…and this is a 
For many years now, Texas has been carrying out a great experiment: they've been pursuing Republican policies to a far greater degree than other states, and Texas is therefore a little glimpse into the American future, if we continue as we have. And that future seems prosperous, with a strong pro-business environment fostered by a government that would do anything to help a millionaire.
So why don't I want to live in that future?
It turns out that the price Texas pays to prop up business is paid for with the dreams of children. Happy corporate income reports are gouged out of the next generation's potential for prosperity.
"A sick, uneducated, unskilled work force does not propel a state forward," Garcia writes in the report's preface. "The devastating forecasts depict a Texas that few of us would want to visit, let alone call home."
The bi-annual Texas legislative session opened this month to news of an estimated $27 billion budget shortfall. But even before legislators took their seats in the capitol, Texas lagged every other state in per-capita spending. Before considering budget-cutting proposals, Texas also ranked 50th among states in health care coverage for children, mental health services for children with diagnosed challenges, preventing childhood homelessness, preventing childhood food insecurity, and preventing obesity among adolescent girls, according to the report.
The cumulative impact of previous budget cuts has put Texas children behind the rest of the nation. When compared to children in the rest of the U.S., a Texas child is 93 percent more likely not to have access to health care, 33 percent more likely not to receive mental health care services, 35 percent more likely to grow up poor, and 16 percent more likely to drop out of school. Given that Texas is not a poor state — its citizens' median wealth ranks 27th out of 50 — the dire status of its children is all the more startling.
Texas ranks third among the seven worst states in overall child well-being, according to the advocacy organization Every Child Matters; the other six states are the nation's poorest.
In the area of child protection — a fundamental measurement of child well-being — Texas ranks last again. In the last decade, more children in Texas than in any other state have died as a result of abuse or neglect. The state invests far less in prevention than it does in child welfare services, which are provided after the abuse or neglect has been identified.
I'm glad to hear your banks are doing well, Texas; it's too bad the kids are dying or lacking education, and that your economic well-being isn't benefiting the actual people living in your state, but if the blood and sweat of of the people is needed to grease the Happy Fun Slide of bidness, well, that's what it takes.
You can read the full report here.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
January 27, 2011 9:24 AM
Yet more proof that morality is an expression of enlightened self-interest.
Cheers,
b&
Posted by: Iris
|
January 27, 2011 9:28 AM
Well, you're just a little ray of sunshine this morning, aren't you PZ? :p
Posted by: AmVik
|
January 27, 2011 9:28 AM
Why just girls?Is it because in Texas, the fat boys are needed to play football?
Posted by: Aliasalpha
|
January 27, 2011 9:31 AM
How about a new slogan? "Texas: Our industries are powered by burning hope. But on the plus site, we're carbon neutral!"
Posted by: Zeno
|
January 27, 2011 9:34 AM
Earlier this month, a smug Texan sent a letter to a California newspaper:
I hope his children are okay in their Lone Star paradise.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
January 27, 2011 9:41 AM
Yeah- what the he'll kind of metric is obesity in adolescent girls? That sounds all kinds of creepy.
Posted by: Geds
|
January 27, 2011 9:46 AM
I moved to Texas a year ago because my job was sent to Dallas and it was better to be well employed in Dallas than unemployed in Chicago. I'm a single guy who's not quite 30, so this isn't a problem for me specifically. But I decided immediately that if I ever have kids, I'm getting the hell out of here.
And that was before I found out that they've been lying about the economic situation in this state. I keep saying I'd rather have Rod Blagojevich back than keep Rick Perry as my governor...
Of course in Illinois under Pat Quinn the response to a massive budget crisis was to raise taxes, which is the only sensible response. They're getting excoriated for it because everyone knows that the best thing to do when your state is falling apart is to pretend the sparkle ponies will come to rescue you.
Posted by: footlooseau
|
January 27, 2011 9:52 AM
It's quite frightening really. A lot of Australians tend to see themselves as the down under equivalent of Texans, probably comes from watching too many old John Wayne films, but they are unlikely to pick up on this sort of news and will persist in trying to emulate their favourite "mericans".
I am of an older generation that feels that Australia slavishly follows America and its ways and this news is not at all welcome from this Australian residents perspective.
Posted by: emurgur
|
January 27, 2011 9:54 AM
Typical right-wing hypocrisy...the only time they care about children is BEFORE they are born.
Posted by: raven
|
January 27, 2011 9:56 AM
Texas ranks high in teenage pregnancy as well. This is a key statistic because it correlates and is causal with life long poverty.
Posted by: te24hours
|
January 27, 2011 9:59 AM
"Won't somebody please do something about the children!"
/simpsons.
