Quinn (IL): If the legislature doesn't raise taxes, I'll push the big red button

[Badger]

As I have pointed out many times, Texas is required to balance its budget each year by the Constitution.  That, more than almost anything else, is the key thing which keeps Texas in passable shape during these situations.  [/quote]

Don't most states have this same balanced budget requirement?

A mandatory balanced budget is quite counter-productive in hard times like these. It forces states to cut spending and/or raise taxes, both of which only exacerbate a recession.

[muon2]

There are so many factors that go into the economy.  For example, Texas is uniquely in position to take advantage of growing, versus shrinking, industries, and has enough space that it's largely unaffected by the housing boost.  I doubt Texas's relative success, compared to similarly sized states, has to primarily to do with a liberal or conservative governments. 
California's liberal special interest groups, as well as conservative ones, and mostly just self-preserving ones without ideology, all ontribute to it being hamstrung by citizen iniatives

Clearly then, you know very little about Texas.  As I have pointed out many times, Texas is required to balance its budget each year by the Constitution.  That, more than almost anything else, is the key thing which keeps Texas in passable shape during these situations.  In other words, Texas has not developed much, except for a basic, safety net (unfunded liabilities); lacks the giant public employee *world of control* that occurs in California (more unfunded liabilities); and refuses to destroy its internal infrastructure (thus allowing it to grow on more than "paper trading", as I like to call it, or inefficient green programs)

Illinois has a similar provision in its Constitution, but it doesn't work. There is a necessary exception that allows bills that arrive just before the end of the fiscal year to be paid in the following fiscal year. This has been routinely abused to push billions of Medicaid bills off one budget and into the next. Bonding causes similar problems across fiscal years.

[Sam Spade]

There are so many factors that go into the economy.  For example, Texas is uniquely in position to take advantage of growing, versus shrinking, industries, and has enough space that it's largely unaffected by the housing boost.  I doubt Texas's relative success, compared to similarly sized states, has to primarily to do with a liberal or conservative governments. 
California's liberal special interest groups, as well as conservative ones, and mostly just self-preserving ones without ideology, all ontribute to it being hamstrung by citizen iniatives

Clearly then, you know very little about Texas.  As I have pointed out many times, Texas is required to balance its budget each year by the Constitution.  That, more than almost anything else, is the key thing which keeps Texas in passable shape during these situations.  In other words, Texas has not developed much, except for a basic, safety net (unfunded liabilities); lacks the giant public employee *world of control* that occurs in California (more unfunded liabilities); and refuses to destroy its internal infrastructure (thus allowing it to grow on more than "paper trading", as I like to call it, or inefficient green programs)

Illinois has a similar provision in its Constitution, but it doesn't work. There is a necessary exception that allows bills that arrive just before the end of the fiscal year to be paid in the following fiscal year. This has been routinely abused to push billions of Medicaid bills off one budget and into the next. Bonding causes similar problems across fiscal years.

The difference, muon2, is that the Texas Constitution's balanced budget requirement (as well as the entire Constitution) is strictly interpreted by the courts.  In other words, it is as if Marbury vs. Madison and McCullough v. Maryland went the other way.  Of course, this flies both ways - in 1989, the Texas constitution was interpreted to require equal funding for public schools - and Robin Hood was born (because you couldn't get around it)

In fact, since the Texas legislature meets in one year for 144 straight days every two years (also strictly mandated by the Constitution), they have to plan a budget for two years in advance.  I think that (but am not quite certain on this point), but if economic conditions change, the governor has to call a special session to deal with the problem. (or the courts would force him to do such)

Also, if it isn't in the Constitution as a power given to the legislature, the legislature cannot pass a law dealing with it.  It's why there are 3500 amendments (it could be up to 5000 now, for all I know) to the Texas Constitution because if the legislature doesn't think it has the power to do X, it must go through the amendment process (2/3rds of the legislature, majority vote of the populace).

