Four Components of State PoliticsWhile we think of government .docx

Four Components of State Politics
While we think of government as a singular entity, it is, in
reality, a series of many interrelated parts. While you can
consider many components to the governing system of Texas, it
is reasonable to divide them into four parts built around the
classic "input - output" model. You can use these four parts to
organize and understand any political entity - the nation, the
state, the county, the city or even your family. These four parts
will also be the guiding organizational structure for this course.
The first two components can be considered inputs, or factors
that contribute to what government in Texas is or does.
· First, the government of Texas can only be accurately
understood in the context of the history, geography, political
culture, economics and demographic nature of the state.
· Second, the political decisions of the state's leaders are a
reflection of the people who choose to participate in the
political system through individual (voting, contacting,
campaigning, or running) or aggregate (interest groups or
political parties) means of involvement.
These two methods of input contribute to the actual decision
making institutions (legislature, executive, bureaucracy, and
courts) that make up Texas government. The end result of this
governing process is the public policy (for example, taxes,
education, environment) of government. As you will hopefully
see during this course, government is not a thing, but rather a
process. That process is dynamic and ever-changing, reflecting
the changing values and demands of the citizens of Texas.
· Third, the government is defined by the institutions that make,
implement and evaluate public policy. In this class, we will
look at the three branches of government (legislative, executive
and judicial) as well as the bureaucracy that carries out the
laws. The legislature makes the laws; the governor (with the
help of the bureaucracy) implements the laws; and the courts

determine if the laws are applied fairly and legally.
· Fourth, the end product of all of this is public policy. Laws
passed and implemented by the government address problems
and improve the quality of life for all Texans (at least in
theory). Public policy influences every aspect of your life from
the food you eat, to the air you breathe, to the class you are
taking right now!’
The Texas Mystique
Every state is different and unique. California has qualities that
make it different from New York, which is different from North
Carolina. Likewise, Texas is unique and possesses qualities that
set it apart from other states. However, the unique qualities of
Texas have taken on almost mythical proportions. Fueled by the
depictions of authors, artists, journalists, and politicians, the
state of Texas evokes images in the minds of people around the
world that are vivid and unlike those associated with any other
state in America.
For some, the image of Texas is that evoked by the movies
of John Wayne (Links to an external site.) or the figures in a
Remington sculpture. For these people, Texas is a land of open
plains, dominated by leather-tanned cowboys, often with a
loving family waiting at home, singing songs by a campfire in
front of a fiery red sky. For others, Texas remains lost in the
turn of the twentieth century, populated by young charismatic
men bent on making their life in the oil fields, as captured in
the movie Giant (Links to an external site.). Finally, with the
worldwide syndication of Dallas, both old and the 2010
remake (television show), and the public exposure of Texas
billionaires like Ross Perot and the Hunt brothers, others expect
that Texans all have large homes, flashy jewelry and big houses
on an open ranch.
Not surprisingly, while the myths of Texas might have a grain
of truth, they are far from reality. The reality is that Texas is a
state that is over eighty percent urban with a very diverse
population and economy. The largest employer in Texas is

the “service industry” - Texas cowboys are more likely to be
found at "Billy Bob's Honky Tonk" than out on the range and
they are generally of the urban variety! More jobs are now
generated by the computer and technology industries (especially
in Central Texas) than the oil industry, and the famously rich
Texans are more than offset by the high rate of poverty that
permeates much of the southern and eastern parts of the state. In
fact, historically, five of the nation’s ten poorest counties are
found along the Southern border of Texas. While the myths of
Texas may be larger than life, the realities of life in Texas are
quite real, and sometimes rather unpleasant for many.
The Significance of Context
While the focus of this portion of the course is on how context
reflects political life in Texas, the significance of context is
perhaps best understood in terms of the decisions that you make
every day of your life. Just as you must decide how to allocate
valuable resources (time and money are just two), the state must
decide how to allocate its valuable resources, including tax
burden (who pays), government services (who plays), and
political power (who wins).
Consider how you allocate your time in a day. No matter how
rich or famous you are, time is a fixed resource. Your day has
the same twenty-four hours as that of Rick Perry, Barack
Obama or Dirk Nowitski. However, you have the power to
allocate that valuable resource in any way that you see fit
(within the law). Think about the things on which you might
spend it: work, studying, hygiene (that means taking a bath or
shower!), eating, socializing, sleeping, spending time with
family, or entertainment. You will allocate your time differently
than will your classmate. Why?
Our decisions are made based on our own unique set of values,
experiences and demands. If religion is important to you, you
will go to church rather than sleep on Sunday morning. If you
have a test tomorrow, you will (hopefully) study rather than go
see a movie tonight. If experience tells you that you can't

function on less than ten hours of sleep, you will choose to go
to bed rather than to watch Jimmy Fallon or Stephen Colbert on
the night before that test.
In a similar manner, the way the state of Texas allocates its
resources (money and tax obligation) is a function of the unique
combination of values, experiences and demands that its
citizens possess. That unique context will make the allocation
of revenue and tax obligation different in Texas than anywhere
else. Four things determine the decisions that the state makes
regarding its expenditures: values (what is important to the
state), external pressures (what must be done), interests (what
the leaders of the state want or like to do), and resources (what
revenues and resources the state has available to work with).
Context affects politics in four ways.
Who Plays. First, it influences who plays, or who gets involved
in the political process. In Texas (and the rest of the country),
White, well-educated, wealthy folks tend to be more active in
politics. It costs a lot of money to influence politics in Texas,
and if you do not have resources, money, or access, it is
difficult to be a "player" in the political system.
Who Pays. Second, the context influences who pays, or which
people tend to pay more money to the government. Does the
state tax the poor at a higher rate than the wealthy?Texas is
generally considered a regressive tax state, where the poor pay a
larger proportion of their income in taxes than do the rich (note
that I am not saying the poor pay more in dollars, just in the
proportion of their income that goes to the government). For
example, in 2012, on average, the poorest 20% of Texans paid
about one dime (11.3%) of each dollar they earned to the state
while the wealthiest 1% of the population paid about 3 cents
(3.2%) per dollar earned.
Who Wins? Third, context influences who wins, or who tends to
get the money back from the government. In Texas, the biggest
winners are generally the same folks who tend to play-the
wealthy. The wealthy win because much of the money goes to
wealthy school districts or is redistributed in tax breaks to

