Sucks!” over and over again allowed for one of the biggest flim-flams in history, which was the manipulation of energy supplies and costs in order to throw former governor Gray Davis to the wolves. Now, the man had his problems, but was he treated fairly? Or was he a victim of this mindset that says that if you want to live in California and have a relatively high number of services available to you, then you’re choosing the wrong thing? I would put it to you this way—you get the government you vote for, and, in America, you’re entitled to vote your interests. It’s that simple.
At the Federal level, well, what’s the difference there? It’s based on income, and we all pay the same rates. If you choose high-service California over low-service Texas, you seem to be getting a bargain. Thank God you didn’t choose New Jersey, in other words.
There’s a four percent difference in the literacy level of California and Texas, and California wins that footrace. This is double the rate of taxation, and it is an indicator of how much more valuable education is in California than Texas, simply because Texas spends more on it than California. Hence, California certainly does not suck when it comes to helping people reach literacy. With the same number of Hispanics, roughly, one state more than outperforms the other in terms of literacy. I won’t get into quality of life. Whether you prefer Orange County to Bexar County is something you’ll have to argue amongst yourselves.
Rachel Ray’s Magnificent Ass
Monday, March 8, 2010 
