The Texas budget is in big trouble. Any thoughts from conservatives?

[quote name='UncleBob']Here in Illinois, they're promoting a "temporary" increase of the state income tax - almost doubling it. Yay.[/QUOTE]

I suspect that's a policy you don't particularly like. What would you prefer instead?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I suspect that's a policy you don't particularly like. What would you prefer instead?[/QUOTE]

I liked my idea to have Indiana annex my border county into their state, but I couldn't get much support around it. :D

The obvious answer is "cut spending". Where? Not 100% sure. But, apparently, neither are our state lawmakers, as the only ideas they have are:

Raise personal income taxes.
Raise corporate income taxes (to what will be the highest state in the union).
Raise the cigarette tax.
Require websites play taxman. (Amazon.com has already announced that they will cancel their affiliate program in Illinois if Quinn signs the legislation. In 2009, Illinois residents paid $18 million in state income tax from Amazon.com affiliate earnings alone. $18 Million - gone.)

Taxes, taxes, taxes - that's all these politicians can come up with. Because us border counties don't lose enough business to Indiana and Missouri as it is.

One thing that seems to come up in conversation quite a bit is our state pension system. It's apparently one of the most generous in the country - and severely underfunded. There's been efforts to reshape the system so that new employees coming will receive benefits more in line with what's comparable from the rest of the country - while not taking away anything from those already in the system - but that idea has been fought tooth and nail.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Taxes, taxes, taxes - that's all these politicians can come up with. Because us border counties don't lose enough business to Indiana and Missouri as it is.[/QUOTE]

You work at Walmart, why do you care?
 
[quote name='camoor']You work at Walmart, why do you care?[/QUOTE]

A) Because I have friends and family members who don't work at Walmart.
B) Because the more jobs we have available, the less people who will need various forms of handouts (funded by our already stretched tax dollars).
C) Because I enjoy doing business at places besides Walmart and don't much enjoy driving an hour to do so (which, of course, also takes more money out of the Illinois tax system).
D) Because the more local people who have money, the more they'll be able to spend at my Walmart, giving me a bigger bonus, allowing my store to spend more on payroll and hire more people.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A) Because I have friends and family members who don't work at Walmart.[/QUOTE]

maybe they should?

[quote name='UncleBob']B) Because the more jobs we have available, the less people who will need various forms of handouts (funded by our already stretched tax dollars).[/QUOTE]

build more walmarts?

[quote name='UncleBob']C) Because I enjoy doing business at places besides Walmart and don't much enjoy driving an hour to do so (which, of course, also takes more money out of the Illinois tax system).[/QUOTE]

what? how can you be such a traitor to a company, no, family, that has given you everything that you have???

[quote name='UncleBob']D) Because the more local people who have money, the more they'll be able to spend at my Walmart, giving me a bigger bonus, allowing my store to spend more on payroll and hire more people.[/QUOTE]

but if they build more walmarts, that will give more people more money, who will spend it at walmart, which enables walmart to build more walmarts where people can work

...

what's the problem again?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']maybe they should?
build more walmarts?
what? how can you be such a traitor to a company, no, family, that has given you everything that you have???
but if they build more walmarts, that will give more people more money, who will spend it at walmart, which enables walmart to build more walmarts where people can work
...
what's the problem again?[/QUOTE]

What a helpful, insightful, meaningful, wonderful post you've added to the conversation. Thanks!
 
It was better than praying that Indiana would annex your county.

You could always do what I did and move from Illinois to Indiana.... I know it's hard to imagine moving a whole thirty minutes away but, hear me out. You could stop bitching about high taxes and work for a Wal-Mart in Evansville or Princeton.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It was better than praying that Indiana would annex your county.

You could always do what I did and move from Illinois to Indiana.... I know it's hard to imagine moving a whole thirty minutes away but, hear me out. You could stop bitching about high taxes and work for a Wal-Mart in Evansville or Princeton.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I've worked for two of the three stores in Evansville and the store in Princeton. Really enjoyed the store in Princeton.

But, alas, moving from Illinois to Indiana doesn't help my friends and neighbors here in the area.
 