profitable companies and company owners. Do corporations or
individuals contribute more to the revenues of Texas? When it
comes to environmental policies, do tree huggers beat business
leaders?
Size of the Prize. Finally, context influences the size of the
prize or how big government is-what you are playing for. While
the budget of Texas is large because the state is large, it is
relatively small per person (per capita). Compared to other large
states, the “prize” is pretty small. Again, this is a reflection of
the attitude that government is not the answer and folks need to
be independent and “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”
The Texas of today is a function of the Texas of yesterday. How
Texas and Texans act is a reflection of who they were as much
as who they are. In this course, we will examine various aspects
of the context of Texas. First, we will look at the political
culture, examining the political history and nature of the state.
Second, we will turn to the history of the state, looking at how
each of the distinct periods of Texas history is reflected in the
state today. Next, we will look at the state’s demographic
qualities-age, education, racial distribution, and economic
characteristics of the people. Third, geographic context: Texas
is a large state and various parts of the state are distinct in
terms of history, economies, politics, and demographics. Fourth
and finally, we will look at the consequences of the various
constitutions (including the current one) that the state has had.
This course is about politics-the distribution of power and
responsibility between the government and the governed. In
order to understand the context of Texas government (past and
present), it is necessary to understand the framework of the
United States government within which it exists. The US system
of government is known as a federal system in that power is
divided between central and regional governments. This
division can be seen at the national level in the power that
resides in Washington, D.C. (central) versus the power that
resides in state capitals (regional) as well as at the local level in

the power of the county seat versus the power of individual
towns or cities. Although local governments such as counties
and cities enjoy only the powers granted them by their state
government, states enjoy all powers not reserved by the
constitution as powers of the national government (or otherwise
prohibited by law). Factors that influence the balance of power
between state and national government include resources,
ability, and interest.
A very specific and complex state constitution establishes the
legislative, judicial, and executive branches of Texas
government, along with their respective powers. Because of the
specificity of some provisions, the constitution must be
amended frequently. It also establishes a very weak chief
executive (governor) and complex and confusing courts
system.
It is also imperative that we understand the political culture- the
partisan and ideological backdrop for the politics of today. The
people that are elected and the laws that are passed in Texas are
a reflection of the historical political culture and the current
political culture (partisanship and ideology) that define the
state.
LECTURE: AUDIO
The Historical Political Culture
Political culture can be defined as “a set of beliefs, sentiments,
and attitudes that give meaning to the political process.” This
definition plays out in a democracy in terms of the belief that
the government's laws and policies are legitimized by
representation of the governed (people) in enacting and
enforcing fair laws/policies. It is, in short, values that determine
how government works in your state. According to Daniel
Elazar, the United States can be divided into three distinct
political cultures based on historic settlement and migration
patterns.
The Northeast and Midwestern United States
(e.g., Pennsylvania (Links to an external site.)) are dominated
by the "individualistic culture." This approach to governing is

dominated by the importance of the needs, wants and desires of
individuals. Government is viewed with disdain and provides
the minimal service demanded by the voters. Government in this
culture is viewed as a “market-place.”
Puritans established this in the Northeast and then migration
took it west into the Midwest and middle part of the country
(Kansas, Nebraska, etc.). The two political parties are like
competing stores (think Wal-Mart and Target), the voters are
consumers, and votes are the currency (not money) of this
market. The two political parties use their policies (taxes,
programs, etc.) to compete for voters just as stores use their
products and prices to compete for customers. In this
marketplace concept, virtually anything goes regarding ethics.
Interest groups are powerful and very weakly restricted, ethics
rules are weak and rarely enforced, and services are provided
only if demanded by the consumers (voters).
The Great Lakes states (Minnesota (Links to an external site.),
for example) are dominated by the "moralistic culture."
According to this view of politics, government is good and can
provide assistance to those who cannot help themselves.
Government in this environment is considered to be a good
thing, government is a positive. It is in the interest of people in
this culture to look out for the good of the commonwealth even
if there is a personal cost. In this culture, government is viewed
from the perspective of the commonwealth. It is not about what
is good for the individual, but what is good for the entire state.
Individuals may need to give up something (rights, tax dollars,
etc.) for the good of the state. The role of both political parties
and interest groups is less important and legislators are held to
a very high ethical standard. This culture, according to Elezar,
arrived from the Scandinavian countries in the mid -1800’s into
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Upper Michigan, and spread west (North
Dakota, Washington, Oregon, Northern California). Voting is
considered a privilege and voters participate at high levels.

Politicians serve in order to help people. It is generally the
opposite of the individualistic culture.
Finally, the Southeastern United States (such as Georgia (Links
to an external site.)) is dominated by the "traditionalistic
culture," which focuses on the elitist culture and making sure
that things do not change very much. Decisions are made by and
for the elites. This culture is sort of in-between the other two.
Like the individualistic culture, interest groups are important,
ethics are rather lose and participation is likely to be relatively
low. However, unlike a pluralistic approach to governing which
argues that interest groups best represent the needs and interests
of many different view points (including minorities), this elitist
approach to governing acknowledges only the interests of the
elite members of society. Like the moralistic culture, political
parties are of limited importance and political salaries are likely
to be low. However, the motivation behind this culture is very
different - the elites in this society are motivated to keep things
as they have always been (status quo) or maintain “tradition.”
Generally, one party controls the politics because two
competitive parties might encourage voters to seek change and
play the two parties off each other to get that change. This
culture is generally elitist, with the wealthy benefiting from the
decisions and efforts to keep the poor (and often minorities)
from voting. The elites actually believe that their decisions are
better for everyone, the poor as well as the wealthy. The origins
of this culture trace its roots in the South to the slave culture in
which the elites (owners) assumed that they knew best and that
they would take care of the slaves.
According to Elazar, Texas is a combination of the traditionalist
and individualistic cultures. The eastern part of the state, settled
in the 1820s and 1830s by former Southerners, and South Texas,
settled by Mexican immigrants, is dominated by the elitist
traditionalistic culture. It is a reflection of two historic
movements.
First, many former slaveholders from the South moved to East
Texas and established a slave culture there. Even today, East

