What's the matter with Texas?

  Nothing, really. Oh, the governor seems to have gone a little crazy, but that’s because his party has decided to do its damndest to commit long-term suicide, and he's got to be crazy in order to win the primary. Have you read its platform? 

But Texans aren’t crazy. First, the percent who support secession is less than the Crazification Factor. Second, if you’d asked the question in November 2004, I think you could’ve easily gotten a similar percentage of Californians or New Englanders to say they support taking up their marbles and leaving.  Remember the “United States of Canada”? Finally, unlike most of the red states, Texas does in fact generally pay more to the federal government in taxes than it gets back. Red are payments, blue are receipts, all data in 2008 dollars.

Now, these figures are rough estimates. Pre-2005, the data are from the Tax Foundation; for 2006-07, they come from me using the same methodology. And they leave out a lot. Frex, a lot of federal spending comes from borrowing, rather than taxes, and these figures have made no attempt to allocate the future tax liabilities generated by borrowing. They also leave out a chunk of federal spending:  mostly interest payments, which aren’t allocated to states (and much of which goes to foreigners), but also foreign aid and imports purchased by the federal government. 

In addition, of course, joining a fiscal federation gets you more than just net tax payments. It makes Keynesian policy much easier: European countries, for example, have trouble using this tool because so much of any stimulus will leak away to the neighbors. It adds insurance against asymmetric macroeconomic shocks: if something bad happens to the economy of your jurisdiction, your residents will pay fewer federal taxes and get more federal benefits. Finally, it allows for economies of scale in the provision of public services. All three are why it probably makes economic sense for Iceland to become a Commonwealth, even at a fiscal cost of $109 million per year. 

In short, (1) Texans are no crazier than anyone else, and (2) the Republican Party is really going off the rails. It isn’t just Governor Perry; it’s state legislatures in Georgia, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, which have taken to voting in favor of secession.  In another country, these might be worrying in terms of national unity. In this one, there’s no worry about national unity.  (Although I recommend these comic books anyway.) Rather, there is a worry about the emergence of a de facto one-party democracy. I know I’ve got readers who still aren’t sure that the GOP is in on the road to suicide, but even they have to admit that the Tea Parties and aftermath are a big step down that path. Right?

Comments

[Bernard Guerrero]

Nah, just playin' to the rubes. The situation now looking particularly grim to some folks, I'd wager that the returns to political theater might be higher. These are, after all, the sorts of times in which you get the kookier sorts of populism, etc, showing up.

[Bernard Guerrero]

As an aside, I keep getting an odd error associated with your site, specifically the comments. I usually end up having to kill the page manually. Dunno if anybody else gets that, but it could ding traffic.

[Bernard Guerrero]

On the post-apocalyptic side, may I suggest http://www.comicvine.com/scout/29-48005/

[Noel Maurer]

Hey, Bernard,

Why write "nah"? I thought I was pretty clear that all this posturing is just "playing to the rubes." Wasn't I? If I wasn't, tell me, because AFAICT I agree with you 100%.

My argument is that the GOP in these states is playing to the rubes in its primary electorate, but that's wrecking their chances of being competitive in a general election. In all seriousness, Perry just advanced the date when Texas turns blue by at least an election cycle, probably two ... unless the Republican Party turns itself into something rather different rather quickly.

It makes sense to an individual politician, of course. If you're safe in the general election no matter what you say, why not pander to the base, especially (as you say) in grim economic times? And if you're not safe in the general should you say crazy things, well, you've still got to make it through the primary. So the incentives are to be crazy.

But even if you can understand the political logic, it is striking to have the GOP governor of a state, or a GOP legislative majority, strike positions similar to Cynthia McKinney's, only in the other ideological direction.

I know of Democratic city councils and mayors that have gone as crazy in the other direction, but I'm hard pressed to think of any Democratic statewide officials or legislative bodies that have found it electorally efficient to go as far away from the median voter as the state GOP has chosen to do in Georgia, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.

It has got to a worrisome development if you think it's important that the country has two electable parties to contest public office.

No?

[Noel Maurer]

Bernard, can you describe the problem more specifically? I'm going to post an entry asking about it, and also send something to Typepad.

Thanks!