It's like when you buy a car and then all you see on the road is your car. Now all I'm seeing is Illinois news. I'm really stoked that Illinois chose the tax increase only (basically) route. Now we have Texas who will only cut services, Illinois that only raised taxes, and California that did both. Obviously there's a shit ton of externalities that can affect the outcomes of each (population, economic base, etc) but I'm still really interested to see how each comes out.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']maybe they should?



build more walmarts?



what? how can you be such a traitor to a company, no, family, that has given you everything that you have???



but if they build more walmarts, that will give more people more money, who will spend it at walmart, which enables walmart to build more walmarts where people can work

...

what's the problem again?[/QUOTE]

:lol:
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's like when you buy a car and then all you see on the road is your car. Now all I'm seeing is Illinois news. I'm really stoked that Illinois chose the tax increase only (basically) route. Now we have Texas who will only cut services, Illinois that only raised taxes, and California that did both. Obviously there's a shit ton of externalities that can affect the outcomes of each (population, economic base, etc) but I'm still really interested to see how each comes out.[/QUOTE]

Should be interesting. We need that Jackson/Popcorn .gif.
Probably the main reason you're hearing about Illinois is because of the amount of the tax increase.
 
Has anyone given thought to the fact that one of the reasons Texas even joined the union was because of it's debt following independence from Mexico?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/texas-school-budget-cuts_n_811039.html

Some excerpts.

Public education in Texas is facing billions in proposed budget cuts that would include slashing arts education, pre-kindergarten programs and teacher incentive pay as lawmakers take on a massive deficit with the promise of no new taxes.

But the budget does propose millions of dollars in new fees. For instance, state employees and retirees who smoke would pay a $30-a-month "tobacco user monthly premium surcharge" and the attorney general's office would charge an "annual child support service fee," a "monthly child support processing fee" and an "electronic filing of documents fee."

It would shutter four community colleges and generally eliminate financial aid for incoming freshmen and new students. The Texas Grants scholarship program would drop by more than 70,000 students over the next two years.


The proposal also would reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percent for physicians, hospitals and nursing homes that participate in Medicaid – a decrease that could eventually dry up participation in the health care program for poor and disabled Texans. In all, $2.3 billion would be cut from Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program and other health and human services.


The plan would eliminate 9,600 state jobs over the next two years, including more than 1,500 jobs in the prison system. The Department of Criminal Justice faces $459 million in cuts, including a 14 percent reduction in psychiatric and pharmacy care for inmates.

The proposal would make public school finance reform legislation almost inevitable. It also would mean about 100,000 children would no longer have access to pre-kindergarten, schools won't get help building new science labs and would end a program that helps students earn promotion to the next grade.


The state's contributions to the state employee retirement fund would be reduced from 6.95 percent to 6 percent, less than what is needed to maintain the fund, according the Legislative Budget Board. The base budget proposes a similar cut in contributions to the Teacher Retirement Fund.
Click to expand...

Apparently Texas' big plan is to cut school funding and add fees
 
I've never gotten the feeling they cared much about education. I mean do we really need to pull out the thread on textbook revisions?
 
Isn't the IL tax increase from 3% to 5%? Could be wrong on this one, but I think that's still less than Wisconsin's.
 
I believe the correct term in the Queen's English is "proper fucked".

jpmc-pwm-newsletter.png
 
Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.
Click to expand...

This might be the same as what Msut posted, but its worth posting.

Fed up indeed.
 
[quote name='IRHari']This might be the same as what Msut posted, but its worth posting.

Fed up indeed.[/QUOTE]

What did California and Illinois do with all their Stimulus money in comparison?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']What did California and Illinois do with all their Stimulus money in comparison?[/QUOTE]

I can tell you they didn't use it to bluster about secession.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Looks like someone is taking depascal's suggestion to leave the state to heart.[/QUOTE]

I can't describe how fucking angry that article made me. Specifically these parts

"I could absorb this and adapt, but it doesn't feel good in my soul to make it happen," Liautaud said.

Liautaud said he has been contacted by "multiple pro-business states" that made him feel "wanted and important."

"I enjoy being courted and the process," he said.

Liautaud also lashed out at union protesters who demonstrated against a "low-cost" contractor his company is using to build a Jimmy John's in Urbana. That restaurant will provide 30 jobs, he said.

He said he's sick of being "pummeled."

"I'm not sophisticated enough, smart enough or politically correct enough to absorb it all," he said.

Jimmy John's offices occupy 23,000 square feet on Fox Drive, and Liautaud said he had considered buying a 20,000-square-foot building just north of those offices. Those plans went out the window with the tax increase, he said.

He said he also planned to hire 80 more people at the executive level.

With regard to the tax increase, Liautaud criticized the way the Legislature "snuck it through" and called the procedure "sneaky."

