Replies

As for FEMA (well the former FEMA), they spend quite a bit of time on projects in Texas & Louisiana.

That they may, but absent figures you have ZERO basis on which to claim that Texas is pushed from a 5 cent deficit to above the dollar mark by them.

I beleive they still have people down there as a result of last years shuttle disaster.

So spending on the shuttle disaster (which was in February, not last year) is to be treated as a federal expenditure in the benefit of Texas? Now that's odd, cause I tend to think of it as a national tragedy and have no doubt that they would do the same thing no matter where it broke up.

We have not even begun to calculate the current asset value or economic impact of all the Federal installations in Texas or the dollar value of all the years of Federal maritime improvements from Sabine down to Brazos.

Calculate them all you like then. Give us some figures. Otherwise you have no basis in your claim.

And my point still stands

No it doesn't. The only figure you provide contradicts you, and only by vague speculation without any substantive evidence are you able to bring it above a dollar.

you are making a huge deal out of only getting 95 cents back on your dollar when there are other states contributing a great deal more than you are.

So what's your point? I think we should give them back their losses as well.

"That they may, but absent figures you have ZERO basis on which to claim that Texas is pushed from a 5 cent deficit to above the dollar mark by them."

My point is that if you could calculate the Federal emergency spending required in Texas, it would increase the amount of Federal dollars spent in Texas that are not alloted in the original spending figure. My guestimate was based partially on emergency spending but there are also other Federal programs, measures etc. that benefit Texas without counting toward it's tax return number, these include farm drought subsidies (1/3 of Texas benefitted from this 27 billion + dollar program which was configured to help several states, thus it doesn't neccessarily count toward Federal direct aid to Texas). There are also Federal Education programs applied at the National level which give monetary assistance to almost all Texas colleges and universities without neccessarily counting toward the tax dollar return level (I believe Texas University at Austin recieved 16 million dollars through Federally mandated programs last year alone in addition to several million additional Federal dollars that were distributed through state agencies [those expenditures were probably counted because they were direct assistance]), etc. etc.

"So spending on the shuttle disaster (which was in February, not last year) is to be treated as a federal expenditure in the benefit of Texas? Now that's odd, cause I tend to think of it as a national tragedy and have no doubt that they would do the same thing no matter where it broke up."

The disaster was indeed a National tragedy but the point remains that Federal dollars were extensively used to manage, clean up and provide for economic assistance in certain cases. Some Texas State agencies were also reimbursed by the Federal government for their expenditures. Federal Emergency Management, US Military, Federal Law Enforcement and National Park Service & US Forestry Service personnel all worked on the mitigation and clean up, at cost to the Federal government (which is the way it ought to be). Would they have done so if it happened elsewhere ? of course but the fact is that it happened over Texas and Louisiana and the Federal Government spent a great deal of money trying to ease the horror of that situation, money that Texas would have had to spend itself if it cleaned up alone.

"Calculate them all you like then. Give us some figures. Otherwise you have no basis in your claim."

You're right, every Federal installation in Texas, every maritime improvement for the last 100 years, every intrastate highway, rail line or airport, every US Geological survey, Federal Law Enforcement presence, agriculture program, irrigation program, USDA program etc. etc....even chasing around Pancho Villa, all that stuff was free. Geez.

"And my point still stands

No it doesn't. The only figure you provide contradicts you, and only by vague speculation without any substantive evidence are you able to bring it above a dollar."

My original point does still stand. Some Texans complain alot more than their situation really warrants.

"you are making a huge deal out of only getting 95 cents back on your dollar when there are other states contributing a great deal more than you are.

So what's your point? I think we should give them back their losses as well."

Perhaps it is the fact that Texas is a relatively new state compared to the original 13, and some people down your way have never grasped the concept of "E. Pluribus Unum". Nobody in their right mind likes to pay taxes especially when they see government waste. That having been said however, some of us still consider ourselves Americans and as such we bite the bullet and take care of our own when we have to. If that means sending some $$$ from one state to another...well it isn't pretty but if it really helps our nieghbors, we'll do it. When we fought the English 225 years ago, the 13 original colonies all helped each other. North Carolina sent it's troops north to fight when needed and New York sent it's troops south when it was time. They didn't argue over who was paying a bigger share of the bill.