Posted by: lumbercartel
|
January 27, 2011 10:00 AM
What do you expect from someone named Garcia? She obviously doesn't belong in Texas and should go back to Mexico where she belongs.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
January 27, 2011 10:01 AM
Admittedly, you do need Bieber endorsed calipers.
Always focusing on the negative. Liberals.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
January 27, 2011 10:11 AM
Yeah, but they'll only come if you pretend the right kind of sparkle ponies. Since they haven't shown up in Texas yet, y'all might be accidentally pretending the dreaded Anti-Pony (as prophesied by the Hasbro mystics in their apocalyptic manuals) into existence.
And that way lies badness (not to mention Liberal Aponyists)....
Posted by: AmVik
|
January 27, 2011 10:12 AM
She's probably from, y'know, Texas. There were Garcias there before there were Jacksons. Or lumbercartels.
Idiot.
Posted by: nykos
|
January 27, 2011 10:12 AM
Well, corporate welfare is and will always be a priority to those in power in the US and elsewhere - both Republican and Democrat. Maybe if the US government didn't steal from poor parents in order to bail out inefficient banks and corporations (and reward the failure by helping their CEOs maintain their outrageous incomes), the situation would be different.
It's high time for one law for all and put an end to the legal discrimination of rulers by the ruled. That's why we must strip the politicians and their buddies of their power by downsizing the power and scope of the almighty State.
PS: I don't buy the socialist idea that total strangers will, on average, take better care of children than their own parents. Robert Trivers with his kin selection theory has thoroughly disproved this kind of egalitarian hocus-pocus.
Posted by: JBlilie
|
January 27, 2011 10:14 AM
I've spent a lot of time in Low-Tax States™ and I never want to live in a Low-Tax State™.
I have chosen to live in a high-tax state, with my eyes open, because the quality of life is so much better here! Life is not about how big a pile of money you can retain for yourself.
Posted by: nykos
|
January 27, 2011 10:15 AM
Sorry, I meant "legal discrimination of the ruled, by the rulers"; I am no conservative or corporatist.
Posted by: lumbercartel
|
January 27, 2011 10:15 AM
Once again Poe's Law survives an attempt to falsify it.
Posted by: AmVik
|
January 27, 2011 10:17 AM
So there will be no one to protect the poor and the outnumbered? How will that help?
Texas is a perfect example of why you are wrong. Try reading some non-fiction every once in a while, it's good for you.
Posted by: Holytape
|
January 27, 2011 10:19 AM
My reply to that Paul C who wrote the letter in #6
Dear Paul C,
I am so glad you moved from our state. I know that our state is facing finical bankruptcy, but I can rest assured to know that at least our citizens aren't facing the same kind of moral bankruptcy that you so proudly display. You received a great education at UC Davis, because the citizens of California invested their tax dollars into the system and ultimately into you. Consider it a preemptive bail out. When asked to support other people traveling down the same road you took, you took the coward's way out and ran like hell.
You have to ask yourself a simple question. Look around your office or laboratory. How many of the highly skilled people are from Texas? Texas is nothing more than an economic parasite killing off its host right now. It is taking people that other states have invested in and is not producing its own skilled work force.
But that's okay in your book, because for as long as a selfish leach such as yourself, has his own, then screw everyone and everything else.
Sincerely,
One of the Many Tax Payers Who Helped Pay to Get Your Selfish Ass a Degree from One of the Best University Systems in the World.
P.S. I'm assuming that your a selfish asshole, because I doubt that you could be so stupid to believe that a great system such as the UC system could have been created without a substantial tax base.
P.P.S. Come to think of it, I should have assumed that you were a stupid selfish asshole. My apologies.
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
January 27, 2011 10:19 AM
Interesting.
I'm not sure you could find any Socialist who claims, as a general principle, that "strangers will, on average, take better care of children than their own parents." (Obviously, there are individual exceptions - like, say, a parent who murders their own child - but one needn't be a Socialist to hold that view.)
Can you provide an example of a Socialist who makes this claim?
Posted by: Gaebolga
|
January 27, 2011 10:29 AM
While I'm note sure if AmVik is a Socialist or not, apparently I stand corrected, nykos.
