I hate Walmart. I detest it. I hate everything about it. I hate the parking lot. I hate that the medicine and toiletries section is on the complete opposite side of the store as everything else you need. I hate that even if you’re just running in for five things, you still have to get a full-size cart because you can never find a handbasket. I hate that they have 78 checkout lanes, but only two are open at any given time. And I hate that if you use the self-checkout lane, there’s a 99.9% chance something won’t work, and you’ll have to wait around for ten minutes for a worker to come by and enter a random code that you probably could’ve entered yourself.

And yet I still shop there.

I’m not proud of it, mind you. But there are times when it’s just too dang far to drive to the nearest Target or Kroger or whatever.

I bring this up because of the 2005 documentary “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices”, which I watched for the first time this weekend. It’s an extremely biased look at the evil spawn of Sam Walton. How it’s destroyed Main Street USA. How it’s condemned its employees to poverty. How it thrives on cheap Asian sweatshop labor. How it gets millions in tax breaks, promotes crime, and sacrifices puppies in bloody Satanic rituals. (OK, that last part might be an exaggeration.) The documentary had plenty of statistics and tear-jerking firsthand testimonials to back up its claims, and I don’t doubt the validity of any of them. But here’s the thing: Walmart is not the problem.

At least it’s not entirely the problem. And I don’t even think it’s necessarily the cause of the problem so much as a reflection of how the rest of the world is changing.

Yes, Walmart has caused the closure of a lot of locally-owned mom-and-pop businesses throughout the country. But if it hadn’t been Walmart, it would’ve been Target or McDonald’s or Barnes & Noble or Home Depot or somebody else. Yes, their employees make barely over minimum wage and can’t support a family on their paychecks. But why would anyone think you could support a family by working as a part-time cashier at a grocery store? How is that really Walmart’s fault? Has it gotten millions in tax breaks and exploited Asian sweatshops? Absolutely, but so have a lot of other companies.

I’m not saying that any of that is right; it’s not. But the world is changing, and it’s not realistic to expect otherwise. And that change doesn’t begin and end with Walmart. Look at the publishing industry. One could argue that retail giant Barnes & Noble caused the death of other traditional bookstores. But Amazon caused the bankruptcy of Barnes & Noble. Best Buy and Walmart may have caused the end of traditional music stores, but iTunes has since overtaken each of them. Blockbuster may have dominated the video rental industry, but they were replaced by Netflix, which itself faces pressure from Comcast, AT&T, and others.

I’m not defending Walmart. Not at all. And I’m not saying we’re better off with or without them. Only that they are not the sole cause of the end of the world, as the documentary would have its audience believe.

Previously:
How the West was lost
Will the American Empire fall like Rome?
Long live capitalism

Fort Worth Weekly explains that there are a few reasons. First came major changes to the state’s franchise tax in 2006 along with other taxes that were supposed to save local school districts about $7 billion in maintenance and operations taxes. However, the franchise tax didn’t bring in the revenue legislators expected it to.

Second, armed with a sizable budget surplus in an election year, the Senate did what any politician would do: they spent it. Or at least $5.6 billion of it, in the form of teacher pay raises, incentive pay, and other stuff.

These two reasons alone would’ve hurt the state down the road, but then the national economy unraveled in 2008. With Texas getting about three quarters of its revenue from sales taxes, the state took a big hit as people tightened their belts, as they always do during a recession.

The crap should’ve hit the fan two years ago, but thanks to about $15 billion in federal stimulus money, the state was able to escape relatively unscathed. Until now, that is. Without another massive handout from Washington, Texas is finally having to acknowledge the $27 billion elephant in the room.

The real kicker, though, is that none of this is a surprise. In fact, way back in 2006, then-Comptroller and “One Tough Grandma” Carole Keeton Strayhorn warned Congress of the impending doom:

She said the bill and the Senate’s freewheeling election-year spending spree left Texas taxpayers holding a “$23 billion hot check” and warned lawmakers that the only reason she could certify the legislation was because of the state’s surplus. Even with that, she said, she could only certify that the house of cards wouldn’t collapse before the end of fiscal 2008.

“Because of the huge surplus, I would have enough revenue to certify this bill through 2008, but not 2009 and 2010,” she said in her message certifying the legislation.

Strayhorn, who was running as an independent for governor at the time, was pooh-poohed by Perry and many, if not most, Republicans. She had taken so many shots at Perry in the previous months that many regarded her revenue estimates as purely political. She predicted shortfalls that could top $13.9 billion — and that was more than five years before the state and U.S. economy tanked, a development that drained state surpluses and shrunk state revenues like a cotton shirt washed in hot water.

