Jump to content


* - - - - 2 votes

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


#61 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 10.2 Years Ago  

Posted 15 January 2011 - 08:30 PM

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?

#62 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.5 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 15 January 2011 - 08:46 PM

Only when wishing we could give them back to Mexico! :D

#63 cindersphere   Running on no sleep CAGiversary!   1618 Posts   Joined 12.2 Years Ago  

cindersphere

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:32 AM

http://www.huffingto...s_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.



Apparently Texas' big plan is to cut school funding and add fees

#64 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 10.2 Years Ago  

Posted 20 January 2011 - 03:37 AM

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?

#65 freeorelse   Not in the Sandbox! CAGiversary!   1009 Posts   Joined 12.5 Years Ago  

freeorelse

Posted 21 January 2011 - 09:55 PM

Give it back to Mexico.

#66 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3816 Posts   Joined 11.0 Years Ago  

Posted 21 January 2011 - 10:42 PM

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.

#67 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 24 January 2011 - 06:55 PM

I believe the correct term in the Queen's English is "proper fucked".

Posted Image

#68 UncleBob  

Posted 24 January 2011 - 11:02 PM

Is this before or after the tax increases?

#69 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.6 Years Ago  

Posted 24 January 2011 - 11:37 PM

http://money.cnn.com...imulus/?cnn=yes

#70 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 10.2 Years Ago  

Posted 25 January 2011 - 12:23 AM

No, don't pay attention to my left hand, focus on the right instead!!!

#71 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3816 Posts   Joined 11.0 Years Ago  

Posted 25 January 2011 - 01:01 AM

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.


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

Fed up indeed.

#72 UncleBob  

Posted 25 January 2011 - 04:01 AM

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

Fed up indeed.


What did California and Illinois do with all their Stimulus money in comparison?

#73 UncleBob  

Posted 25 January 2011 - 05:00 AM

Looks like someone is taking depascal's suggestion to leave the state to heart.

#74 depascal22   Daddy Fat Sacks CAGiversary!   10195 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 26 January 2011 - 08:51 PM

What did California and Illinois do with all their Stimulus money in comparison?


I can tell you they didn't use it to bluster about secession.

#75 Sporadic   done with this site CAGiversary!   9499 Posts   Joined 15.6 Years Ago  

Posted 26 January 2011 - 09:04 PM

Looks like someone is taking depascal's suggestion to leave the state to heart.


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."


Fuck him. Fuck him so hard. I hope he loses every cent he has.

#76 UncleBob  

Posted 27 January 2011 - 05:18 AM

I can tell you they didn't use it to bluster about secession.


Political ranting aside, I'm more interested in how the money was actually spent.

#77 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 27 January 2011 - 01:22 PM

Political ranting aside, I'm more interested in how the money was actually spent.

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.

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.


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

Edited by speedracer, 27 January 2011 - 01:35 PM.


#78 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 10.2 Years Ago  

Posted 27 January 2011 - 02:51 PM

Fuck him, his sandwiches suck compared to Firehouse subs anyway.

#79 UncleBob  

Posted 27 January 2011 - 10:45 PM

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


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...

#80 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.6 Years Ago  

Posted 27 January 2011 - 11:07 PM

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.



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

Claim stimulus doesn't work.

:Trollface:

#81 soulvengeance   Beating dead horses CAGiversary!   4226 Posts   Joined 15.7 Years Ago  

soulvengeance

Posted 27 January 2011 - 11:18 PM

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?


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.

#82 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 28 January 2011 - 02:01 AM

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.

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.

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:

ftfy. Perry. The perfection of the Republican brand.

#83 UncleBob  

Posted 28 January 2011 - 02:55 AM

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?

#84 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 28 January 2011 - 03:00 AM

If we're supposed to believe

Supposed? Take your dishonesty elsewhere.

#85 UncleBob  

Posted 28 January 2011 - 03:02 AM

Great deflection.

#86 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.6 Years Ago  

Posted 28 January 2011 - 09:05 AM

Supposed? Take your dishonesty elsewhere.


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.

#87 speedracer   Banned Banned   3735 Posts   Joined 15.5 Years Ago  

speedracer

Posted 28 January 2011 - 02:36 PM

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

#88 Sporadic   done with this site CAGiversary!   9499 Posts   Joined 15.6 Years Ago  

Posted 28 January 2011 - 06:40 PM

and why would i have some particular insight on california?


because it is a queer loving god hating lieberal paradise!!1!!111!

#89 depascal22   Daddy Fat Sacks CAGiversary!   10195 Posts   Joined 14.0 Years Ago  

Posted 28 January 2011 - 08:59 PM

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.

#90 Strell   LOBSTERS!....IN MY PANTS! CAGiversary!   26583 Posts   Joined 15.7 Years Ago  

Posted 16 February 2011 - 12:46 AM

http://www.nytimes.c...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.

Edited by Strell, 16 February 2011 - 12:58 AM.