Posted by: Priss
|
January 27, 2011 10:31 AM
I live in South Carolina, nearly as benighted a state as Texas, what with Jim DeMint and Lindsay Graham and on and on. Didn't Jon Stewart call SC the "gift that keeps on giving" for comedy? I have a grown daughter with PKU and she is required to eat a low protein diet her whole life, supplemented with a drinkable formula that has the necessary amino acids and vitamins that are lacking from the diet but that leaves out the one amino acid, phenylalanine, that her body can't process. South Carolina long ago decided that it was a cost saving measure to provide the formula for all the state's PKU patients at no cost rather than pay for the consequences of brain damage if the kids didn't follow the diet. More recently some new therapies have come along that block some phenylalanine from getting to the brain, allowing a somewhat more relaxed diet. SC also provides this therapy at no cost to the patients. Both this therapy (pills that are taken before eating) and the formulas are very expensive, running into several hundred dollars per month per patient. And SC still thinks it's cost effective. My PKU daughter now lives in Texas, where she has found the state provides nothing for people with PKU. She can get coverage through her health insurance, but her deductible for it is high and the copays are high and it only covers her formula, not the pills. So what she does is not drink all of the formula she is supposed to, to make it last longer, and the same with the pills. I'm sure she is suffering some damage from this. Luckily she is an adult so the consequences for her won't be as severe as they would be for Texas's PKU children. I hate to think what families there are suffering. It's a rare day that South Carolina comes off looking good, but this is one of those cases.
Posted by: raven
|
January 27, 2011 10:35 AM
While we are creating strawpeople and torching them.
PS: I don't buy the Libertarian idea that total strangers should, on average, take care of the poor children problem by killing and barbecueing them.
My strawperson can beat up your strawperson.
Something else to leave for the kids. That budget deficet is huge, about the same as California's. They will either have to raise taxes or make the kids pay it. This being Theocratic Texas, the kids will literally end up handing over their lunch money.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
January 27, 2011 10:39 AM
As some one born and raised in this state who has faced directly at least half of the listed problems in that article I say:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
But the important part is that the model is *not* sustainable for an entire country. Being from this particular hellhole I have no concept of what life is like on the other side really for children.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/xaStVywarZ6R9nrlSjv4D8_6GGA0PWmf#765c4
|
January 27, 2011 10:42 AM
I grew up in a low tax state, was educated in a low tax state and started college there. I'm finishing college in a high tax state in an even higher tax area (Northern Virginia). I was WAY behind in science and math when I transferred here and, unfortunately, it shows in my GPA. The excellent education and special education that my son is receiving here is pretty much the only reason we won't move back home. Yes, we could make more money there relative to here since the tax rate is so low, but the benefits of staying here outweigh the benefits (family closeby, a good graduate school with again, family close by to help, more net income, etc...) of moving back home, to South Carolina. I'm pretty sure SC and Texas are in a race to see who can be the worst the fastest.
Squigit
Posted by: Janstince
|
January 27, 2011 10:42 AM
"Texas: Our industries are powered by burning hope. But on the plus site, we're carbon neutral!"
Tell that to the pecan farmers with orchards dying due to the sulfur dioxide emitted from coal plants.
Sigh. I really wish Rick Perry would eat some unregulated barbecue, get rushed to the hospital only to be made to wait in line due to overcrowding, and die an ignominious death surrounded by strangers with no health insurance.
No, no. I don't wish him death. Maybe we should deport him. To Kentucky.
Posted by: nightshadequeen
|
January 27, 2011 10:44 AM
(If my username turns into a googlemess, I'm "nightshadequeen"...not that it matters, 'cause I'm kind of a lurker, mostly...)
The Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science (TAMS) is also getting its budget cut by $1,000,000, which is approx 25%.
...so, yeah, apparently the STEM program that regularly sends kids to MIT/Caltech/other high/ranked (and expensive schools) and also regularly places high in competitions like Intel/Siemens/Goldwater isn't worth it, oh...a sixteen-cent tax on everyone in Texas.
Parents intend on doing the best they can for their children.
Unfortunately for a lot of children, sometimes the path to hell is paved on good intentions.
If parents, say, place a higher priority on a child's soul and brainwash them with creationism, I'd say that hurts the child.
Wait...in other words, the government shouldn't have any power over the people?
...Gosh, even the Articles of Confederation (or the Confederacy) didn't go that far, and look how they fared...
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 27, 2011 10:50 AM
If the children truly cared about their upbringing and well being, they would make sure that they were born to parents who could afford to send them to bible believing private schools and can pay for medical insurance.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 10:57 AM
Which not exactly surprising, it is a bit weird.
Here we have Texas as either dead-last or near dead-last (or "dead"-first?) in health-care.
At the same time, we got one of the top cancer center.
So I guess if you got the money and no children, you'll be fine in Texas.
If not, you're boned.
So... Texas, good retirement state for rich people?
Posted by: Mold
|
January 27, 2011 11:08 AM
Obesity among girls is useful for metrics that include teen pregnancy (a fetus is a parasite and fat is fuel), health care issues (fat people get sick more and die younger), and poverty (poor and fat go together in the US).
Posted by: Geds
|
January 27, 2011 11:10 AM
UberFubarius @31: So I guess if you got the money and no children, you'll be fine in Texas.
