Why Every State Should Be More Like Texas
Reporter Erica Grieder sees wisdom in the Lone Star State’s economic model. No verdict on if it has the best barbecue, however
- By Amy Crawford
- Smithsonian.com, April 30, 2013, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 2)
Texas also has the highest rate of people without health insurance—more than one in four are uninsured. Isn’t that a problem?
The rate of people without health insurance has been talked about a lot lately. It’s gotten a little worse, and it’s not a new issue. The United Health Foundation, for 2012, ranked us 40th overall for state health, and among the factors bringing us down was that we have the lowest insurance rate. But if you look at the category of health outcomes—defined as deaths, disease and days of work missed due to illness—we’re 25th. We’ve improved in some categories but not in others. On things like smoking rates, we’re actually pretty low. The state has raised the tobacco tax a couple of times in the past ten years, and a lot of the cities have passed various smoking bans. One thing that is planned in the current budget is funding for mental health care, around $200 million. That’s another area where Texas has historically ranked worst, and it was a bipartisan push this time around. On a lot of these social services the barrier is financial rather than philosophical.
Texas has historically had a huge oil industry, but countries and states with a lot of natural resources tend to have low growth—the so-called “resource curse.” Did Texas dodge that trap?
Texas was the second state to pass an anti-trust law, in 1889, in response to the national railways and national banks. (Texans, not having had those things, were a little bit parochial about it.) Once oil was discovered in great quantities in 1901 at Spindletop—it was this big gusher—the state had already been using its anti-trust law to push back at Standard Oil, the big Rockefeller oil company based in Pennsylvania. It didn’t mean the wealth was shared equally, but it did keep a lot of the profits in the state, which is not how things usually work for resource-rich states and countries. Beyond that, Texans are pretty shrewd. The state realized how bad it would be to be heavily dependent on oil as the component of its economy, especially in the ’80s, when prices collapsed. Since then, you’ve seen the state diversify its economy away from oil.
Those efforts seem inconsistent with Texas’ laissez-faire approach.
It is an interesting wrinkle on the Texas narrative of being a very free-market state—having anti-trust protections isn’t a free-market move. But I think that Texans are above all pro-Texas, and as pro-business as they are, pro-Texas trumps that. I think Texans are able to arbitrate between idealism and reality. In a number of cases, when there’s been a difference between what the “philosophy” of the state is and what the best course of action is, we do the prudent thing.
What are the lessons here for the rest of the country?
Texas is a state with room to grow and a need to grow. States that are in a similar position might want to take some pages from the Texas playbook. The Texas model prioritizes growth. It has low taxes, low services, and it’s always been a very small-government state. We see a lot of southern states—Louisiana is the most obvious example, and Alabama is another—focusing on lowering taxes and increasing economic development initiatives. The idea is that if you can attract companies, you can bring jobs, and jobs bring money, much of which is spent or reinvested in the state itself.
Not all states are looking to grow like Texas has, but are there practices they could adopt without copying Texas entirely?
States that are in financial disorder—not naming any names—should take a look at Texas’ fiscal discipline. I don’t see how it does people any good to build a bigger safety net if you’re just going to yank it away a couple of years down the road because you can’t pay for it.
Secondly, some would say that one of the big problems right now with the national economy is that the private sector is in a defensive crouch. Businesses keep saying they don’t know what to expect from the federal government, the world markets and so on, which is why they don’t want to make investment decisions and are sitting on big cash reserves rather than spending and hiring. If you think that’s true, then one of Texas’ underrated advantages is that it’s managed to mitigate a lot of policy uncertainty. Regardless of what’s going on in national politics, or foreign affairs, or with the weather, it’s a pretty safe bet that Texas is going to stay on the low-tax, low-services side of the spectrum. That makes it easier for businesses and families to plan for the future.
So Texas has a booming economy and it’s a good place to start a business, but what is it like to live there?
I think it’s great. I like the space. As I get older, I’m more and more curmudgeonly about having lots of space around me. I like how down-to-earth it is, and I like the practical intelligence that people in Texas have. I think part of the national stereotype is that we’re really aggressive and kind of belligerent, but that means people will do things around here, they’ll start businesses, they’ll take on projects with enthusiasm. It’s not a very cerebral state, but people do get things done.
I think every state has its own virtues and flaws. We are certainly well supplied with virtues and flaws in Texas, but it’s a great place to visit—if nothing else, to have some stories to bring back. But then again, more and more people are coming, and everyone in Austin is always saying, “It’s getting too big, it’s getting too big!” So I think my next book might be called, Never Mind, Guys.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (23)
+ View All Comments
It's hard not to see this article through a political lens, whether or not it was intended. Texas' policies on taxes, education, and health care are generally right-wing, Republican policies, or at least they are perceived that way nationally. It's disappointing to me to see Smithsonian essentially promoting Texas' approach in this article. I think it's dumb for Smithsonian to wade into political waters and promote a particular set of domestic policy positions - again, even if that's not the intent, it easily reads that way. I like Texas quite a lot and have visited many parts of the state on a half-dozen trips. It has great music, culture, people, unique history. Texas is also a political touchstone, epitomizing right-wing policies in the national psyche. That is likely to be true for many years to come. Lauding their policy approaches in an article like this is troubling to me, coming from what should be an apolitical publication. If I missed the comparable, gushing review of the policies of New York, California or Massachusetts, I'd love to know about it - otherwise I hope to see such a piece show up before it's time to renew my subscription.
