Pretty good write up.

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/13886/

Look at Perry's additional analysis

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/12/texa...ornia.html

No state income tax and less resticitive business regulations in Texas go a long way.

But the local property tax and school tax issues have yet to be resolved. Businesses have to be located in the 'burbs to get the maximum advantage.

Here's one reason why this state sucks. But hey, let's raise business taxes to help pay for the welfare recipients and that will force more businesses to leave allowing the welfare roles to grow even more. And let's not forget how much $$$ illegals get.

Edit: Not long after I got to California the state realized they were getting killed on Welfare costs. Welfare recipients from other states were moving here because they found out California pays more than the states they were in. California tried to stop this by only paying them the exact same amount their home state paid but a judge struck it down.

Quote:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Description
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. States and Tribes have broad flexibility to develop and implement TANF programs that meet the following goals:

Provide assistance to needy families;
End the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
Prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
Encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

As of September 2008, the latest available data, there were 3,821,600 people in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program getting government checks while they (in theory) sought to transition from welfare to work.

32 percent were from California! 1,226,362! California has 36.8 million of the nation's 304 million people -- 12 percent. (I'm using this Census Bureau Excel chart for all population figures in this post.) So we have nearly three times the number of people in this welfare program as our state population would suggest.

It only gets more amazing from here. California has more welfare recipients in this program than the next eight states combined! States with a total population of 95.8 million.

1. California -- 1,226,362 recipients -- 36.8 million population
2. New York -- 252,434 recipients -- 19.5 million population
3. Ohio -- 178,652 recipients -- 11.5 million population
4. Michigan -- 154,985 recipients -- 10 million population
5. Tennessee -- 138,744 recipients -- 6.2 million population
6. Washington -- 122,477 recipients -- 6.5 million population
7. Indiana -- 117,987 recipients -- 6.4 million population
8. Texas -- 114,258 recipients -- 24.3 million population
9. Pennsylvania -- 113,826 recipients -- 12.4 million population

(12-02-2009 11:05 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  No state income tax and less resticitive business regulations in Texas go a long way.

But the local property tax and school tax issues have yet to be resolved. Businesses have to be located in the 'burbs to get the maximum advantage.

Property tax and school tax . Oh, you are so right about that. Political Promises are broken on that continually.

Interesting note: I protested the evaluation of my property for tax purposes, like I do every year, got royally screwed when in a down economy with few sales to do mass appraisals with, the HCAD raised my home evaluation 12%. Well at my protest meeting I found out these insidious b@stards started using satellite imagery of my property to increase evaluation seeing what's in my back yard and verifying sq. footage, which they hadn't done before. The HCAD has become such a bloated bureaucracy, it costs more to run it year over year, they cannot afford a decrease in revenue, hence satellite imagery to the rescue.

(12-02-2009 11:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  1. California -- 1,226,362 recipients -- 36.8 million population
2. New York -- 252,434 recipients -- 19.5 million population
3. Ohio -- 178,652 recipients -- 11.5 million population
4. Michigan -- 154,985 recipients -- 10 million population
5. Tennessee -- 138,744 recipients -- 6.2 million population
6. Washington -- 122,477 recipients -- 6.5 million population
7. Indiana -- 117,987 recipients -- 6.4 million population
8. Texas -- 114,258 recipients -- 24.3 million population
9. Pennsylvania -- 113,826 recipients -- 12.4 million population

Now that's some good data. A tip of the hat ... people rarely drag out ugly things like facts around here.

Is TANF the same as welfare? Those numbers can't be correct. I find it hard to believe only 114K people in Texas receive welfare. Good numbers regardless but I think it's a different program??

Interesting article at the top. I do think it's a little overly rosy picture of Texas but the negative aspects of California are spot on. I left California for Texas 23 years ago and haven't looked back. I still have a brother and sister in CA and the brother will never leave but he and his wife have great jobs and can afford the expenses. Basically California is still a great place to live if you can afford it - otherwise it sucks.

Two points from the article. First of all, if they're going to tout some companies, they should at least spell them correctly. It's JC Penney, not Penny. And secondly some of the cities in Texas are having major growing pains like Houston and Austin. Houston's growth problems are why some companies are already moving to the suburbs - such as Minute Maid moving out to my neck of the woods in Sugar Land.

Finally, I doubt UT can challenge a school like Stanford because it's too large to begin with. It's already a better school than Berkeley IMO but it won't get to Stanford's level or that of the Ivies.

(12-03-2009 07:07 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Finally, I doubt UT can challenge a school like Stanford because it's too large to begin with. It's already a better school than Berkeley IMO but it won't get to Stanford's level or that of the Ivies.

Stanford is private, so a comparison to UT is unfair.

And never say never. Stanfraud has a long history of grade inflation for undergrads. But what it managed to do is situate itself in a great position for computers and networking, and attract a lot of innovative, talented young people. Much like MIT.

That approach can be imitated.

(12-03-2009 12:44 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Stanford is private, so a comparison to UT is unfair.

True. UT being a public school is more like a BGSU / NIU / Ball State.
Lets bring on the Longhorns as the 14th MAC football member.