If not, you're boned.
So... Texas, good retirement state for rich people?
Hey, like I said, it's working pretty well for me as a 30 year-old with a no kids, no wife, no health problems, and a good job. But since I'm one o' them big city librul yankees it'll catch up to me eventually.
Posted by: Red Weasel
|
January 27, 2011 11:12 AM
I was only in Texas for the fifth grade and it was a blast. Coloring, doing addition and subtraction, Texas history, taking my turn with reading out loud, all honors classes of course. Nothing like repeating 3rd grade to make you feed smart.
Then we moved to Virginia and I went to a private school where I failed every class. "Fractions, what are those? There are other languages other than English and Mexican oh its called Spanish? Hey look a science class. What do we do here?"
It took me some time to get over that but I did recover.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 11:27 AM
@Red Weasel
... Which part of Texas were you in?
Posted by: Arnold T Pants
|
January 27, 2011 11:35 AM
I can already tell you what the response of the typical Texan will be: they will blame it all on the Mexicans. I'm so glad to have moved away from that neo-medieval mess.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/cemAX6cih9TgU2BOcZGfj1yv.Ps-#8fef5
|
January 27, 2011 11:44 AM
Let's just rename Texas as West Alabama and be done with it.
-- Slaughter
Posted by: TriciaG28
|
January 27, 2011 11:55 AM
And I (literally) just booked my ticket for a wee spin over to Fort Worth in March! I sense a few "debates" over pints. Texans have guns, right? Maybe I'll keep my opinions to myself......
Posted by: dartigen
|
January 27, 2011 11:56 AM
The problem seems to be in a lot of places that people have the 'not my problem' mentality about the future.
Anecdata: My parents are virulently against bothering to do anything about climate change. They're both over-50. My mother put it best: 'I won't be here for it, so why should I bother?'
That woman makes me want to tear my hair out some days. And what's scary is so many people think the same way.
Why should Texan adults worry about Texan kids? When the kids are Texan adults, the Texan adults would all be dead anyway.
That mentality sickens me, but it's the sad truth - that for all that people claim this policy or that policy is 'for the children', they actually don't care as long as they stay in office and get their paycheck. After all, they aren't the one who has to watch their child die from a preventable disease because their child can't afford health insurance. They're not the one who has to watch their child with Asperger's sturggle through school and walk out mentally scarred because there's no special education services. They're not the ones who have to face their child when said child can't get into the university they wanted, because they're not educated enough. And ultimately they don't have to watch their child turn into an angry, bitter, resigned cynic because all their dreams were crushed before they even had them.
But try telling them that.
Best way out: leave. Walk away before it crashes and burns, by any means you can. I can tell you this: if the population of Texas suddenly halved in the next year, or even five years, the government there would sit up and take notice.
This is the other form of democracy - voting with your feet.
You have no obligation to stay in Texas. There is no law requiring you to live in Texas. Unless you are in prison, you are free to leave at any time and without any need to justify it to anyone. Economic cirumstances and emotional attachments aside, there is no barrier to leaving.
Get out while you still can.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 11:58 AM
Guess I'm not typical. I blame the people blaming Mexicans. I do blame Mexicans AND Asians for NOT VOTING!Here's another piece of news to crush your hopes and dreasm.
Texas got 4 more representative seats (thanks to population growth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TX2010Results.jpg
Ah damn. Island of reasoning amidst a sea of idiocy...
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 12:05 PM
Um... if you can get enough people to go through with the act of leaving Texas that the population is halved. You can definitely get more then the 50% vote require to ACTUALL CHANGE THINGS! And leaving behind those who can't by economic circumstances. I find that heartless.Posted by: Multicellular
|
January 27, 2011 12:18 PM
His kids are fine. He has money and I'm sure his kids go to a good charter school.
I live in San Antonio. Not only does Texas have the highest repeat teen pregnancy rate in the nation we also have one of the highest rates of children suffering from hunger precisely becuase so many mothers are young and single.
I teach at a community college and at a time when you'd think investing in education would be a top priority by the state to get an educated work force instead you have Gov Goodhair and his babble-thumbing, successionist buddies deciding to cut the higher education budget. Right now four Texas community colleges are on the chopping block (but there is a lot of opposition to this so it may not happen, we hope). In my position I also get to see the end product of a generation of "not left behinds" - for the most part the kids I see are smart but many aren't academically prepared for college. Just yesterday I polled my anatomy and physiology class on how many had taken even high school chemistry and only a few raised their hands.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants
|
January 27, 2011 12:20 PM
@UberFubarius
It's an interesting point you make about leaving. I always get pissed at people threatening to move to Canada if X gets elected or Y doesn't get elected. My case is a little different- I left Texas as a result of military service, and do not find myself eager to return. So do I continue to live in a part of the US that I find to be more enlightened, or do I move back and fight? It's not such an easy choice for me.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 12:27 PM
@Arnold T Pants
That's understandable. I'm mostly pissed at the people you described. You left due to different reason. And you like your new place, and you already paid your "due", so to speak.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
January 27, 2011 12:29 PM
Geographical circumstances and physical fitness aside, there's no barrier to riding a canoe from California to Hawaii.
