Greg Abbott: Is Texas Thriving or Falling Apart? I Have No Idea.

Depending on who you listen to, Texas Governor Greg Abbott is either an economic genius who turned Texas into the greatest place in America to live and work, or a politician who spent more than a decade making life harder for ordinary Texans.

And just a few days ago, voters decided they'd had enough. Abbott lost his reelection bid to Democrat Gina Hinojosa.

Wait a minute. I thought Texas was thriving? Apparently, It depends on who you ask.

Let's start with the economy.

According to Abbott and his supporters, Texas is absolutely killing it. Businesses are moving in. Jobs are being created. The population has grown tremendously. Texas has no state personal income tax, and its economy reached approximately $2.9 trillion in 2025.

Awesome. Abbott's administration points to business-friendly policies, limited regulations and economic freedom as reasons for the state's success. And looking at those numbers, it's difficult to argue that Texas isn't an economic powerhouse. But then I start reading the other side.

Housing costs have risen. Property taxes are a constant complaint. They are for me too. Mine just went up less than a month after I bought a house. Insurance, electricity and everyday expenses have become increasingly difficult for families to manage. So here's my question.

If Texas is doing so incredibly well, why are so many people struggling to afford living here? Is the economy booming for everybody? Or just the companies moving here?

And how much credit does Abbott deserve for the growth anyway? Texas was attracting businesses long before he became governor. I don't know.

Now property taxes.

Abbott has repeatedly supported property tax relief, and Texas lawmakers have approved billions of dollars in tax reductions. That's great. I own a home. Lower property taxes sound pretty damn good to me.

But then homeowners turn around and complain that their tax bills are still too high.

Apparently, Texas can deliver record-breaking tax relief while people continue to feel overwhelmed by their taxes. I don't get it.

Property taxes are complicated. Local governments set tax rates, property values change, exemptions matter, and a governor doesn't personally determine what appears on everybody's tax bill. Okay. Fair enough.

But when politicians campaign on lowering taxes, shouldn't we eventually be able to look at our bills and say, "Hey, this is actually working"? Maybe some homeowners can. Maybe others can't. I'm confused again.

What about the border?

Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in 2021, deploying state troopers and National Guard soldiers to the Texas-Mexico border. His administration says the operation has helped combat illegal immigration, drug trafficking and criminal activity.

Supporters argue that Abbott stepped in because the federal government wasn't doing enough to secure the border. And honestly, I can understand that argument. A governor has a responsibility to protect the people living in his state. But here's where I get lost.

Texas has spent billions of dollars on this operation. By early 2025, Abbott was asking the federal government to reimburse approximately $11 billion in border-related spending.

Eleven billion dollars. That's a lot of money. Investigations have also raised questions about how the operation's successes were counted, including whether some reported arrests had much to do with border security at all. So did Operation Lone Star work?

Border encounters declined during certain periods, but experts have pointed out that immigration patterns are influenced by many factors, including federal policies and conditions in other countries.

How much of the improvement can we actually attribute to Abbott? Was this an expensive but necessary investment in public safety? Or an enormously costly political statement?
I genuinely don't know.

And then there's the power grid.

Remember the winter storm in 2021? Millions of Texans lost electricity during freezing temperatures. People died. Families suffered. It was an absolute disaster.

Abbott promised improvements, and Texas subsequently made changes intended to strengthen the electrical grid. Supporters say the state has become better prepared for extreme weather. Critics argue that the system remains vulnerable and question whether the reforms went far enough.

And with Texas adding businesses, massive data centers and millions of residents, electricity demand isn't exactly going away. So are we prepared for the next major winter storm? Because we're weeks away from it.

I certainly hope so. But I also remember what happened the last time.

Now let's talk about education.

Abbott championed a $1 billion private-school choice program, giving eligible families access to public funding to help pay for private education. Supporters call that a victory for parents. And I understand why.

If your child isn't getting a good education at the local public school, why shouldn't you have another option? But opponents argue that private-school subsidies could weaken public education, particularly in communities where families don't have many alternatives.

So is this about giving parents more freedom? Or is it about shifting taxpayer money toward private institutions? Could both things be true? No friggen clue, bruh.

And apparently, education became one of the major issues in Abbott's reelection campaign. Which brings me to something I find fascinating. Greg Abbott just lost.

After serving as governor since 2015, after years of economic growth, after massive investments in border security, after tax cuts and promises of greater freedom, Texas voters elected a Democrat. For the first time in more than three decades.

Now, does that mean Abbott was a terrible governor? Of course not. or does it? I'm lost.

Elections are influenced by countless things: the economy, national politics, individual candidates, public frustration and whether people simply want a change. But it does raise an interesting question.

If Texas was doing so well under Abbott, why did enough voters decide to replace him?
Were they unhappy with his policies? His priorities? The direction of the state? Or was this part of a larger political shift? We're we tricked?

Maybe all of the above. Here's what bothers me.

When Abbott talks about Texas, he describes a state filled with opportunity, freedom and prosperity. When his critics talk about Texas, they describe a state struggling with affordability, education, healthcare and political division. And both descriptions seem to contain some truth. I don't believe Texas is a disaster.

I live here. I see the growth. I see the businesses opening. I see the opportunities. But I also see people struggling to get by. I'm one of them.

What I don't understand is why everything has to be either a complete success or a complete failure. Why can't Abbott have made some very good decisions and some very bad ones?

Why can't we acknowledge economic growth while questioning whether ordinary people are benefiting from it? And why does admitting that a politician did something right suddenly mean you're supporting everything else they've ever done? I don't care whether there's an R or a D beside somebody's name.

I want to know whether they're doing their job. So here's my question.

Was Greg Abbott a successful governor who helped Texas become an economic powerhouse? Or did he spend more than a decade prioritizing political battles while ordinary Texans struggled with everyday problems?

And maybe the bigger question is this: How exactly are we supposed to measure whether a governor is doing a good job? Because once again, I started looking for answers.
And somehow, I'm even more confused than when I started.

The floor is yours. Enlighten me.