Texas is similar to the traditional Southeastern United States,
where small towns have been dominated by the same White
wealthy families for generations, voter participation is low, and
government services are minimal. Along the southern border,
however, we had a different strain of traditionalistic culture,
coming from Mexico with a rather matriarchal (female-headed
families) centered society. At any rate, you still end up with
low turnout and high elite voting and control.
On the other hand, the central part of the state, settled by
German and East European immigrants, and the western
counties, populated in the 1800s by citizens from the Midwest
United States, has historically reflected the individualistic
culture. In these parts of the state (central and western parts of
the state), government is limited and the focus is on
independence and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps."
Government in individualistic culture is a "necessary evil,"
doing only what is demanded by the voters and nothing more.
People are expected to take care of themselves
Can historic settlement patterns from over a hundred years ago
really affect politics and policy today? While you might think
not, read the description of each type of culture, think about the
part of the state or the country where you grew up. You might
be surprised to find how well these general descriptions fit your
perceptions of state or local politics today!
Source of Political Cultures
Where are you from? That question may be a lot more difficult
to answer than you think! You may say, "I'm from Dallas," or
"I'm from El Paso," "or "I'm from New Jersey," or "I'm from
Taiwan." However, your origins run much deeper than that.
With the exception of Native Americans, we all trace our own
roots to some immigrant who came to the United States or
Texas one year, thirty years, or three hundred years ago. In the
same way, the historic political cultures that define Texas and
the rest of the United States have their origins in the stories of
immigrants that settled this country centuries ago.
Daniel Elazar, the person who coined the

terms moralistic, individualist or traditionalistic political
cultures suggests that each derived from a distinct combination
of immigration and economic necessity. Each subculture had its
origins in a particular group that settled the Eastern and
Midwestern regions of the United States more than two hundred
years ago. As these immigrants and their descendants moved
west and south, they took their cultures with them and adapted
them to the unique conditions of their new state. In addition, the
Texas political culture reflects the influence of the state's
Mexican origins, giving us a combination of western
(individualistic, with a streak of rugged independence),
southern (traditionalistic, with a paternalistic flavor), Mexican
(traditionalistic with a maternalistic flavor) and Midwestern
(traditionalistic based on the Puritan work ethic) flavors that is
uniquely Texan!!
The Modern Political Cultures
Let's assume that you have just been elected governor of Texas
and you are trying to determine the policies and positions that
will get you re-elected four years down the road. Is it enough to
know the historical political cultures of the state? No. Just as
you are more than the compilation of things that occurred long
before you were born, modern Texas politics is more than just
what happened over two hundred years ago in Wisconsin! The
political landscape of Texas is different today than it was ten
years ago, let alone a hundred years ago.
Two aspects of the modern political landscape should be of
particular interest to you as a politician running for
office: partisanship and ideology. Partisanship will help you to
determine the degree to which being a Democrat or Republican
will help or hurt your chances of re-election. While Democrats
have traditionally done very well in Texas, recent changes in
the partisan make-up of the population would suggest that the
immediate future (next decade or so) for a Republican candidate
is pretty bright. Indeed, following the 2010 elections,
Republicans held all major statewide offices, both Texas seats
in the US Senate, a majority of the Congressional seats, and a

majority in both chambers of the state legislature. In 2012,
Republican Mitt Romney carried Texas by more than ten percent
despite losing the national vote, Republican Ted Cruz easily
won the US Senate seat held by retiring Kay Bailey Hutchinson
and Republicans kept control of the Congressional delegation,
the Texas House and the Texas Senate. A 2011 survey of 800
Texans found 49% leaning Republican, 37% leaning Democratic
and 13% Independents. Clearly Republicans have reversed the
trend of Democratic control that so dominated the state for 150
years. Knowing this helps explain why Republicans control so
many offices in the state.
However, some believe that change may be coming to the
partisan balance in Texas. As Hispanics continue to make up a
growing proportion of the Texas population and the Texas
electorate (voters), some see Republican dominance weakening.
In 2012, Republican Mitt Romney got less than three in ten (29
percent) of the Hispanic votes nationwide. While Republicans
did better in Texas with Hispanic Ted Cruz at the top of the
ticket, they still got a minority of the Hispanic vote. If
Republicans in Texas don't increase their appeal among
Hispanic voters, the state might be much more competitive in
the next decade or two.
Political ideology can be defined as the particular approach to
governing that a person accepts, focusing on the degree to
which government should be active and involved in various
aspects of daily life. We generally think of
the conservative ideology as one in which voters prefer limited
government intervention on financial matters (against minimum
wage, against welfare and for free market), but more
intervention on social issues (for government involvement in
school prayer, abortion, gay rights, etc.). On the other hand,
the liberal ideology is generally viewed as the opposite.
Liberals are more interested in government intervention in
welfare, taxes, etc., but do not want governments involved in
decisions like gay marriage, abortion, and school prayer.
Texas has traditionally been controlled by conservatives (for

discussion of conservative views, see the 2004 Texas
Republican platform) and they are still a majority. A 2011
survey reveals that a slim majority of Texans (52 percent)
consider themselves conservative, while less than a quarter (22
percent) claim to be liberal and exactly a quarter (25 percent)
are somewhere in between the two.
However, as a candidate, you might find a strong base of
support among minorities (Links to an external
site.), women (Links to an external site.) and voters in the
southern region (along the Mexico border and the Texas Gulf
Coast) if you make a moderate or liberal appeal. Interestingly,
while the conservative ideology is generally associated with the
Republican Party, that has not always been the case in southern
parts of the United States, including Texas. Indeed, for most of
the last 150 years, while Texas was conservative, it was also
Democratic. Only in the last ten years or so have many of these
old-line “Conservative Democrats” switched their allegiance to
the Republican Party.
Do you think the growing Hispanic population will return Texas
to its days of Democratic dominance or will Republicans reach
out and increase their share of votes from this significant group
of voters?
Now you can combine the two ideologies and two parties to
come up with four groups that really define Texas Politics.
Let’s look first at the Republicans. Texas Republicans fall into
one of two groups: Boardroom Republicans and Bedroom
Republicans. Boardroom Republicans are primarily concerned
about money matters - they want government that is free-
market, and low taxes and low regulation on businesses, but
care little about social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and
school prayer. On the other hand, Bedroom Republicans are
much more concerned about these moral issues and what
government is doing about them, but do not worry so much
about the stock market, taxing the wealthy, or welfare spending.
Interestingly, the growing Tea Party Movement, while it began
as an anti-tax movement, now seems to contain some members

