Question

What is the political culture of the average texan? Explain how this culture influencss the public and tax policy in the state. Also what areas do you think the state government should invest more taxpayers money? and why?

Answer 1

Political culture is a shared system of values, beliefs, and habits of behavior with regard to
government and politics. Multiple cultures may coexist in a society, but typically one culture is
dominant and those dominant values, beliefs, and habits of behavior affect all members of
society.
Texas combines the individualistic and traditionalistic political cultures. A legacy of the state's
western frontier heritage, the individualistic political culture celebrates individual achievement—
the lone cowboy riding the range, the singular sheriff, the "one-fight, one-Ranger" attitude.
Government activity is encouraged only to the extent that it creates opportunity for individual
achievement. The traditionalistic political culture, emphasizing deference to elite rule within a
hierarchical society, represents the values of 19th century Southerners who migrated to the rich
cotton land of East Texas. Government activity is discouraged unless it reinforces the power of
society's dominant groups.
Taken together, individualism and traditionalism make Texas a politically conservative state,
hostile to government activity, especially government interference in the economy. Government
is expected to stay out of people's affairs, and when it does get involved, it should be controlled
locally. Government should spend little and tax little, if at all. Individual businesspeople should
control their own fate and the economy. Texas political culture mixes economic conservatism
with a conservative approach to social life, in which government becomes a barrier against any
change to the political and socioeconomic hierarchy that might result from individual
competition.
Individualism and traditionalism blend with a philosophy of social Darwinism, a belief in survival
of the fittest—absent governmental interference, those who rise to the top deserve it, and those
who fall to the bottom also deserve it. It is not the government's responsibility to pick them up.
Social Darwinists believe that poverty results from natural selection and is therefore not
something to be fixed by government.
However, there is also a strong populist streak in Texas political culture that believes
government power should be used to protect individuals from exploitation by powerful

State investment in transportation, public buildings, water treatment systems, and other forms of vital infrastructure is key to creating good jobs and promoting full economic recovery. States should reject the flawed economic growth strategy of cutting taxes and offering corporate giveaways, and instead identify and make investments in infrastructure that provide the foundation for a strong economy. It’s a good time for states to make those investments.

The condition of roads, bridges, schools, water treatment plants, and other physical assets greatly influences the economy’s ability to function and grow. Commerce requires well-maintained roads, railroads, airports, and ports so that manufacturers can obtain raw materials and parts and deliver finished products to consumers. Growing communities rely on well-functioning water and sewer systems. State-of-the art schools free from crowding and safety hazards improve educational opportunities for future workers. Every state needs infrastructure improvements that can pay off economically in private-sector investment and productivity growth.

States may be hoping that a promised federal plan to invest more in roads, bridges, and other public infrastructure will materialize. More federal help would be welcome, but states should take the lead in this area because the type and amount of assistance they’d receive under any new federal initiative remain unclear. The President’s fiscal year 2019 infrastructure proposal, for example, claimed to invest $1.5 trillion in real new federal infrastructure resources, but it is a mirage: the budget in fact would have cut total federal funding for infrastructure in the long run. (The proposal would have added $200 billion in “new” federal funds that the Administration claimed could support at least $1.5 trillion in investment, but in the long run it would have deeply cut the Highway Trust Fund — and suggests that states and localities would have to fill the gap.[1]) President Trump also noted the need for infrastructure investment in his 2020 budget, which again calls for allocating $200 billion but provides no new details on how it would be used.

But rather than investing in infrastructure, many states have cut taxes and have offered corporate subsidies in a misguided approach to boosting economic growth. Tax cuts will spur little to no economic growth and take money away from schools, universities, and other public investments essential to producing the talented workforce that businesses need.[2] This pattern of neglect of infrastructure by states — the primary stewards (along with their local government partners) of the nation’s infrastructure — has serious consequences for the nation’s growth and quality of life as roads crumble, school buildings become obsolete, and outdated facilities jeopardize public health.

States should address unmet infrastructure needs now for several reasons:

• The investment will improve state economies, now and in the future. Higher-quality and more efficient infrastructure will boost productivity in states that make the needed investments, lifting long-term economic growth and wages. In the short term, even though overall employment has recovered, millions of Americans are working less than they would like and making less than it takes to get by. Key infrastructure investments would provide immediate job opportunities.
• Opportunities to finance infrastructure investment abound. States often pay for building new schools, roads, airports, water treatment facilities, and the like using debt, a sound practice for financing infrastructure that can serve generations. Today’s historically low interest rates are especially favorable to such borrowing, and state and local debt is below pre-recession levels. But with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, this opportunity may diminish soon. States also have many other revenue sources available including user fees, like tolls, as well as federal grants.
• Most states are in a relatively strong position to afford these investments. The nation’s economy has slowly recovered from the Great Recession, finally lifting state revenues above pre-recession levels, better enabling states on average to afford infrastructure investments. The long recovery has improved state revenues significantly, but the pace of state tax growth is slowing.[3] In many states revenues remain insufficient to adequately cover the costs of needed services such as education and health care, and still make the necessary infrastructure investments. These states will need to consider tax increases to preserve public capital that is crucial to long-term economic growth while meeting other needs

A number of states have recognized the historic opportunity and need for infrastructure investments. For example, Washington is in the midst of a multi-year transportation improvement initiative. And more than half of the states have raised their gas taxes, a key source of funds for road construction, since 2013.

But overall, states are cutting infrastructure spending as a share of the economy, the opposite of what is needed. Spending by state and local governments on all types of capital dropped from its high of 3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) in the late 1960s to less than 2 percent in 2017. Falling federal spending on infrastructure is exacerbating the problem.

States must turn their attention back to the type of infrastructure investments that will boost productivity, support business growth, create jobs, provide a healthier environment, and improve opportunities for all of their residents. The specific investments needed will differ from state to state depending on factors like the condition of the existing infrastructure and the mix of industries in the region, but states continue to ignore needed investments at the country’s peril.