Compare Vermont's standings in the 2003 Kids Count Data Book compiled by the Annie E. Casey Foundation of Baltimore, with those of Texas. These are the legacy of their respective former governors.
UPDATE: It's astounding that people think Texas' larger population and size somehow make it less outrageous, not more, that the state can't make children a priority. Invoking population is a bogus knee-jerk partisan defense. If it were even remotely applicable, then why do states with larger populations than Texas rank higher? Why don't the smallest states appear at the top?
The simple fact is that children's health is CHEAP. Children (even up to age 25) are very economical to insure. The fact that Texas ranks so poorly - despite being a much larger state with correspondingly greater financial, natural, and economic resources - is a simple reflection of the low priority that children's health issues rank with the state government.
Investing in healthy children has tremendous downstream positive impact on your economy and your society. Texas fails this standard - and its size shoudl mean it does better, not worse.