Each state has its way of spending money. It, therefore, means that each does it things differently. Through the procedures and state laws, diversity leads to an unfair situation to people from different states. The comparison of qualities of services is between California and Texas. The two are among the largest in the USA regarding 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 Texas. In California, an adult is expected to spend in a month is $296 on food while in Texas it is about 249.
In the whole of 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 when compared to Texas. However, it has 1225 fewer schools and a 52,090 fewer school’s employees. All in all, there are only 51% of the employees in Texas who 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 is not inclusive of debt service, pension cost as well as constructions 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 cost about 75,000 in one year to lock just one prisoner (Lofstrom n.p). As such, minor offenders should not sit in jails 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 facts, this is below the average if compared to all other states. It ranks on 37th position on inmate spending. More so, it tops on incarnations despite it spending less on inmates. Interestingly it has the fewest number of inmates.
There is a drop in how Texas spent 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 regarding block grants which are meant to enhance the state’s flexibility on their spending. The spending is intended to serve mainly four categories. First and foremost, it is designed for helping the needy families, reduce dependency on government, work, and marriage as well as encouraging 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, stunted children as well as marginalized poor men. Pumping much 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 the federal governments have more power than the state’s government. The reason why it should be this is that states have the responsibilities of protecting the safety, welfare as well as the citizen’s health. Moreover, more than 90% of the cases get 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.
