Texas vs. California Update for February 21, 2013

Another Texas vs. California update! And I don’t even have a line item on how the Houston Rockets picked the Sacramento Kings’ pockets’ in yesterday’s trade.

  • All of TPPF’s Texas vs. California updates in one handy place.
  • California is raising taxes and decreasing services.
  • Mainly because pension funding is crowding out everything else.
  • Good news for California: They got $5 billion more in revenues than they expected in January. The bad news? It was only “an accounting anomaly.”
  • California voters approved a few modest pension reforms last fall. Naturally, unions are sponsoring legislation to have them overturned.
  • Logic: “No amount of legal argument can sidestep the grim numbers facing San Bernardino. The City Council and employee unions alike should recognize a basic fiscal fact: The city will never climb out of bankruptcy without reining in personnel costs.” Unions: You and your oppressive math and logic can die in a fire.
  • Who says California’s high taxes and excessive regulation are driving businesses away? According to The Sacramento Business Journal, 54% of Californians.
  • One reason businesses flock to Texas from California is lawsuit reform. Texas has it, California doesn’t. “For decades, its leaders have consistently pursued policies that promote excessive litigation, making it among the most litigious states. These policies create obstacles for the new and small businesses that drive California’s economy and have allowed abusive lawsuits to delay or halt projects.”
  • The Economist sniffs that Texas’ spending restraint meant the state spent less than the could have. That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.
  • Liberal compares Rick Perry to Stalin because Texas won’t spend as much as liberals think they should. I’m sure we all can agree that was the very worst thing about old Joe Stalin: Fiscal restraint.
  • Tags: , , , , , ,

    One Response to “Texas vs. California Update for February 21, 2013”

    1. Chris C. says:

      As Thomas Sowell pointed out so well in “The Vision of the Anointed”, leftists choose their policy positions based on how “superior” those choices make them feel. Reality and results matter not one bit. Spending other people’s money on feel-good projects? Obviously a superior choice. Being able to stop greedy capitalist pigs from despoiling Mother Gaia with their buildings (and jobs which require more use of internal combustion engines)? Being able to sue for just about any reason is the obviously superior choice. Taking care of our self-sacrificing public servants in their retirement years (that is, after 20 years or so of “service”) with pensions sufficient to their needs? Again, an obviously superior choice. Except that all of these choices result in poverty for the many at the expense of wealth for the few.

      Well, you can guess which act I would prefer to have done to such posturing fools and the horses they rode in on.

    Leave a Reply