of both Republican factions. While both groups of Republicans
are conservative; their brands of conservatism vary
considerably. In 2012, the distinction between the two types of
Republicans played out in the race for US Senate with
Boardroom Republican David Dewhurst losing to Bedroom
Republican Ted Cruz who had the support of the Tea Party
organization in Texas. It played out again in the 2014 race for
Lt. Governor where Dewhurst lost to Tea Party candidate Dan
Patrick.
Interestingly, a 2016 pol (Links to an external site.)l conducted
by the University of Texas The Texas Politics Project (Links to
an external site.) found that if the Tea Party were to form an
independent political party in Texas and run candidates for the
US Congress in 2018, 17 percent of the respondents indicated
they would vote for the Tea Party candidate, while 20 percent
would vote Republican, 37 percent Democratic and 26 percent
did not know how they wold vote. When you combine the vote
of the Tea Party Candidate and the Republcian candidate (20 +
17), they equal the prospective vote for the Democratic
cnadidate.
Democrats can also be divided into two traditional
camps: Conservative Democrats and Moderate Democrats
(sometimes also referred to as Liberal Democrats). Conservative
Democrats tend to be quite similar to Boardroom Republicans,
but still consider themselves to be Democrats. They look at
politics through the lens of economics, adopting the traditional
individualistic culture of the state-limited taxes, and limited
social spending. However, they will support some social
spending and oppose efforts to restrict voting access. Many
have remained Democrats because their families have always
been Democrats going back to the post-civil war era. Finally,
Moderate Democrats would be the closest thing to true liberals
in the state-in favor of increased social spending on welfare,
education, etc., but are also pro-choice, pro-gay rights and anti-
school prayer. I call them Moderates because the word liberal
does not fly in Texas politics.

Boardroom Republicans tend to be strong in suburban areas
around big cities like Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, while
Bedroom Republicans tend to dominate in rural communities,
especially in the western part of the state and the Panhandle.
Conservative Democrats tend to be strongest in rural
communities in the Eastern and Southern parts of the state,
while moderate Democrats do well in urban areas and along the
border with Mexico.
Republicans (including Republicans who identify with the Tea
Party like Lt. Governor Dan Patrick) have won the vast majority
of statewide elections in recent years, winning every statewide
election in 2014 and giving Donald Trump a nine point win in
the 2016 Presidential election. Further, Republicans also control
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court,
the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate with
strong majorities.
Historical Influences 1820-1860
The political structures, values, parties and ideologies that
define politics today in Texas do not evolve from or exist in a
vacuum. Rather, they are the cumulative result of decades of
historical events, activities, and personalities that have
dominated Texas over the last 150 years. Just as your family has
stories that are told across generations about people or events
that define who you are (I have a Revolutionary War general on
one side of the family and a Tory sympathizer on the other!),
the state of Texas is defined by stories that pepper its history
and contribute to its present. The first such story is the battle
for Texas independence that is so famous. In the eyes of most
Americans, and surely most Texans (Remember the Alamo!!!),
the defining moment of Texas is the Battle of the Alamo (Links
to an external site.). A handful of strong-willed, independent
frontiersmen were willing to die for their freedom rather than
submit to tyranny. Their commitment to defeat Mexico came
about, in part, as a result of the many challenges that Texans
faced under Mexican rule. They were expected to speak
Spanish (the official language), practice Roman Catholicism

(most were Protestants), and refrain from owning slaves (many
were slave owners). Although Texas actually lost the Battle of
the Alamo, it gained its independence by defeating Santa Anna
at the Battle of San Jacinto (Links to an external site.).
The Battle of the Alamo was only the first part of a fascinating
tale of a new nation struggling to survive the challenges of
creating a government from scratch, the economic devastation
of a national recession (the Panic of 1837), and the pressures of
being a buffer between a traditional international power,
Mexico, and a young country, the United States, that believed
its destiny was to control all of North America. In light of all of
these pressures, Texas chose to come into the United States in
1845, with strong political support (and some say illegal action)
from many in Congress, President James K. Polk, and the
proponents of Manifest Destiny. These events, and the ability of
Texas to survive and thrive, contributed greatly to the
independent nature that defines Texas today. This history as an
independent nation makes Texas unique among all fifty states.
In the 1850s, Texas adopted the main tenants of "Jacksonian
Democracy," electing rather than appointing most state
officials- governors and many other state officials were elected
annually (can you imagine governor running every year?)!
Not surprisingly, agriculture was particularly important to the
economy in the first part of the 1800s. The most significant
agricultural product during this period was cotton.
While every experience that you have contributes to who you
are, some experiences are more memorable and leave a more
lasting impact than others. A particularly traumatic event might
leave scars that take years to heal. In a similar manner,
particularly traumatic events leave their mark on a state or on
the country for decades to come. The Civil War and its
aftermath was just such a traumatic event for Texas and the rest
of the United States. The economic, political, demographic and
social consequences of these events are still evident today, more
than one hundred years after their conclusion.

This period can actually be divided into three periods: The Civil
War (1861-1865), Reconstruction (1865-1876), and Post-
Reconstruction (1876-1900). In 1861, the state of Texas voted
to secede from the United States and join the Confederate States
of America. Like most of the southern states, this decision was
made on the assumption that there would be limited resistance
from the United States. When the limited resistance turned into
a four-year war claiming more than 600,000 lives and millions
of dollars in resources, emotions ran high. At its core, the Civil
War was about the efforts of some states to have policies and
pass laws that were contrary to the interests and laws of the
national government. This was about the power of the state vs.
the power of the national government, including their roles in
slavery. This period reinforced the dislike of a strong
centralized government in Texas that was initially established
under the dictatorship of Santa Anna in Mexico. The experience
with Abraham Lincoln and the federal government was no
better. It also re-enforced the historically independent culture.
Northern troops defeated the Confederacy in the spring of 1865,
and federal troops arrived in Texas on June 19 of that year,
bringing the news of the emancipation of the 250,000 slaves in
the state. This date, known as "Juneteenth" is celebrated across
Texas and throughout other states as well.
The second period is known as “Reconstruction.” During this
period, the national government basically ran, and controlled,
everything in Texas. The name Reconstruction comes from the
desire to “reconstruct” or rebuild the nation by reincorporating
the southern states into the United States. We would tear down
the old South and rebuild it better, in the image of the rest of
the country. After the Civil War, from 1866 to 1869, Texas was
under the military rule of former Union General Phillip
Sheridan, appointed by the Republican Johnson administration
in Washington. As one would expect, the appointment of a
Union General to govern Texas was not recieved well in the
state!
During this time, the state was under military rule. In 1869, an

