State Laws And State Budgets

Each state has its own way of spending money. It, therefore, means that each does things differently. Through the procedures and state laws, diversity leads to an unfair situation for people from different states. The comparison of qualities of services is between California and Texas. The two are among the largest in the USA in terms of geography and population. However, one should note that there are differences in the cost of living in the two states. There are considerable differences in expenses in both California and Texas. California seems to be expensive when compared to Texas. In California, an adult is expected to spend a month is $296 on food, while in Texas, it is about 249.

In the whole of the USA, Texas is said to have the highest number of public school employees compared to all other states. On the other hand, there are 1.6 million more students in California than in Texas. However, it has 1225 fewer schools and 52,090 fewer school employees. All in all, only 51% of the employees in Texas are teachers. The two states like touting their pupil’s spending, and in this case, Texas seems to be good as it stands at $6746 compared to California, which is $7511. All the same, the cost does not include debt service, pension cost, or construction spending (Melkers 68). If all of the expenditures get included, the spending in Texas rises to $11024, while in California, it stands at $11800.

One may argue that taxpayers get less in return concerning the California prison system. Alternatives to jailing inmates, like drug treatment programs, are cheaper ways as well as being efficient than locking up inmates. It costs about 75,000 in one year to lock just one prisoner (Lofstrom n.p). As such, minor offenders should not sit in jail if they lack the cost of being released on trial. Besides, the state’s focus should be on crime prevention as well as drug treatment since there is a high cost of incarceration. Unlike in California, Texas spends $ 22,012 on a single inmate per annum. In fact, this is below the average if compared to all other states. It ranks in the 37th position on inmate spending. More so, it tops on incarnations despite spending less on inmates. Interestingly, it has the fewest number of inmates.

There is a drop in how Texas spends its money on welfare. However, this has left the citizens with less security safety net, thus freeing millions for a legislative budget. The welfare reform has made Texas have less federal funds based on anti-poverty. All the same, these block grants are meant to enhance the state’s flexibility in their spending. The spending is intended to serve four main categories. First and foremost, it is designed to help needy families, reducing dependency on government, work, and marriage, as well as encourage two parents families (Cammisa n.p). California, on the other hand, spends a quarter of the nation’s spending on dependent children families. There are those who argue that such programs may undermine family formation, stunt children as well and marginalise poor men. Pumping a lot of money is not more helpful as it may cause more harm than benefits.

I think the states need more power to get higher uniformity. However, the Constitution dictates that federal governments have more power than state governments. The reason why it should be this is that states have the responsibility of protecting the safety, welfare, and health of their citizens. Moreover, more than 90% of the cases are solved by the state courts. One recommendation would be a reduction of regional inequalities.

Works Cited

Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. “The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50.” Public Administration Review (1998): 66-73.

Lofstrom, Magnus, Mia Bird, and Brandon Martin. California’s Historic Corrections Reforms. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California, 2016.

Cammisa, Anne Marie. From rhetoric to reform?: Welfare policy in American politics. Routledge, 2018.