Monday, February 4, 2013

Texas Gov. Perry blasts CA in new ad

All I can say are four words: NO STATE INCOME TAX.  Here is some of the misleading statements in the article:

While Texas may not charge income or corporate taxes, it still out-taxes California in other ways. Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University, said the Lone Star state gets 55 percent of its total taxes through sales, while California is about 23 percent. California gets 60 percent of its tax revenue from income.

In terms of spending, Texas spends about 15 percent of its income, versus 22 percent in California.

"Some would argue, however, that Texas may be under-investing in education, health care, infrastructure, environment and other elements that could impair the long-run future of the state," Reaser said.

Reaser also said Texas imposes a franchise tax, which accounts for 10 percent of its revenues.

I don't understand what the point is about the 23% of CA taxes through sales vs 55% for Texas.  Texas doesn't have an income tax (I doubt I mentioned this already) and this is a good thing.  We are able to restrict the growth of government by limiting their SOURCES of revenue.  Hence, government grows slowly.

The next paragraph is just gibberish.  If someone understands what this is all about, please tell me.

But this is the really good one:
"Some would argue, however, that Texas may be under-investing in education, health care, infrastructure, environment and other elements that could impair the long-run future of the state," Reaser said.

Education: According to this article, TX is ranked 14th in the nation.  CA is ranked 36th.

Healthcare: If there is one thing you can look at it's where the doctors want to work and that's TX.  In this article (not recent) doctors have flooded into TX since we have passed Tort Reform:
The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.

Now many of the newly arriving doctors are heading to rural or underserved parts of the state. Four new anesthesiologists have headed to Beaumont, for example. Meanwhile, San Antonio has experienced a 52% growth in the number of new doctors.
Infrastructure:  ASCE put out a report in 2012 assessing each state:  CA: C grade  TX: C grade Wow!  Generally, the infrastructure of both states are about the same.  So...what exactly are we deficient in that you aren't?

Environment:  It doesn't take long for you to reach sections of Harris and Galveston County that have massive numbers of refineries and chemical plants.  Just on the east side of the I-610 bridge you can see the orange-yellow glow of tens of thousands of lights lighting up the facilities as far as the eye can see.  I mean, this stuff is CLOSE and the plants are EVERYWHERE.

There are towns that are pretty close to all this where it can get a little stinky now and again.  Pasadena, TX is nicknamed "Stinka-dena".  Every once in a while I'll get just a whiff from where I live (almost in the center of Houston).  But it's really really rare.

Since I work in the chemical industry I know how hard it is to open up a new facility within the confines of Harris County.  For our little plant, it was just out of the question.  It would have taken too long to jump through the hoops.  Air emission regulations are tight and getting permits approved for a new facility takes time.  We're a small-time operation looking to make it big.  But it's just not going to happen here in this area.

So, when I looked to see what cities are considered the most polluted, I was amazed to see Houston was not listed.  So, what cities were listed?

1. Bakersfield, CA<===
2. Visalia, CA<===
3.  Los Angeles, CA<===
4. Phoenix, AR
5. Hanford, CA<===
6. Fresno, CA<===
7. Pittsburgh, PA
8. Birmingham, AL
9. Cincinnati, OH
10. Louisville, KY
11.Modesto, CA<===

So, who exactly is impairing the long term future of a state?  It sure ain't TX!





No comments:

Post a Comment