election was held in which the only people who could vote were
those who had NOT fought on the side of the South in the Civil
War. That meant the electorate was mostly former slaves and
“Carpetbaggers” from the North. Not surprisingly, these folks
elected a Republican governor (Edmond J. Davis, a former
soldier in the Union Army) who violated most of the principles
native Texans held dear: he centralized power, raised taxes, and
took over control of local schools, further angering native
Texans. By the end of this period of reconstruction (mid-
1870's), and during the period of post-reconstruction, native
Texans had developed a bitter attitude toward Republicans,
African-Americans, Yankees, and the national government.
Those views continued to dominate Texas politics for the next
one hundred years.
Beginning with the election of 1872, Texans began to take back
control of their state. In that year, they elected a Democratic
majority to the state legislature. That majority almost
impeached Governor Davis. In 1873 Governor Davis was
defeated by Democrat Richard Coke, but refused to leave the
office. He barricaded himself in it, surrounded himself with
federal troops and waited for President Grant to send
help. Grant refused and Davis was finally removed from office.
The remaining part of the nineteenth century (1875-99) saw the
rise of the Ku Klux Klan and other agencies, groups and
regulations designed to remove African-Americans, Hispanics
and others with little money from the political process. The
ideology of White supremacy, fueled by highly charged
reactions to Reconstruction, led to the deaths of approximately
500 African Americans as a result of mob violence during this
period.
The political climate continued to favor business and the elite in
both manufacturing and farming. As manufacturing increased
with the rise of the railroad across the state, laws in favor of
corporations and against organized labor were common.
Similarly, the system favored large landowners at the expense
of their tenant farmers (who represented the majority of farm

labor at the time). Tenant farmers paid for the privilege of
working the land and often lost money in the process (with no
safety net). The National Grange was founded in the late 1800s
to address such financial challenges for farmers with little
power. The Texas Grange was founded in 1872 and became
influential in the state both in terms of its 1876 constitution and
the establishment of Texas A&M (then college) University.
Basically, from 1872 until the 1970s, more than one hundred
years, Texas remained a Democratic-controlled state because of
what happened from 1860-1873. For generations, the
Republican Party was known as the Party of Lincoln and
Reconstruction that tried to take over the state. Whenever the
Republican Party would try to appeal to Rural Texans, those
voters would be reminded of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and
efforts to end segregation, and they would return to the
Democratic fold.
In the 1890s, the Populist Movement spread across the country.
This was an effort to create a third party dedicated to uniting
the farmers and rural voters with the urban worker to create a
true working class party. However, in Texas and other Southern
states,this effort was defeated because rural whites had no
interest coming together with former slaves. Republicans in
Texas tried to appeal to rural White voters as they did in the
rest of the country, but Democrats would always remind those
White voters of Republican actions during Reconstruction and
they would return to the Democratic party. Interestingly,
although the author (L. Frank Baum) denied it, many
believe The Wizard of Oz, is an allegory about the Populist
Movement with the scarecrow representing the farmers, the tin
man the urban worker and Dorothy the heartland of rural
America. Some even suggest that the dog (Toto) represented
those opposed to alcohol, called "teatotalers," but I think that
might be pushing it a bit and no, I do not know who or what the
flying monkeys represent!
Economically, cattle was king in Texas during the latter part of
the 1800s as the once dominant cotton industry began to wind

down
In the eyes of many, the picture of modern Texas is one dotted
with oil rigs, natural gas wells, wild cattle, and rich oil barons.
Oil is a central part of Texas culture and the Texas mystique.
However, the oil boom in Texas is a phenomenon of the
twentieth century. The first big oil strike took place in East
Texas, at a place called Spindle Top (Links to an external site.),
in 1901. At approximately 10:30 a.m. on January 10, 1901, the
Hamill Brothers of Corsicana, Texas struck oil. Oil sprayed
over one hundred feet in the air for nine days until it was
capped!
Spindletop and the "Lucas Gusher" changed the face of Texas
economics and politics forever. The abundance of oil meant
newfound wealth for hundreds and the creation of such oil
companies as Mobile, Gulf, Texaco, and Sun Oil Company, and
the development of a new class that dominated economics and
politics for decades. In light of this newfound wealth, Texas
became very pro-business, with very low business taxes and a
business-friendly environment. Further, the abundance of oil
meant that Texas could rely on the severance tax for revenues
without burdening the oil companies with business taxes or the
citizens with an income tax. Revenues from the oil industry also
improved the schools, roads and public safety. While these new
wealthy people might have been Republicans in another state,
the memories of the Civil War and Reconstruction created the
conservative (pro-business) Democrat who would rule politics
in Texas and throughout the American South for decades to
come.
This period established the dominance of pro-business
interests in Texas politics, often at the expense of other
interests (like labor, the poor, the environment, etc.). In Texas,
in order to succeed in politics, you needed to be a pro-business
Democrat. This was a bit unique among southern states-in many
other southern states race played a significantly stronger role in
defining a conservative Democrat (anti-integration, pro-

segregation). Race mattered, but so did supporting oil -Texas
Tea!
Efforts to restrict voting in Texas around the turn of the century
(early 1900s) focused on preventing everyone poor from voting,
not just former slaves and African-Americans. Texas did not
discriminate in its discrimination, but rather wanted to keep
anyone poor who might want to change things, from voting.
During this time, voters had to pay a poll tax in order to cast a
ballot, and by 1923, counties were required to restrict primary
election participation to Whites only. The desired suppression
of poor and minority voters was realized, and we still live with
the results of this today in terms of low voter participation.
Finally, this time period also gave us a propensity for low taxes.
Because oil was so plentiful and raised so much revenue for the
state (severance tax), the state did not need to raise additional
money. The state has a low sales tax, but no corporate or
individual state income tax. We got used to not having to pay
taxes. However, when the oil industry went into a tailspin, it
really hurt the needs of the state.
Most of the key historical events in Texas prior to the 1930s
tended to reinforce the generally independent and conservative
attitudes developed during the period of Mexican occupation
and fight for independence. Abuses of power by U.S. President
Abraham Lincoln (1861-65), the Radical Republicans (1866-
69) and Governor E.J. Davis (1869-74) reinforced the natural
tendencies of Texans to oppose strong centralized governments.
The discovery of oil and the wealth it generated in the early part
of the twentieth century created an influential class of Texans
who had little or no need for government assistance or
regulation, as well as a population that was not subject to high
government taxes.
LECTURE: AUDIO
The economic depression of the 1930s was the first historical
event that raised significant questions about Texas's opposition
to strong and active governments. With the 1929 stock market