Posted by: raven
|
January 27, 2011 12:31 PM
This is stealing your children's future so you can live well in the present.
Not uncommon. But if you are going to do that, why bother even having children?
"Yes, we love you very much and we will make sure your future is bleak so we can have a good time today."
Posted by: Alkaloid
|
January 27, 2011 12:31 PM
@UberFubarius
Would it still be heartless if there were efforts made to help people get out who otherwise couldn't on their own resources?
Posted by: drbunsen
|
January 27, 2011 12:35 PM
I see others have pointed this out, but anyway:
That's not a socialist idea. At all.
Posted by: evilDoug
|
January 27, 2011 12:36 PM
Something I've been wondering about for many years now is the extent to which kids notice that they are the victims.
Here in Alberta (which lamentably is something of a Texas North - Canadian capital of the oil idiotsry, with the associated high decibel bullying and whining), the slash and burn approach to deficit reduction of our former provincial premier (equiv to US governor) and his band of ignorant assholes hit education very hard. Teachers took substantial pay cuts and class sizes grew absurdly. Desperately needed new schools were not being built, and existing schools began to suffer from inadequate maintenance budget.
I think one of the problems with getting kids to appreciate the value of education is that it is probably the longest-delayed "gratification" of anything most people will ever do. Keeping up the morale of teachers and students is difficult at the best of times. When the kids start to notice that governments are in essence saying that they are less important than ... well, just about everything, it can only make matters worse.
Posted by: P. Coyle
|
January 27, 2011 12:37 PM
"If I owned Hell and Texas I would rent out Texas and live in Hell." -- Gen. Philip H. Sheridan
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
January 27, 2011 12:38 PM
You were supposed to handwave those away, UberFubarius, thereby allowing all those poor and otherwise disadvantaged people the ability to leave as well.
Posted by: chassoto
|
January 27, 2011 12:40 PM
Our kids aren't necessarily "dying" or "lacking education." We're not doing great, but it's not all that bad. Hyperbole here really emphasizes your jaded attitude towards my state.
That said, I see this as a great experiment that will, if the rest of the US isn't too stupid or blind to see, point out the failure of these very practices. The "Texas Debacle" (née "Texas Miracle") may turn out to be the selective pressure that turns the tides of US fortune. We'll see...
Posted by: NiChrome
|
January 27, 2011 12:43 PM
'Twas ever thus... for me.
Posted by: annbellcamp55
|
January 27, 2011 12:46 PM
I was a teacher in Texas and I can tell you that the problem is not because the schools don't have enough money it is because we had so many illegal immigrant children flooding the system. When a state is required to educate every child who darkens the door without proof of citizenship...well you see the result.
Posted by: Chaos Cryptic
|
January 27, 2011 12:47 PM
Did you read the post? Maybe not your own children, but those of your fellow Texans. It's not hyperbole to call attention to them.Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 27, 2011 12:56 PM
"Bad" is relative. And ranking 50th among American states is bad by any metric you can care to mention.
No sane human in the history of the species has ever believed this.
And by the way, I don't buy the libertarian idea that the best thing for a child is, by definition, whatever the parent decides it to be.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
January 27, 2011 1:00 PM
Well, at least it's not socialism. Imagine if you lived in a society with universal healthcare. I do, and I'm here to warn you about it... you're not denied healthcare just because you don't have money or insurance. Can you imagine the horror that we experience in my country?
Seriously, if your policies help the rich more than the poor, there is something wrong, and you need to change. If you're a Christian, all you have to ask is WWJD? Surely not help the rich and the powerful while kicking on the sick and the poor.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants
|
January 27, 2011 1:13 PM
@annbellcamp55 #54
Like I said: when the going gets tough, the tough blame the Mexicans.
Posted by: kyrahnis
|
January 27, 2011 1:20 PM
The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas
Posted by: Bobby Herbert
|
January 27, 2011 1:28 PM
"Just get up and leave Texas"
"People will vote with their feet"
To the 2nd statement: um... they are, folks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_growth_rate
The vast majority of the high growth states are the states that the pharyngula crew likes to bash as "hellholes".
If Texas was such a crappy place to live then people from other states wouldn't be moving here in such large numbers.
