1) And now the money for that oil is going to Texas instead of the US 2a) It varies from year to year, and that number is one of the higher ones, but even usin

1) And now the money for that oil is going to Texas instead of the US 2a) It varies from year to year, and that number is one of the higher ones, but even using it, it's not just about the difference in what gets paid vs. what gets spent. Texas is the 2nd highest state in gross collections. If you remove the tax revenue from Texas, it is nearly one tenth of the entire tax collection for the US. 2b) George Bush is not from Texas. He's from Connecticut. What war have Texans gotten the US into outside of the one with Mexico in the 1800s? 3) The US - and I'm sure you'll blame Texas for this, somehow - has put itself in a position of needing the military. Removing Texas won't remove the Republican party or the neo-con hawks running it. Unless you can get rid of all of them too, you'll be doing the same things the US has always done, but now with a reduced ability to do it. 4) See above. Also, larger than average pool of unskilled labor? Texas sits quite near the middle on per capita income, while having a severely reduced cost of living compared to most of the states that sit above it. Adjusted for that, it's in the top half. 5) Well, yes. Of course Texas losing the benefits of the Union is bad for Texas. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with this particular point. You've made up Texas to be a bogeyman for everything you feel is wrong with the US, and are acting as if it is responsible for every poor policy the US government has made. If you want to pin all that ails the Union on one state, well, be my guest. It's no different than the far right idiots who say the same thing about California.