crash, Texas and the rest of the United States plunged into the
worst economic depression up to or since that time.
Unemployment soared, savings disappeared, and people
committed suicide. For the first time, Texans willingly turned to
government for help. Texans turned to the state government in
Austin, electing the only true liberal to ever serve as governor
of Texas in the person of Ross S. Sterling (1936-38), and the
Texas state government turned to President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and his National Recovery Act programs.
President Roosevelt and the national government provided poor
Texans with roads, electricity and services never before
provided, further strengthening the link between Texans in East
and South Texas and the Democratic Party. This gave rise to
more moderate Democrats who believed not only should
government take care of business, it should also take care of
individuals - the Depression created needy folks out of people
who had been self-sufficient and changed some minds. Many
Texans got jobs in government programs, stood in government
soup lines, and accepted government pensions. Texas Democrats
of the 1950s and 1960s were a function of two things: hatred of
Abraham Lincoln and Reconstruction or gratitude to Franklin
Roosevelt and the programs of the New Deal. However, these
same programs also pushed a wedge between the national
Democrats and more conservative Texans in the Metroplex,
West Texas, and Harris County that voters in the
1950s called Shivercrats- Democrats who voted for Democrat
Alan Shivers for Governor, but Republican Dwight Eisenhower
for President. This eventually led to the rebirth of the
Republican party in Texas and the eventual election of
Governors George W. Bush and Rick Perry (a former
Democrat).
Toward the end of this era, the New Deal Coalition (created by
Roosevelt) was expanded by the Great Society Programs of
President Lyndon Johnson. These programs, namely the creation
of Medicaid and Medicare, the passage of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, greatly increased

the political activity and participation of minorities (Hispanics
and African-Americans) in the Democratic Party of Texas. It
also gave the moderate wing of the party described above more
influence.
However, in a backlash, it also caused many lifelong
conservative Democrats to finally make the shift to the
Republican Party. Their party identification finally caught up
with their views and their votes. The first Republican elected
statewide since Reconstruction was John Tower, elected to the
United States Senate in 1961 (replacing Lyndon Johnson who
became Kennedy’s Vice President). It would not be until a
decade and a half later (1978) that another Republican would be
elected statewide when Bill Clements was elected Governor.
However, after that, the governorship switched back and forth
between the two parties every four years until the Republicans
won in 1994 with George W. Bush and have held on to it since
then. In 2002, Republicans also took over majorities in the
Texas House and Senate. With the Presidential election of
Governor George W. Bush in 2000, Lt. Governor Rick Perry
became Governor in 2001 and has won re-election an
unprecedented three times (2002, 2006 and 2010) since then,
keeping the office in Republican hands. In 2013, Republicans
held all key state offices, majorities in the Texas House and
Senate, both US Senate seats and a majority of Texas seats in
the US House of Representatives.
The 2009/ 2010 rise of the Tea Party, a faction of primarily
Republicans who hold tightly to conservative values of lower
taxes, lower business regulation and conservative positions on
social issues, has redefined the Republican party in the state and
may portend problems in the future as they clash with more
pragmatic members of their party. Following the re-election of
President Barack Obama, a significant number of Texans signed
an electronic petition urging the state to secede from the United
States. Governor Abbott, at the urging Tea Party legislators, has
signed an Executive Order to support a National Constitutional
Amendment dedicated to limiting the power of the federal

government.
Additional Reading
Clark, James Anthony & Halbouty, Michel T., (March
1999). Spindletop: The True Story of the Oil Discovery That
Changed the World. Gulf Publishing Company.
Hayes, Stephen (2016). "A New Era in Conservative Politics;
The Lasting Influence of the Tea Party Movement (Links to an
external site.)". (http://www.heritage.org/political-
process/report/new-era-conservative-politics-the-tea-partys-
lasting-influence)
Year Each State Was Admitted to the Union
Over a two hundred year span, the United States has grown from
thirteen weak and uncooperative colonies with under 3 million
people to a world leader with fifty independent, but
interdependent states and almost 300 million people. Each state
came into the union at different times and under different
circumstances. Texas was the 28th state to come into the union,
with Iowa entering a day later. Presidential candidate James K.
Polk, a proponent of Manifest Destiny, made the expansion of
the United States a central part of his campaign for the
presidency in 1844. Interestingly, Texas is the only state
accepted into the union with a simple majority vote in Congress.
The thirteen original colonies wear that status with the same
pride that Texas wears its nine years of independent nation
status.
Importance of Population, Size, Growth, and Density
As Texans are fond of saying, everything is bigger in Texas.
This is also true of the Texas population. As of the beginning of
the twenty-first Century only one state, California, had a larger
population than Texas. In 2012, the population of Texas
exceeded 26 million people. In some ways that is a good thing -
because of economies of scale, government costs less per person
in a large state (the cost is calculated across more tax payers).
Indeed, the cost of government in Texas is second lowest in the
country, second only to, you guessed it, California. A second
benefit of size is that large states generally have a more diverse

economy, not relying on a single industry to get by. If the
energy industry tanks, the state can look to the service industry.
If that turns downward, there are jobs in technology fields.
LECTURE: AUDIO
While growth is generally a good thing, growth that is too fast
can be a problem. Just as you probably outgrew your clothes
faster than your parents could afford to replace them when you
were younger, cities that grow too fast often find it hard to stay
ahead of their needs. Why do you think that roads in Arlington
are constantly under construction or you have houses built
among businesses and pawnshops? Arlington grew too fast for
the streets and the zoning regulations to keep up. If a state
grows too quickly, services cannot keep up with demand. For
example, by the time a new prison is built, it is already too
small. From 2000-2010, the state’s population grew by 20.6%,
ranking it in the top five of the fifty states in growth rate - if
growth continues, even finding sufficient water supplies may
well be a problem. Texas has also been one of the few states to
continue to grow during the Recession of 2008-2011 as people
moved to Texas in search of lower taxes and jobs.
Total 2015 Population by State
The number of people residing in a state is usually an indicator
of the professionalism and activism of the government. States
with a large population are usually aggressive, professional and
provide numerous services demanded by the population.
Further, large populations suggest that government services
could be provided at a lower cost per person. However, Texas,
which is the second largest state in the United States, does not
fit this model. Instead, it has a government that is
nonprofessional and does not provide the services necessary to
govern a state of just over 20 million.
Urbanization of the Population
Further, as the population of Texas becomes more dense (more
people living in the city), the demands on government
necessarily grow. There is a greater demand for sanitation,