[muon2]

There are so many factors that go into the economy.  For example, Texas is uniquely in position to take advantage of growing, versus shrinking, industries, and has enough space that it's largely unaffected by the housing boost.  I doubt Texas's relative success, compared to similarly sized states, has to primarily to do with a liberal or conservative governments. 
California's liberal special interest groups, as well as conservative ones, and mostly just self-preserving ones without ideology, all ontribute to it being hamstrung by citizen iniatives

Clearly then, you know very little about Texas.  As I have pointed out many times, Texas is required to balance its budget each year by the Constitution.  That, more than almost anything else, is the key thing which keeps Texas in passable shape during these situations.  In other words, Texas has not developed much, except for a basic, safety net (unfunded liabilities); lacks the giant public employee *world of control* that occurs in California (more unfunded liabilities); and refuses to destroy its internal infrastructure (thus allowing it to grow on more than "paper trading", as I like to call it, or inefficient green programs)

Illinois has a similar provision in its Constitution, but it doesn't work. There is a necessary exception that allows bills that arrive just before the end of the fiscal year to be paid in the following fiscal year. This has been routinely abused to push billions of Medicaid bills off one budget and into the next. Bonding causes similar problems across fiscal years.

The difference, muon2, is that the Texas Constitution's balanced budget requirement (as well as the entire Constitution) is strictly interpreted by the courts.  In other words, it is as if Marbury vs. Madison and McCullough v. Maryland went the other way.  Of course, this flies both ways - in 1989, the Texas constitution was interpreted to require equal funding for public schools - and Robin Hood was born (because you couldn't get around it)

In fact, since the Texas legislature meets in one year for 144 straight days every two years (also strictly mandated by the Constitution), they have to plan a budget for two years in advance.  I think that (but am not quite certain on this point), but if economic conditions change, the governor has to call a special session to deal with the problem. (or the courts would force him to do such)

Also, if it isn't in the Constitution as a power given to the legislature, the legislature cannot pass a law dealing with it.  It's why there are 3500 amendments (it could be up to 5000 now, for all I know) to the Texas Constitution because if the legislature doesn't think it has the power to do X, it must go through the amendment process (2/3rds of the legislature, majority vote of the populace).

Part of the problem is that often a case won't even be filed to give the courts a chance to rule. In 2008 the Speaker agreed in floor debate that the budget was not balanced by about 2 billion depending on whose estimates you took. He still passed it and sent it to the Gov asking him to make the cuts with his line item veto, even though that doesn't seem to be an option in the IL Constitution. The Gov only cut part of the deficit, but no one filed a lawsuit, so the unconstitutional budget survived.

[Sam Spade]

Well, in Texas, the courts often take the 'proactive' approach.  You don't do it, we're going to step in and make you do it, so long as someone files a lawsuit.  Precisely what happened with the education funding problem back in the day.

Kind of odd, considering the state Texas is supposed to be.

[cinyc]

There's definitely a correlation between how much money a state gets back per dollar and the how many Senators per capita that they have. California would be in much better shape if we weren't giving 25 cents away to states that aren't in the level of deep sh**t that we are: official U3 unemployment rate of well over 11% and a $20 billion deficit after massive spending cuts and tax hikes.

Vote Republican, then.  They'll lower taxes on the so-called "rich", which would help California at the expense of lower-cost, lower-income states.  Yet Californians (and New Yorkers, etc.) seem to always get this wrong and reelect the same Democrats who continuously funnel our tax dollars to the rest of the country.  Go figure.

[Landslide Lyndon]

There's definitely a correlation between how much money a state gets back per dollar and the how many Senators per capita that they have. California would be in much better shape if we weren't giving 25 cents away to states that aren't in the level of deep sh**t that we are: official U3 unemployment rate of well over 11% and a $20 billion deficit after massive spending cuts and tax hikes.

Vote Republican, then.  They'll lower taxes on the so-called "rich", which would help California at the expense of lower-cost, lower-income states.  Yet Californians (and New Yorkers, etc.) seem to always get this wrong and reelect the same Democrats who continuously funnel our tax dollars to the rest of the country.  Go figure.

Ted Stevens and Thad Cochran are Democrats!
Who knew!