Posted by John on May 8,2013 | 09:32 PM
Texas has an oil severance tax that makes it possible for it to spend half its state budget on subsidies for private corporations. BTW both Vermont and California enjoyed brief periods of "independence" before being admitted to the Union.
Posted by SELPilot on May 7,2013 | 07:29 PM
The author needs to look a little more closely at Sam Houston. He's not the hero Texas makes him out to be. He did not leave his governorship to avoid fighting for the Confederacy. He left because his wife left him possibly due to abuse. He then became a drunkard, but his political connections enabled him to contract for food and protection from the weather that could have saved thousands of Cherokees from death from starvation and the elements on the Trail of Tears. Except that he never delivered the supplies he had contracted for. He hoarded the Mackinaws that could have saved thousands from freezing to death and later "contributed" them to the Cherokees who survived the Trail of Tears to arrive in Indian Territory. He arrived in style and hooked up with a Cherokee woman in an effort to claim her land. Fortunately she saw through his swindle and kicked him to the curb. He then went to Texas and became a politician. He was known as the "Big Drunk" by the Cherokees and his laziness and swindling resulted in thousands of deaths along the Trail of Tears. And it had nothing to do with fighting for the Confederacy since it occurred almost thirty years before. Sam Houston has been made into a hero by some, but he was a drunard, swindling politifcian whose selfishness killed thousands of Cherokees. Check ALL yiou facts before making false statements.
Posted by jai jacobia on May 6,2013 | 11:40 PM
Re: "Texas is creating a lot of jobs across the income spectrum." Texas is creating very few jobs not related to natural resources, which Texas did not create. Texas is stealing jobs from other states by offering existing businesses obscenely low business taxes, tax-free places of business, and virtually no restrictions. The higher paid execs also love it because a highly regressive sales taxes that replaces an income tax.
Posted by Ray Arehart on May 6,2013 | 05:15 PM
I've lived in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, New York, Minnesota, and Texas and have visited the rest. Unquestionably Texas is the most unique state in the US. Frankly, I don't like it. I've never encountered a state that was so supportive of racism, anti-environmentalism, religious fervor, and anti-intelligencia than Texas. It is by and large a state that is far too proud and far too pathetic. Only Austin, San Antonio, the Hill Country, and Big Bend provide any source of enjoyment. That being said, Dallas is great if you are white, rich, and evangelical. Otherwise, forget it! This article and interviewee is unapologetic to this mistake of a state that has routinely elected people who are arrogant, pompous, and incompetent. For both parties! More importantly, the premise that Texas is strong economically is only a factor of current economics. The interviewer (and author) managed to forget that the economy of Texas floundered in the 80s when the oil market collapsed. And that will likely happen again.
Posted by Buta on May 5,2013 | 09:38 PM
Other states should emulate Texas? Tell this to the people of West. Seriously, this article is the least substantive and least objective thing I have seen in Smithsonian in a very long time. You can and should do better.
Posted by Lois W Matelan on May 5,2013 | 08:43 PM
Thank God there are 49 other choices.
Posted by RonG on May 5,2013 | 08:22 PM
There are lots of nice people in Texas, I've been there many times, but they are politically and economically backward. Educational levels are low, minimum wage without benefits is common, and the wealthy elite control everything. This article sounds more like a paid advertisement than a serious study. And by the way, the standard of living in California is so much higher than Texas that there is no comparison.
Posted by Gregory Urbach on May 5,2013 | 07:40 PM
Yeah. You also execute more people (including plenty of innocents who never got proper representation or appeared before a "hanging judge") than any other state in the Union. nd you have at least as many corrupt politicians as the worst of the other states. And you deny women the right to control their own bodies. And to hell with environmental degradation; let 'em eat cake. Just SOME of the downside of your brand of "red in tooth and nail" capitalism.
Posted by Hypatia on May 5,2013 | 05:09 PM
Texas is the definition of hubris.
Posted by Michael Gaudet on May 5,2013 | 04:22 PM
Nice piece of chamber of commerce fluff. I lived in Texas. Some of my family still lives in Texas. They are doing alright. Like those in my family, most of the white republicans living in Texas feel that they are doing alright. Austin is considered to be a socialist, liberal blight on the good state of Texas, so the writer is to be excused for such a myopic view of the polluted, bankrupt mess that is the great state of Texas.
Posted by Phil Seymour on May 5,2013 | 02:03 PM
As a non-native Texan (40+ years, I got here as quick as I could), I enjoy seeing those from elsewhere spew their preconceived notions and negativity about our great state. Sure Texas has problems but we're not afraid of tackling them and regularly finding bipartisan solutions. Some think we live in ignorant bliss and perhaps we do but it is bliss nonetheless. We will continue to stand tall while others fail and the "haters" can simply stay away. I believe that most of us hope they do.
Posted by Cabaret Singer on May 5,2013 | 12:26 PM
All the attacks on here against Texas for its emphasis on opportunity and personal responsibility clearly demonstrate the left wing mindset of taxpayer-funded giveaways to everyone who in their mind is at all deprived or deserving. That liberal mantra is eating away at our nation's ability to grow the economy in order to provide more jobs and more total tax revenues.
Posted by Kerry Fitzpatrick on May 5,2013 | 11:19 AM
I really don't expect such biased, regional, business promotion from an organization that I thought was about science and history. So what's the update on the water situation in Texas? Has there been any change in the opinion polls of the climate-change deniers in the state at all?
Posted by Kathy on May 5,2013 | 10:40 AM
+ View All Comments