I live in the Austin area. There are TONS of people here that recently moved from other states. They like to talk about how great the state they moved from is... without a hint of irony of course.
Posted by: shonny
|
January 27, 2011 1:29 PM
In this context there is a book I can recommend:
The Spirit Level by Richard Wilson and Kate Pickett - http://www.amazon.com/Spirit-Level-Equality-Societies-Stronger/dp/1608190366/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296152749&sr=1-1
which makes me appreciate all the more that I live in what a all US republicans would term a socialist country, - Norway. Fortunately!
Posted by: ibyea
|
January 27, 2011 1:38 PM
@Bobby Herbert
So,your logic is, people move in to Texas a lot, therefore, Texas does not have horrible statistics on child care?
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
January 27, 2011 1:44 PM
Bobby, surely you recognize that the Austin area is complete unlike the rest of the state.
Posted by: Ganner
|
January 27, 2011 1:49 PM
But the government isn't involved, so we're all better off! Those people left behind DESERVE to be left behind, right? The government would just be propping those lazy worthless kids up instead of letting them fail like they deserve to. Everybody getting their deserved lot in life is God's way. Who is the government to say that someone God predestined to be a loser should be helped at the expense of hardworking people who God loves?
(I hope this is obvious sarcasm, but with Poe's law and whatnot I'll include a disclaimer)
Posted by: Bobby Herbert
|
January 27, 2011 1:55 PM
My point was to the ridiculous statement about people leaving Texas in large numbers... as much as "half the population", as well as the statements about Texas being a horrible place. The 1st statement isn't going to happen (the opposite is happening) and the 2nd is obviously false because people are, in fact, voting with their feet.
Of course Texas has problems. If you would note post #54 regarding a major component of the education problem in Texas you will also see a major component of the child healthcare problem in Texas.
It's not "blaming the Mexicans" to point out that many of the millions of illegal immigrants (as well as legal immigrants and new citizens from foreign countries) in the southwest come to the US poor, uneducated, and unhealthy. It costs a great deal more time and money to increase their welfare that it does the average citizen, obviously.
This is a major problem when in comes to child welfare that is taboo to point out in our hyper politically correct state, even though it is a fact.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 1:57 PM
@Citizen of the Cosmos
Which one?
What Would Jeezus Do
Posted by: Kevin
|
January 27, 2011 1:59 PM
@60...the only problem with your contention is that the states with the highest percentage population growth are the same ones that seem to share a border with Mexico. They're moving UP, not down.
@54...please kill yourself. Today would be fine. Tomorrow at the latest. We do not need more racists in the world, thank you. You are a waste of oxygen. One does not improve society by deliberately forcing the neediest children into a life of ignorance and poverty.
Posted by: Bobby Herbert
|
January 27, 2011 2:01 PM
@truthspeaker
The whole Austin thing is kind of overhyped. The Austin AREA is just like the rest of the state. Parts of downtown are different (not nearly as much anymore, though) and of course you have south of the river Austin, but the parts that are still different are a tiny part of Travis county, even smaller if you count the neighboring counties.
Posted by: Bobby Herbert
|
January 27, 2011 2:09 PM
@ #67
Look at the map in my link in #60. There's an obvious trend in migration in this country, and it's bigger than just the immigration from south of the border.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 2:16 PM
@Kevin #67
Er... doesn't your two response sort of contradict each other.
The first one you're implying the Mexico is a hell-hole worse then Texas (at least, the way people here seems to describe Texas). And yet you're calling #54 a racist because he/she states that people from hell-hole have more trouble in school (could've phrased it better thou).
Posted by: NitricAcid
|
January 27, 2011 2:16 PM
EvilDoug#49
I hear you- as a teacher, I was one of the only people in Alberta in 2002 who simply could not get a job. So I left.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
January 27, 2011 2:28 PM
Especially here in Texas North, where you can be making $100,000 right out of highschool (or earlier) with barely any training whatsoever.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
January 27, 2011 2:50 PM
@Brownian
#72
What kind of job pays $100,000 right out of high school?
Posted by: Sonja
|
January 27, 2011 2:59 PM
Whenever I hear someone in Minnesota complain about state taxes I just say, “South Dakota is right over there; no state income tax; go ahead — nobody's stopping you…”
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
January 27, 2011 3:12 PM
Why did they move, then?