When asked whether Illinois could do anything now to change his mind, he said "the state could say they made a mistake" and "apologize."

James North, president of Jimmy John's, echoed many of the same sentiments.

"I absolutely love it here," North said. "But when you do the math, it doesn't add up. Florida looks pretty nice right now."

"I'm not a greedy American pig," Liautaud added. "I'm a hard-working, bread-baking, meat-slicing delivery guy who happens to be immensely successful."
Click to expand...

fuck him. fuck him so hard. I hope he loses every cent he has.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I can tell you they didn't use it to bluster about secession.[/QUOTE]

Political ranting aside, I'm more interested in how the money was actually spent.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Political ranting aside, I'm more interested in how the money was actually spent.[/QUOTE]
The federal government instituted some grants to support state and local programs. I remember two that affected Texas specifically. One was a grant to pay for infrastructure in hurricane zones to shore them up (levees, dikes, waste water systems, the kind of stuff that when they go wrong during a hurricane they cause billions in damage). The idea was that it was cheaper to pay for them now than to let them fail and pay a much bigger bill later. It was a good idea. A classically Keynesian approach to a serious problem and Keynesian thought aside, it really does make good fiscal sense. The other big one was to grant money to states that had plans ready to go to improve student scores. There was some other shit in there (HHS, etc.), but the real money was in those two.

They were both the kind of plan you don't need to look through a political prism to see it's good business. Both plans required detailed plans of why and how the money was going to improve the situation in real terms. Let's be honest here Bob, with so much bullshit coming down the pipe from the feds, actually having a plan of action and success is usually way outside the ability of the typical pork giveaways.

The feds granted the money and Texas immediately cut education and infrastructure budgets by exactly the same amount. We literally straight up pocketed the money. The "problem" ended up being that the President trusted the Governor. God forbid. I guess we should have seen it coming though because even as Perry took the money (this was stimulus money btw), he turned down the money that WAS tied to programs, like unemployment insurance. Of course, he grandstanded all over that shit. From March 2009:
Perry announced he wouldn't accept a half billion dollars from the stimulus package that would've extended unemployment benefits to those without jobs and part time workers in Texas.

"The idea of what Washington is trying to do is force their philosophical idea on the people of the state of Texas," Perry says.
Click to expand...
But then he realized the loophole that would allow him to screw Washington, so he took it (while taking a shot at Obama of course):
A Republican, Perry said ``we will accept the funds ... and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs.'' The letter said he's against using them to expand existing government programs. It did not detail how he wants to use the money.

``I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and I believe (the plan) will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt,'' Perry wrote.

Even with its objections, the letter was a key step toward allowing Texas to get its share of cash to spend.

State leaders were just beginning Wednesday to learn exactly where that money is slated to go, including millions to educate homeless children and help poor families pay for child care.
Click to expand...

So basically everyone else paying a significant percentage of Texas's costs the last two years. Thanks guys! We're your stealth welfare babies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']So basically everyone else paying a significant percentage of Texas's costs the last two years. Thanks guys! We're your stealth welfare babies.[/QUOTE]

So, Texas took the stimulus money, applied it to the proper areas, but then cut state spending in those same areas to use the money elsewhere/save it for a rainy day.

Meanwhile, California and Illinois took the stimulus money, spent it* and kept state spending levels at the same place... and now have no rainy day fund.

Right?

*Funny story here. My sister-in-law (elementary school teacher) was bragging at Christmas about how she and her co-workers were all getting their own iPads, paid for by a grant from the state. Not for school use, but for their own, personal use. If it wasn't the family's big Christmas dinner, I would have questioned this entire thing... but, bleh...
 
[quote name='speedracer']The federal government instituted some grants to support state and local programs. I remember two that affected Texas specifically. One was a grant to pay for infrastructure in hurricane zones to shore them up (levees, dikes, waste water systems, the kind of stuff that when they go wrong during a hurricane they cause billions in damage). The idea was that it was cheaper to pay for them now than to let them fail and pay a much bigger bill later. It was a good idea. A classically Keynesian approach to a serious problem and Keynesian thought aside, it really does make good fiscal sense. The other big one was to grant money to states that had plans ready to go to improve student scores. There was some other shit in there (HHS, etc.), but the real money was in those two.

They were both the kind of plan you don't need to look through a political prism to see it's good business. Both plans required detailed plans of why and how the money was going to improve the situation in real terms. Let's be honest here Bob, with so much bullshit coming down the pipe from the feds, actually having a plan of action and success is usually way outside the ability of the typical pork giveaways.