I wouldn’t blame Strayhorn for saying, “I told you so” to her former arch-nemesis, who skated through the 2010 election without ever being fully held accountable for the budget crisis that he had a hand in creating. However, I can guarantee that no one else is laughing.

Previously:
Won’t somebody please think of the children?
Don’t mess with Texas
Is it hypocritical for Perry to accept stimulus money?

A couple of years ago, I quoted an article from The Economist comparing California, with its high unemployment and oppressive government regulation, to Texas, which has a lower-than-average unemployment rate and business-friendlier environment. While Texas naturally came out ahead, the article did praise California’s “inventive” nature, to which I replied, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

I may have to rethink that.

Without the prospects of a massive federal stimulus package, the Texas legislature is wrestling with a $27 billion budget shortfall. And adamantly opposed to raising taxes or dipping into the state’s $9.4 billion rainy day fund, the Republican-led congress is hoping the close the gap simply by cutting spending. A lot.

Such budget cuts would impact all areas of the state government, but at least in preliminary proposals, education would take one of the biggest hits, costing the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers statewide. Medical programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be also slashed. But can we really afford to do that?

According to the left-leaning Texas Legislature Study Group, Texas doesn’t look too good compared to other states in the areas of health care and education. Texas has the 2nd highest public school enrollment but the lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma. The state ranks 44th when it comes to state and local expenditures per student (which could be interpreted as a good or bad thing), but SAT scores rank an embarrassing 45th.

Meanwhile, Texas has the highest percentage of population uninsured, the highest percentage of uninsured children, the 2nd highest birth rate, and the 4th highest percentage of children living in poverty. And it ranks at or near the bottom in terms of per capita spending on Medicaid (49th), percentage of low income population covered by Medicaid (49th), per capita spending on mental health (50th), and percentage of population with employer-based health insurance (48th).

Obviously, with such a huge budget deficit to overcome, it’s not realistic to expect that no cuts would be made to education or health care spending. But as the New York Times’ Paul Krugman points out, such cuts put a disproportionate burden on the state’s children:

While low spending may sound good in the abstract, what it amounts to in practice is low spending on children, who account directly or indirectly for a large part of government outlays at the state and local level.

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average. …

It’s not a pretty picture; compassion aside, you have to wonder — and many business people in Texas do — how the state can prosper in the long run with a future work force blighted by childhood poverty, poor health and lack of education.

With Texas already lagging far behind the rest of the country in health and education, how does anyone expect things to get better by drastically cutting spending in those areas? They won’t. Still, the budget still has to be balanced somehow. Rick Perry likes to tout’s the state’s low-tax, pro-business conservatism, yet the reality is that simply cutting spending isn’t going to be enough to close the budget gap. But even if that were possible, what would be the long-term consequences?

Unfortunately, I think the answer to the budget problem is a lot more complicated than just cutting costs. Yes, some across-the-board cuts will have to be made, which will result in some people losing their jobs. But additional money from the rainy day fund and higher taxes and fees must also be included.

Previously:
Don’t mess with Texas
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs
Economist: Marriage is ‘necessary for good economic development’
Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

According to a new study by the Heritage Foundation, having a married father in the household “has the same effect in reducing poverty as adding five to six years to a parent’s education level”:

About two of every three poor children live in single-parent households. Yet if poor single moms married the fathers of their children, nearly two out of three would be lifted out of poverty. …

It’s not as simple as young men “manning up” and becoming the lawfully wedded husbands of their girlfriends, live-in or otherwise. These unmarried mothers tend to be in their 20s, without much income or education. They come to depend on public assistance; many learn how to work the welfare system.

Research shows that a child raised in a home where Dad is married to Mom is much less likely to live in poverty, get arrested as a juvenile, be suspended or expelled from school, be treated for emotional or behavioral problems, or drop out before completing high school. Taxpayers foot the bill for more than $300 billion a year in means-tested government spending on low-income single moms – and, in relatively rare cases, single dads.

So Happy Father’s Day to all the married dads out there. You’re not just saving your kids’ lives, you just might be saving the entire economy.

Previously:
Defining ‘manhood’
Economist: Marriage is ‘necessary for good economic development’
Single parents cost taxpayers $112 billion

The data essentially reinforce what you would expect to find in the first census since the end of the Civil War: The North had a higher population overall, more foreign-born residents, much fewer African-Americans, and was much wealthier than the South. The percentage of men in the West (California, Nevada, Idaho, etc.) far exceeded the percentage of women. And the federal government, whose expenditures were almost completely limited to the military, saw the national debt explode in order to pay for the Civil War.

Below: The Constitutional Population (“Excluding Indians not taxed”).

Below: The “Colored” Population. Almost exclusively located in the Deep South along the Mississippi River and Southern plantations.