Posted by: Sonja
|
January 27, 2011 3:15 PM
I suspect it's the kind of work that killed my first cousin from Amarillo -- working on pipelines. He died trying to save a coworker who had fallen into a hole dug (out in the middle of nowhere) along the pipelines. They were both killed from inhaling the liquid nitrogen that is used to check the pipes at the bottom of the hole. This was before cell phones so my cousin had no way to call for help.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
January 27, 2011 3:16 PM
Professional football player.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
January 27, 2011 3:23 PM
oh, is that how works? I guess I'm not allowed to say how much the USA sucks compared to Europe just because I now live in the former. wtf sort of reasoning is that? since when do people always get to live where they'd like to live most?Posted by: Geds
|
January 27, 2011 3:24 PM
There are TONS of people here that recently moved from other states. They like to talk about how great the state they moved from is... without a hint of irony of course.
Speaking as an Illinoisian living in Texas who's only been down here for a year...um, I'd much rather be in Chicago right now, thank you very much. Even with the 2% state income tax increase.
Why am I here? Because my job was moved down here and I came with it. Would I be here if there were any other reason? Hell, no.
From a personal perspective, being in a state with no state income tax is fantastic. From a societal perspective, Texas is an absolute mess. This, has a personal cost for me, which causes problems.
I came from a city that sits down every ten years or so, looks at its current condition, its previous growth plans, and then writes up a new plan. The streets are straight and orderly. Zoning makes sense. I now live in Dallas, which I describe as an amoeba. Random crap is plopped down anywhere and everywhere someone says, "Hey, that seems like a good place for a building/road/etc.
Public transportation down here is a joke, too. Why? Because its up to each individual town to come up with the funds to put train lines in and then maintain them. So if you want to build a train from, say, Dallas to, say, DFW airport you have to run it through Irving. If Irving says, "We don't want to put up that kind of money," the train doesn't get built.
There are some things that should really be decided by a centralized authority. Texas doesn't seem to get that.
Meanwhile, Illinois decided that they need to raise more money, so they made an exceptionally unpopular but necessary decision to raise taxes. Oh, also, the Illinois legislature voted to make civil unions legal for gay couples and outlawed the death penalty. So, hell yeah, I'd prefer to be in Chicago right now. There's no irony in that whatsoever.
Posted by: Red McWilliams
|
January 27, 2011 3:37 PM
Regarding illegal immigrants in Texas, doesn't this report indicate that it's a lack of funding, not an overabundance of illegals draining money, that's the source of the terrible treatment of the states' kids? I mean, Texas is middle of the road in per capita income, but at the bottom in money spent on programs for children.
The number of illegals doesn't seem to make that big a difference here; when you spend less on kids than any other state, you spend less on kids than any other state.
Now, if per capita spending was in line with per capita income, and we were still seeing these same results (obesity, pregnancy, poverty etc) perhaps the 'blame the illegals' camp would have a point.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
January 27, 2011 3:49 PM
That's where I was leading.
Texas has attracted a lot of companies there with their business-friendly laws, the same laws that are at the base of this particular blog post. Doesn't mean people are moving to Texas because they think it's a great place to live if they're just following the jobs. Bobby was talking about people who had "recently moved"; I was curious if he knew why.
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
January 27, 2011 3:55 PM
Houstonian here.
No, Red, you aren't missing a thing. I can point to illegal immigrants like my sister-in-law's family (they have since got legal) as examples of immigration success stories. They are now solidly middle class. My own father is a refugee immigrant, though a legal one, and he was also solidly middle class after working up to it from nothing. One thing I can say about Texas cities is that it is easy for immigrants to grab hold and succeed if they play by the rules. I'm not necessarily defending the rules, nor do I claim (anymore) that immigrants who don't succeed are lazy.
My brother and his wife, and my father while he was alive, are Tea-Party-style conservatives who do believe that it's "every man for himself", though. That usually works out in practice to an injured whine of "I don't want other people living off my work." Well, bro, none of us want to be taken advantage of, but the fact remains that a decent, functioning society helps those who need to be helped. Like, for example, children, and the sick.
Signed, someone who would GLADLY move to anywhere in the UK or Europe if only I didn't lack two or three crucial immigration score points.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
January 27, 2011 4:25 PM
Looks like Texas is planning on joining the ranks of libertarian utopias alongside such prosperous, problem-free idyls as... er... Somalia...
Well, at least the Lone Star State doesn't have the same level of gun crime as the world's number one libertarian holiday spot.
Not yet, anyway...
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
January 27, 2011 4:51 PM
No. Teen pregnancy is useful to follow, and the causes of it are good to know, but there is no reason to look at the weight of teenage girls and pregnancy. If anything, overweight makes it more difficult to get pregnant.
I'm not even going to bother to link to studies that show that's not actually a straight causal connection, because I don't have the time and I've done it so many times I'm sick of it. But either way, that has nothing to do with adolescent girls, exclusive of boys.
Again, not exclusive to girls.