public safety, public transportation, good roads and zoning
regulation. Up until the middle of last century, a majority of
Texans lived in rural areas, small towns or small communities.
By the 1950s with the booming urban growth following World
War II, that changed. In 1960, more than two-thirds of all
Texans lived in an urban or suburban area. By 2010, that
percentage was up to 84 percent, or almost 17 out of twenty
Texans!
(http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_cens
us/cb12-50.html (Links to an external site.)).
As Texas becomes more urban and less rural, the demands on
and the nature of government are going to have to change.
Urban areas require a much larger percentage of services, even
as simple as sanitation. If everyone is in twenty-story apartment
buildings, you can’t just go out to the outhouse like you could
in the country. Crime is higher. There is a need for childcare
that must be regulated, etc.. The urban areas also tend to be
more Democratic, while suburban areas tend to be more
Republican, but they are Boardroom Republicans, leaving the
more rural Bedroom Republicans in the dust. The question is
whether or not Texans are ready or willing to pay for those
changes. My guess is they are not, but time will tell!
Urbanization (Residents per square mile) in the Fifty States and
District of Columbia in 2015
One of the most significant differences between states, as well
as within a state is the degree to which the citizens live in rural
or metropolitan areas. The demand for services from
government are much different and greater in states where most
of the people live in urban areas. The most common measure of
this urbanization is the number of citizens per square mile.
Although Texas is known for wide open ranges, most people
live in the cities and the population is more densely populated
in Texas than in over half of the states (Texas ranks 24th). Most
Texans do not fit the stereotype of the cowboy on the range, but
rather live in a suburban home or an urban apartment.

Aging
Like the rest of the country, Texas is getting older. In 2015,
more than one in ten Texans was over the age of sixty-five
(12%). In ten years, that percentage is expected to rise another
two percent (13.5%) One hundred years ago, that was 4%. In
the next twenty years it is expected to rise to above twenty
percent. How will that affect Texas politics? The effects are
likely to be dramatic, considering that the elderly vote more
regularly than almost any other group, particularly more than
college students! The amount of money spent on programs that
benefit the elderly (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
supplemental insurance, home health care, etc.) is likely to
continue to rise, while the money spent on programs of greatest
concern to younger voters (education, the environment, etc.) is
likely to remain stable or even decline. Elderly Americans and
Texans are organized and active (www.aarp.org) as long as their
proportion of the population continues to grow at a faster rate
than the rest of the population, you can expect their influence to
be felt on political fronts.
Education
The education level of the population is critical in
understanding politics. First, education is the best single
predictor of voting in this country. The less education you have,
the less likely you are to vote. If you have a college degree or
higher, you are quite likely to vote. If you do not have a high
school diploma, you are much less likely to vote. This makes it
easy to understand how Texas can maintain the traditionalistic
culture-elites don’t want most people to vote and with a lower
education level, most of them don’t want to vote anyway. About
half of the population of the state of Texas does not have any
college level education.
This is also true for skill levels-over a quarter of the population
of Texas scores are at the lowest levels in reading and writing.
This means that it will be very difficult to recruit high paying
jobs (and, therefore a high tax base) to the state. Further, in
states with lower education levels, taxes are usually higher for

the poor (regressive taxes) because they don’t vote enough to
stop them. Finally, an uneducated population requires greater
services, especially regarding job training, welfare, etc. This is
particularly true for areas like the border, West Texas, and East
Texas. Education levels are higher in the center of the state (the
Dallas, Austin, San Antonio corridor), but problematic in other
parts.
High School Completion Rates, 2014
If the work force of a state is to compete in today's highly
competitive market, those citizens need to be educated.
Unfortunately, the population of Texas is among the least
educated in the country and the future does not look much
better. One in seven Texans between the age of 16 and 19 can
be considered high school drop outs. These students and the
regions they live in are generally doomed to low paying, menial
jobs that are becoming less and less common in America. Only
Nevada and Arizona have a higher drop out rate.
Percent of Population With a Bachelor's Degree or More in 2014
While a high school diploma was once a significant sign of
educational achievement, it is now primarily a ticket to either a
low paying job or a four or two year college degree. States with
more of their citizens in college can expect to attract better jobs
and companies, and the tax that they bring. As in the rest of the
South, Texans are less likely to attend college than are non-
Southern Americans. Just over a quarter of all Texans over the
age of 25 have a four your college degree, placing the state in
the bottom quarter of the country.
Ethnic Diversity
It is often said that the United States is a melting pot, with all
different cultures, races and ethnic groups melting together to
form one nation. While this has never really been true in the
United States, it is even less true in Texas. Texas is more
diverse then most states, but that diversity has not resulted in a
unified "stew," but rather a "smorgasbord" in which each

cultural or ethnic group has maintained its identity and
contributed something unique to the Texas culture. Texas is so
diverse that it has the third highest percentage of nonwhite
citizens of all fifty states. In 2000, only 53% of Texans were
considered Anglo and that percentage is expected to decline
even further in the next thirty years. It declined from 53% to
42% between 2000 and 2015. People of Hispanic origin make up
over forty percent of the population, and that percentage
is rapidly increasing. It is estimated that by 2020, Latinos
(42.4%) will outnumber Anglos (39.0%) in the state. It is
expected that the proportion of African Americans in the state
will remain relatively constant at about 11 percent. Hispanics
are expected to soon make up a plurality (more than any other
group), but not a majority (more than half) of the population of
Texas.
Combined Latino and African Americans will comprise well
over half of the population in 2020- think how those changes
might affect elections and policies in the Lone Star state.
Further, think about the implications for 2050 when it is
projected that more than half of all Texans will be Hispanic/
Latino. If Hispanics continue to vote overwhelmingly
Democratic, this could mean a significant change in Texas- stay
tuned!
Texas Ethnic Populations, Past Present and Future (1990-2050)
How does this diversity affect Texas and Texas politics? Like
diversity in a relationship, it can be positive but challenging.
Each group makes unique contributions to the society. However,
these unique contributions also mean differences in beliefs,
values, principles, priorities, and needs. For example, while
bilingual education may be of little importance to African-
American or Anglo-Texans, it is of considerable importance to
Texans of Hispanic origin. Whereas Anglos may view
affirmative action as antiquated or unnecessary, many Hispanics
and African Americans view it as a necessary and integral part
of the role of government. As Texas becomes even more diverse
in the future, we can expect increasing conflicts and battles on

