Texas has a two-year budget cycle, and the $25 billion deficit figure that's been batted around the internet is speculative since the official numbers won't be known until January.
Are there any reasons to think that the speculative number will be off by more than a billion or two? If the real deficit is actually 23 or 27 billion, I don't think that really affects the comparison too much.
('Oh, Texas's deficit is actually $24.23 billion and not $24.24 billion? Well, obviously that invalidates all the comparisons to California! Let's discuss something else.')
People seem to be getting a bit heated on this topic. I was just trying to point out that the number was an estimate, and that it was for a two year period. If we take a low-high range of $23 - 27B, then that is $11.5 - 13.5B/year, which is significantly different than the $25B that is being implied for a one year budget.
Personally, I think all the California vs. Texas debates are a childish extension of blue state vs. red state political bickering. Nobody in the US is better off if either state has financial problems.
What is the margin of error? For example, if Texas debt is between 10 and 30 billion, then we can't comment. But if it is between 20 and 30, then I think we can reasonably say that Texas debt to GDP is worse.