Posted by: ericcoxtcu
|
January 27, 2011 5:09 PM
I've read through most of the quotes, and a few hit on why I don't expect much to change. The systems in TX work just fine for people above a certain income level, in particular people who vote. Businesses like TX b/c of low taxes, low regulation, and a friendly legal environment that is likely to get friendlier. This does mean that TX has jobs, though the protections for those working there are poor.
The people hurt the hardest are the poorest, and TX policy makes it pretty clear we don't care about them. I have a decent income, and my kids go to a public charter school. I am dissatisfied with how TX ranks on these indicators, but as long as TX voters preference seems to be for low taxes over services, this is what we will have. Hopefully, more people will begin to get embarrassed.
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
January 27, 2011 5:12 PM
Oh, I am so there with you. I've been dying to move to NZ, but am just a hair short of qualifying. It's maddening.
I admit that one made me laugh out loud. His constant need to fat shame gets in logic's way.
Posted by: csreid
|
January 27, 2011 5:39 PM
From the report:
The wording here makes me think that Texas' boys might not rank as low as Texas' girls. I don't think they looked only at obesity in adolescent girls; rather, they looked at obesity in adolescents in general, and found the statistics for the girls to be more notable.
Posted by: CalliopeJane
|
January 27, 2011 6:03 PM
The people who keep saying "well if it's so bad, why aren't people leaving?" seem to forget that moving takes RESOURCES. Transportation for you, your family and your belongings, a place to live when you get there (with deposit up front), and jobs in the new locale, all while you may be leaving your entire support system of friends and family behind. The people who are most screwed by Texas' policies are the very ones who are least likely to have the necessary resources to move.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 27, 2011 6:24 PM
"Why we should put ourselves out of our way to do anything for posterity, for what has posterity ever done for us?" -Sir Boyle Roche
Posted by: eMel
|
January 27, 2011 7:14 PM
Silly PZ! Clearly, that report has a liberal bias towards the ideals which make America great and is only out to push a socialist agenda onto the great state of Texas which her proud and patriotic citizens have resisted!
/sass
:p
Posted by: gwen.geeslin
|
January 27, 2011 7:15 PM
"Our kids aren't necessarily "dying" or "lacking education." We're not doing great, but it's not all that bad. Hyperbole here really emphasizes your jaded attitude towards my state."
Me and my two kids moved to Dallas from Memphis. My kids, now in high school, often comment about how they're covering material already learned in Tennessee in middle school.
If it weren't for my job, we wouldn't be here, either... I miss trees and water that doesn't taste like mold.
Posted by: Nematoady
|
January 27, 2011 9:30 PM
Yes, Texas is a parasite on the rest of us. Guess how they balanced their budget last year to prevent cuts then?
Texas Is a Welfare Queen
Posted by: Aquaria
|
January 28, 2011 4:50 AM
Bobby, surely you recognize that the Austin area is complete unlike the rest of the state.
I'll take San Antonio, thanks. At least the traffic here is bearable, there's more to do here and the locals have humanity, unlike those ghouls and phonies in Austin. The people there are just flat-out rude.
I've never had as consistently as bad of service outside of California as I've had in Austin. It's bad EVERYWHERE there, with the rudest waiters and clerks of any Texas city, bar none. I've been to low and high and in between, doesn't matter.
I'm trying to think of a time when I've had good service there.
...
...
Can't think of a single time.
Source: My step-sister lives there, so I'm subjected to that dump way too often.
Posted by: Bobby Herbert
|
January 28, 2011 10:06 AM
^ I went to college in San Antonio. It's still my favorite city in Texas. Very, very underrated town.
The comments since I last posted are like talking to the transplants here.
"If it wasn't for my job..."
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
January 28, 2011 10:27 AM
Thanks for refuting your point from #65, Bobby. People are moving to Texas for jobs, not because Texas is a good place to live.
Posted by: Bobby Herbert
|
January 28, 2011 12:34 PM
All these people taking jobs in Texas with guns to their heads...
Urban Texas is probably the best place to live in the country, taking all aspects of life into consideration.
Posted by: gwen.geeslin
|
January 28, 2011 8:22 PM
Bobby says "All these people taking jobs in Texas with guns to their heads..."
Maybe not a gun, but eating is nice. Opportunity knocked and I took it, sure. Cuz I like to eat. It's one of those things that might kill you if you don't do it on a semi-regular basis. Maybe not as fast a a gun would, but still.
Or are you just trolling?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
January 29, 2011 9:39 AM
oh, ok, sorry. I read your question as containing sarcasm, which apparently it didn't. definitely trolling. "no one is forcing you to work at Company X/location Y" is a pretty pathetic libertarian trope, but it's often used by other people who don't understand what it really means to not have a job in the US