NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #41
I disagree.
No one can "afford it [Bigger Government]" and hopefully Texans will decrease its size in the next 10 years.
However, many government jobs at the state and local level are MANDATED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. So whether or not a state increases or decreases their government jobs is often not a reflection of that state's values, but rather National Laws. Therefore, the implied arguement that Texas itself has chosen to expand government is a little silly.
So Texas was singled out for federal government mandates?
So if a governor promises to shrink the size of his state's government, he's really lying because he has no control over it?
First, you are comparing apples and oranges: The article is about TOTAL Government employees. The Governor has no control over the number of Texas residents employed by the FEDERAL government. He also has no control over LOCAL government employees (mostly teachers).
The only way you could hold the size of a state's government accountable to the Governor, is to look at the growth of STATE employees, and these are often mandated positions created through, but not financed, by Federal Statute.
A. you have nothing to prove that any Governor ever "promised to shrink the size of his state's government."
B. You have no evidence that STATE EMPLOYMENT increased in Texas.
However, the vast majority of government jobs are in education, which is why you naturally have more government jobs in states with larger populations (of children). Examples of very expensive federally mandated LOCAL teaching jobs are Special Education teachers and ESL teachers. Additionally, NCLB requires states to hire a number of people to administer the manditory state testing program.
So there's no such thing as a small government conservative and no such thing as conservatives who want smaller government and few government employees?
Unreal.