The feds granted the money and Texas immediately cut education and infrastructure budgets by exactly the same amount. We literally straight up pocketed the money. The "problem" ended up being that the President trusted the Governor. God forbid. I guess we should have seen it coming though because even as Perry took the money (this was stimulus money btw), he turned down the money that WAS tied to programs, like unemployment insurance. Of course, he grandstanded all over that shit. From March 2009:

But then he realized the loophole that would allow him to screw Washington, so he took it (while taking a shot at Obama of course):


So basically everyone else paying a significant percentage of Texas's costs the last two years. Thanks guys! We're your stealth welfare babies.[/QUOTE]


I love it, take actions that neutralize the benefits of the stimulus.

Claim stimulus doesn't work.

:Trollface:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, Texas took the stimulus money, applied it to the proper areas, but then cut state spending in those same areas to use the money elsewhere/save it for a rainy day.

Meanwhile, California and Illinois took the stimulus money, spent it* and kept state spending levels at the same place... and now have no rainy day fund.

Right?
[/QUOTE]

If this isn't the time to use the rainy day fund, I don't know what is. It's pretty much a straight up storm at this point.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, Texas took the stimulus money, applied it to the proper areas, but then cut state spending in those same areas to use the money elsewhere/save it for a rainy day.[/quote]
The state intentionally misrepresented how it was going to use the money in order to deceive the federal government. How do you get from that to "applied it to the proper areas"?

I realize you have a axe to grind, but that's pretty fucking retarded.

[quote name='Msut77']I love it, take actions that neutralize the benefits of the stimulus.

Claim stimulus doesn't work.

Crush Democratic challenger by claiming Texas is billions in surplus (stolen from the stimulus)

Pretend you had no idea when budget comes up 2 months after election and you're $20 billion in the hole

:Trollface:[/QUOTE]
ftfy. Perry. The perfection of the Republican brand.
 
If we're supposed to believe the stimulus didn't work for Texas because the state misused the funds, then why did the stimulus not work in states like Illinois or California either?
 
[quote name='speedracer']Supposed? Take your dishonesty elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

One of the reasons (besides the aforementioned grifting) Texas showed a surplus is that the Texas budget is done every two years. Meaning the positive numbers were from before everything was quite so dire.

Also, I don't think you need to be reminded but a passive-aggressive troll is still a troll.
 
[quote name='Msut77']One of the reasons (besides the aforementioned grifting) Texas showed a surplus is that the Texas budget is done every two years. Meaning the positive numbers were from before everything was quite so dire.[/quote]
I think the coincidence is too great that they just happen to rip off the feds right around the same time the budget was going upside down. The governor's election was between biannual meetings of the legislature and I think they saw it coming. Perry was fighting against arguably the strongest potential challenger in his own party in Hutchinson in the primary and was followed by the strongest Dem candidate in 20 years. A deficit would have delivered victory to Hutchinson without question. Texas has a $9 billion rainy day fund. We refuse to use it because then our politicians can't claim we have a surplus.

Perry is the best politician I've ever seen. He's also the worst governor I've ever seen.
Also, I don't think you need to be reminded but a passive-aggressive troll is still a troll.
Click to expand...
I admit, I kind of enjoy watching it. Bob's ability to slither pivot from argument to argument is really hilarious. He never says anything that actually stands up for a specific issue, he just picks at the edges with platitudes and waits for someone to take the bait. There's no attempt at real information gathering or presentation. He's the Fred Phelps of the board.
[quote name='UncleBob']If we're supposed to believe the stimulus didn't work for Texas because the state misused the funds, then why did the stimulus not work in states like Illinois or California either?[/QUOTE]
Did I not just tell you a couple of days ago that I didn't even know Illinois was in trouble? How then would I know? And aren't you from Illinois? Why wouldn't you then propose why you think it didn't work? And why would I have some particular insight on California?
 
[quote name='speedracer']and why would i have some particular insight on california?[/quote]

because it is a queer loving god hating lieberal paradise!!1!!111!
 
Illinois suffers because of the city of Chicago and township government. Township governments are the secret money drainers in the old Midwest.

Large cities are the biggest reason why states like California and Texas are running short. Like it or not, big cities like New York, Dallas, and Los Angeles take and use more money than they provide in tax base. The result is a rural population in these big states that resent and loathe citizens of big cities.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/education/15texas.html?scp=4&sq=texas&st=cse

Sooooooooooooooooooooooo, state-wide, schools have to cut 7-20% of their staff. One school is putting up advertising space on their website and buses to get some much needed revenue, as well as trying to trademark and license out its school mascot.

