Anyone read this article? "Texas's love/hate relationship with Washington's money" (Austin: sale, taxi)

[JERiv]

Love it when a totally unrelated national business news website, inadvertedly or not, throws some egg at anyone who's caught being a hypocrite.

Yes, I guess I'm a beliver in "schadenfreude" in some cases...

But only with regards on the egg on face thing, not with regards to the budget shortfall's impact to Texas, which is pretty dang bad.

Texas balanced budget with stimulus money from Washington - Jan. 23, 2011

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs. He vocally opposed the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program to spur the economy and assist cash-strapped states.

Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund.

But he couldn't have done that without a lot of help from ... guess where? Washington.

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"

[MARATA]

Does this mean he's not serious about secession?

[FueledByBlueBell]

He is such a worm.

[hoffdano]

Like most populous states, Texas is a "net donor" to the federal government. That means Texas residents pay more in federal taxes than the feds spend in Texas. It is completely reasonable for Perry to happily accept federal funds. Clearly he prefers any money to be "no strings attached." Again perfectly reasonable since the funding originated in Texas taxpayers.

The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

[verybadgnome]

Texas gets 94 cents on the dollar and California gets 78 so it could be worse. Ironically enough Alaska gets $1.84 while giving their residents dividends for doing nothing but being a resident.

I don't agree that there should be no strings attached. Yes revenues may have originated in state but the taxing authority for income taxes in this case is the Feds so they should have some say how the money is spent. An analogy would be the state portion of sale taxes goes to that level of gov't here in Texas and they can make rules how the cities and counties can use it.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Texas gets 94 cents on the dollar and California gets 78 so it could be worse. Ironically enough Alaska gets $1.84 while giving their residents dividends for doing nothing but being a resident.

I don't agree that there should be no strings attached. Yes revenues may have originated in state but the taxing authority for income taxes in this case is the Feds so they should have some say how the money is spent. An analogy would be the state portion of sale taxes goes to that level of gov't here in Texas and they can make rules how the cities and counties can use it.

The issue is the constitutionality of this. The federal government is not allowed to get involved in things like drinking ages or seatbelt (per the constitution). The way they get around this is by holding back tax dollars until the state implements what the federal government wants.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by Austin97

The issue is the constitutionality of this. The federal government is not allowed to get involved in things like drinking ages or seatbelt (per the constitution). The way they get around this is by holding back tax dollars until the state implements what the federal government wants.

Are you referring to the 10th amendment? I know that old argument but if we held true to that way-too-literal reading of the constitution there would be no FDA, EPA, Interior Dept., Ag. Dept., FBI, CIA, etc. since they weren't explicitly stated in the original constitution. Its a libertarian point of view that I can relate to philosophically but practically speaking its a dead duck.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Texas gets 94 cents on the dollar and California gets 78 so it could be worse. Ironically enough Alaska gets $1.84 while giving their residents dividends for doing nothing but being a resident.

I don't agree that there should be no strings attached. Yes revenues may have originated in state but the taxing authority for income taxes in this case is the Feds so they should have some say how the money is spent. An analogy would be the state portion of sale taxes goes to that level of gov't here in Texas and they can make rules how the cities and counties can use it.

Much of the money the feds "give back" to Texas is of course directly spent in the state (such as military bases, federal employees, etc.). I didn't say the money shouldn't have strings attached - I just said Perry would prefer it that way (as probably any other governor would). If Texas doesn't like the strings, then they can refuse the money in some cases.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Are you referring to the 10th amendment? I know that old argument but if we held true to that way-too-literal reading of the constitution there would be no FDA, EPA, Interior Dept., Ag. Dept., FBI, CIA, etc. since they weren't explicitly stated in the original constitution. Its a libertarian point of view that I can relate to philosophically but practically speaking its a dead duck.

Sounds GREAT. Let's start with the Dept. of Education...

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Texas gets 94 cents on the dollar and California gets 78 so it could be worse. Ironically enough Alaska gets $1.84 while giving their residents dividends for doing nothing but being a resident.

I don't agree that there should be no strings attached. Yes revenues may have originated in state but the taxing authority for income taxes in this case is the Feds so they should have some say how the money is spent. An analogy would be the state portion of sale taxes goes to that level of gov't here in Texas and they can make rules how the cities and counties can use it.

Well, I think we should give our tax dollars to Washington DC with "strings attached". (take that Lloyd Doggett!)

It would be nice for Perry to move to DC - at least it would get him out of Texas.