political fronts. Texas has generally been ruled by, and for,
Anglo Americans. However, with the increasing numbers and
political clout of ethnic minorities, such governing will not be
possible in the future. Texas will have to find some way to build
coalitions and compromises where conflict is sure to exist.
What about participation-how will one change affect another?
Traditionally, Hispanics and African-Americans vote less than
Whites, so one would expect a continued decline in
participation. However, as these groups, especially Hispanics,
became a bigger part of the population and see their views and
ethnicity reflected in public policy, perhaps they will begin to
vote at a higher rate. As this happens, both parties will try to
increase their appeal to the Hispanic voters.
Proportion of Whites in Each State in 2014
States with a homogeneous (similar) population find governing
different and usually much easier than states with significant
ethnic diversity. With a population that is overwhelmingly
White, there is little need to offer services to minority groups or
even give much attention to their issues or their votes. Texas
has a very diverse population. Almost thirty percent of the
population is neither Hispanic nor White (White is defined to
include Hispanic). This means that policies can no longer
benefit only Whites if the officials want to continue being
elected.
Proportion of African American Population in 2014
Not surprisingly, the proportion of African Americans in a state
is highest in former states of the Confederacy (the South). Over
a third of the people in Mississippi are African American. While
African Americans are only the second largest minority group in
Texas, behind Hispanics, they do make up more than ten percent
of the population. Generally states with a large African
American population can expect lower political participation, a
traditionalistic culture and political pressure to help minorities.
Much of this is true about Texas. Interestingly, while their

numbers are growing, the proportion of the population that is
African American is declining (by over a percent in the last five
years) because of the rapid growth of the Hispanic population.
Do you think that will matter in the future?
Proportion of Hispanic American Population in 2014
Americans of Hispanic descent are the fastest growing minority
group in America. Their presence is particularly prominent in
California, New Mexico and Texas. Almost forty percent of all
citizens in Texas are of Mexican or Hispanic heritage. This has
a dramatic effect on the nature of politics and policy in the
state. Texas has more Hispanic candidates and elected officials
than most other states, and such issues as bilingual education
and immigration policy take on an urgent meaning in such
states. Such policies have little consequences and carry little
weight in West Virginia!!
Economics
The economy of a state influences every aspect of that state's
government, just as your economic status influences every
aspect of your life. It is where dreams meet reality (just as you
may want to buy a Jaguar, but your income requires you buy a
Hyundai). It determines how much you can spend, your sources
of revenue, and where you choose to spend that money. In a
similar manner, the economic context of a state determines the
size of government in that state, as well as where it can get its
money. Further, the economic context determines expenditures
by influencing not only how much money there is, but also how
much the states need to spend. The irony, much like family
incomes, is that states that have the most often don't need to
spend it and those with little, need it the most.
LECTURE: AUDIO
The first thing you want to think about in terms of economics is
the natural resources of the state-does the state itself provide an
economic boost? Historically, Texas has had three dominant
natural resources: cotton (before 1850), cattle (1850-1900), and
oil/ natural gas (post-1900). Before 1850, cotton was one of the

major economic engines of the state and provided somewhat of
a buffer in the post-Civil War era that enabled Texas to rebuild
and recover more quickly than other former Confederate states.
From about 1850 until the turn of the century “cattle was king.”
The cattle barons (those who owned cattle) controlled the
economy, the politics-everything during this era. Finally, as the
importance of cattle declined a bit, oil was discovered in Texas.
LECTURE: AUDIO
From the early 1900s, oil and natural gas became important. The
presence of a natural resource makes it easier to fund
government, because it provides revenue at a very limited cost.
Up until the early 1980s, Texas really could rely on its natural
resources to fund many things. In fact, up until 1981, more than
25% of all revenues generated in the state came from the natural
resources industry. For example, for years college in Texas was
funded by the PUF Fund (Permanent University Funds)- which
was funded by oil money. It meant college tuition was very low
and taxes were low. Now, the vast majority of revenues and jobs
in Texas are in the service industry (ranging from banking to
janitorial services) or retail sales (sales at the Gap or The
Limited or McDonald's).
The Texas economy is now much more diverse, therefore, a
recession like that of the 1980s with a crash of oil prices is
unlikely because there are numerous types of jobs, so if a
recession hits one area it can be balanced by another. Economic
diversity also means the government has more resources to tax,
such as taxing retailers or the oil industry or the lottery.
Politically, it means that no group can control the political
process as oil did for so long-there are a lot more players now.
Think about Texas. In 2004, almost 17% of the state's
population was below the federal poverty level (Links to an
external site.). (If the link to the left does not work, please copy
and paste it in a new browser
window: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_per_bel_pov_le
v-economy-percent-below-poverty-level (Links to an external
site.))

Five border counties are among the ten poorest counties in the
country. This means that Texas has greater needs and must
spend money to help its impoverished population. However, that
same characteristic means that the state has less money to
distribute to those same poor. A poor state needs more help, but
has fewer resources to meet those needs. Generally, Texas has
higher unemployment than average and lower income levels. In
the past, Texas could rely on natural resources like cattle,
cotton and oil to help supplement these weaknesses. Those
things are gone now. What could replace those resources and
help the state remain strong, despite economic deficiencies?
Per Capita Personal Income in 2014
Money matters! It matters in politics, it matters in policies and
it matters in voting. If a state has relatively low per capita
incomes, then they have less tax money to provide necessary
services for their people. However, that same low income also
puts greater demands on the state to provide services to the poor
who need them. More bills to pay and less money to pay with!
When it comes to per capita income (average income per
person), Texas is right in the middle- half states higher and
half the states lower.
Unemployment Rate in 2015
Just like per capita income, a state’s unemployment rate is an
indicator of how well its economy is doing. States that need the
most help (high unemployment) generally have less money to
pay for it. During the “Great Recession” (2007-2009), Texas
fared better than most of their Southern counterparts.
Unemployment in Texas stayed right at the national average. In
2014, Texas did better than most of the other states with an
unemployment rate of 4.7%- well below the national average.
Job Growth: 2015 to 2016
Job growth is important. It is a a good indicator of how well a
state's economy is doing. Texas has always prided itself on
providing an environment of low taxes and regulations that

would encourage job growth. According to the 2015-1016 job
growth data, the strategy is generally working. With a growth
rate of 1.8 percent, Texas ranked 15th of the fifty states, well
below the 3.3 percent growth rate in Oregon and far above
Wyoming which lost almost three percent.

Four Components of State PoliticsWhile we think of government .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from shericehewat

More from shericehewat (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Four Components of State PoliticsWhile we think of government .docx