Sure is Replicans are super smart fiscal conservatives in here. I'm actually pushing that we eliminate kindergarten as a grade, because fuck kindergartners!

And Rick Perry, in all his infinite Republican wisdom, doesn't want to do any kind of taxes, because taxes r bad and teh gubmnet r dum. And also because "the people spoke in November, they totally want my dick raping their collective rectums."

Largest cuts since World War 2. Since WORLD. WAR. fuckING. 2. I'm half expecting leprosy and small pox outbreaks based on this level of inept fuckitude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Texas A&M cut a swath of people in the last six months, which I find fucking ASTOUNDING given that they have oil reserves that pull in millions every year and a student body of something like 50K (it might be 40K, it might be 60K, I can't remember). Oh, and they build about 4-5 new buildings every year. They fired support staff mostly, but the football team is still goin' strong. Scholarships dropped, and this is after they've been raising tuition for a good while after our state super-smartly did away with regulation. I was at a Fourth of July party with one of the guys that worked for A&M as an IT guy, and for some stupid reason, he literally thought it was Obama's fault. I am not making this up.

So I can't stay for higher education. But when you've got one of the LARGEST schools in the country claiming to have fiscal woes, I don't have a lot of faith in general.

Pretty soon the sororities will have to do car washes for some other reason beyond raising money for week long hangovers in South Padre in March.

Fun anecdote: a few years ago the transportation arm of A&M's infrastructure spent two million to have their name changed. To have. Their. fucking. Name. Changed. So all the signs had to be altered, they had to order new pens, doors had to be repainted, etc etc. They did this "to help our relationship with students." Yeah, because that made us much happier in the face of ridiculous parking tickets.

As for the public schools, I should call my buddy on that. His wife is a teacher and she's been on maternity leave (might be back now, I have no idea). He says every year in August, she gets pushed around for weeks over "we don't know if we'll have enough students in your class." And every year, she ends up being overloaded with students. But she's comparatively new to the people who've been there for decades. I'm sure he'll have plenty to tell me.
 
Gov. Rick Perry, easily re-elected in November, made it clear in his annual speech to lawmakers last week that he regarded raising revenue for schools as out of the question, saying Texas families “sent a pretty clear message with their November votes.” He has also refused to consider using $9.4 billion in a reserve fund to bail out the schools.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe that Texas families said "Yeah, fuck our kids, who needs education".

On a personal level, the school I work for has had a pay increase freeze in effect for a few years. I wouldn't be surprised if it were state wide.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I'm really stoked that Illinois chose the tax increase only (basically) route. Now we have Texas who will only cut services, Illinois that only raised taxes, and California that did both. Obviously there's a shit ton of externalities that can affect the outcomes of each (population, economic base, etc) but I'm still really interested to see how each comes out.[/QUOTE]

The conversation going in the other topic got me thinking about this one.

As Myke pointed out, California has projected a nice surplus of $785 million.

mrsilkunderwear then provided a story showing that Texas has a projected surplus of $8.8 Billion.

I'll let you fine folks google "Illinois budget". I wouldn't want to be accused of providing poor sources.
 
That's because of better-than-expected revenue collections from sales taxes, oil production and vehicle sales taxes.
Click to expand...
From the Texas link.

Just pointing this out as I'm not sure bobby saw it, and it's going to be used in a future post I'm sure. The Texans cut funding for education and raised money, woo yeah!
 
$8 Billion surplus? Sounds great!

Let's not forget that Texas sets its budgets two years at a time, and the last time they met (January 2011), they faced a $27 Billion shortfall. So a remarkable reversal of fortune, but a surplus that should be halved, at the least, to be comparable to other states (do don't do biennial budgets).
 
Clak - I'm on my mobile, so I'll have to ask you to do the research - did Texas actually raise their state sales tax in order to get that increase in funds?
 
[quote name='Clak']From the Texas link.

Just pointing this out as I'm not sure bobby saw it, and it's going to be used in a future post I'm sure. The Texans cut funding for education and raised money, woo yeah![/QUOTE]

Also, oil money.
 
Well yeah, it says that in the link he posted. Am I the only one that finds that sort of thing funny? That he posts things and doesn't seem to read them, or ignores some parts as if they don't exist?

edit- bob that is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top