Below: The Foreign Population. Notice that the foreign immigrants flocked mainly to the upper Midwest but also to Central Texas. The influx of German and Czech immigrants to Texas is responsible for the incredible barbecue we still salivate over today. In California, of course, most of the immigrants were Chinese.

Below: Church Accommodation. Almost 50% of the total population was either Methodist or Baptist (red striped area and green area, respectively), with smaller numbers in Presbyterian or Roman Catholic churches (blue and maroon areas). In New England, Congregational churches were more dominant (light blue striped area), while the Southwest was divided between Catholics (maroon) and Mormons (black).

Below: The National Debt. Almost non-existent before the U.S.-Mexican War (1846-1848) but then exploding during the Civil War, reaching a height of about $2.7 billion in 1866. It’s interesting to note that only a few years later the Panic of 1873 would plunge the nation into a major economic depression.

Check out all the maps in full size and stunning detail on the Radical Cartography site.

Previously:
Tonight we’re gonna panic like it’s 1873
A presidential view on debt

Now we get the sequel.

First, we find out that Texas employers hired 41,700 new employees in October (a number almost identical to the jobs lost a month before). But then in another article (also from the DMN), we find out that Dallas-Fort Worth “lost about 60,000 jobs in October compared to a year earlier.” Both stats, conveniently, come from the Texas Workforce Commission.

OK, so I guess you could argue that the DFW area lost 60,000 jobs while other parts of Texas gained 101,700. If so, how do you explain the unemployment rate rising from 8.2 percent in September to 8.3 percent in October? Something’s not adding up.

Further, the first article states that “Dallas-Fort Worth lost 59,100 jobs between October 2008 and last month”, while the second article (quoting the Dallas Federal Reserve) says that DFW has “lost almost 115,000 jobs this year”.

Huh?

Have we lost 59,000 jobs in the last year or 115,000? Did we gain 41,000 jobs in October or lose 60,000? Honestly, I don’t think anyone really knows.

And that’s why our economy is so screwed up.

Previously:
Texas gains jobs, Texas loses jobs
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs

The mixed and blunt assessment by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general in charge of oversight for the bailout fund, appears in a quarterly report scheduled for release Wednesday. Barofsky said the Troubled Asset Relief Program has come at great cost to taxpayers, to the integrity of the financial system and to the public’s perception of the federal government.

“Despite the aspects of TARP that could reasonably be viewed as a substantial success,” he wrote, “Treasury’s actions in this regard have contributed to damage the credibility of the program and of the government itself, and the anger, cynicism and distrust created must be chalked up as one of the substantial, albeit unnecessary, costs of TARP.”

Of course, the report assumes that Americans had any faith in the government in the first place, which is questionable.

There’s a reason our currency says “In God We Trust”.

Previously:
‘Dude, where’s my $700 billion?’
TARP is the financial equivalent of the Vietnam War

“As the global economy recovers and trade volumes rebound, however, global imbalances my reassert themselves,” Bernanke warned. For the United States’ part, “the most effective way” to boost national savings in this country “is by establishing a sustainable fiscal trajectory, anchored by a clear commitment to substantially reduce federal deficits over time,” Bernanke said. He didn’t suggest ways to do so.

Bernanke may not have any ideas for how to cut the deficit, but I have a few suggestions. How ’bout no more bailouts for starters? Maybe stop buying banks, auto companies, and insurance companies? Also, we could stop paying people to trade in their old cars. And — call me crazy! — maybe we should abandon plans for a massive, multi-trillion-dollar health care overhaul.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head. You’re welcome.

Previously:
The real ‘death panel’? The federal budget

Wait, wha?

Have we gained jobs or haven’t we?

See, this is why you should never let politicians do math.

Previously:
‘Stimulus’ spending could cost Texas 171,900 jobs

OK, so you knew that already. But now with an online calculator from the Rocky Mountain Institute (the independent, entrepreneurial, nonprofit think-and-do tank™), you have proof. With graphs!

For example, compare a (base) Toyota Corolla, which gets between 26 and 35 mpg, to a Toyota Prius, which gets between 48 and 51 mpg. At $2.61/gallon for gas, if you drive each car 15,000 miles for 5 years, the total cost of ownership of the Corolla is $5400 less than the Prius.

(Click to enlarge.)

And even with gas prices at $5.00/gallon, the Corolla would still be over $3400 cheaper.

In fact, at $5.00/gallon, you’d have to drive the Prius 27,625 miles a year for 5 years before it begins to be a better bargain than its non-hybrid competitor.

Of course, with any calculator like this, there are all kinds of caveats, not the least of which is the fact that no one would ever buy the base-model Corolla with no additional options. But still, it drives home the fact that hybrids are great for tree-huggers with money to burn, but not necessarily for those of us watching our monthly budgets.

Previously:
What the auto mileage bill really means for consumers