Eat Our Dust

A Trenchant Tale Of Two States - IBD - Investors.com

Not being an expert in economics I don't have a strong analytical basis for my belief that low taxes and resonable regulation make for a strong economy, but the Investors Business Daily chart below taken from the story linked above show that Texas' lawmakers, Governor Perry, and other statewide leaders have been governing the right way while California's government leaders have just not understood the relationship between good tax and regulation policy and a strong economy.

It is because of Texas' success that I believe we should reelect Gov. Rick Perry and the rest of the statewide Republican leadership as well as elect conservatives challengers Mary Lou Serafine, Patrick McGuinness, Paul Workman, Dan Neil, Jason Isaac, Marilyn Jackson to replace the liberal Democrat incumbents they are challenging.

And about California. Though we do not want California with its high taxes and extreme regulation to drag the rest of the country down, we Texans are proud to have competed with our big sister on the left coast and we hope she will learn a lesson or two from her little experiment in liberalism and will return to her former glory one day. In the mean time Texans say to Californians, "Eat our dust."

Texas the new leader of the nation

California versus Texas: The Verdict is in. Stuff we know already:

• During the last 18 months before the current recession took hold, while the country as a whole was still creating jobs, more than half of those jobs were created in a single state: Texas.

And something that should shock people - high-spending California LAGS Texas significantly in education:

• Texas students "are, on average, one to two years of learning ahead of California students of the same age," even though per-pupil expenditures on public school students are 12% higher in California.

The moral of the story is simple: The high-tax high-spending California government is a bad deal for the state, and the people are voting with their feet on it, with net outmigration from California and net in-migration to Texas.

Ted Cruz, future Texas Attorney General

Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, who is gearing up to run for Texas Attorney General, has a glowing profile in National Review.

Ted Cruz has a top-notch resume (magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist, and has authored over seventy U.S. Supreme Court briefs, among other illustrious items), and has a solid record of standing up for conservative principles. He defended the Ten Commandments on Texas Statehouse grounds, defended the Second Amendment in the DC v Heller case, and authored a Supreme Court brief successfully defending "under God" the Pledge of Allegiance. He is on The Texas Review of Law & Politics advisory board, is a member of the Federalist society, and did a stint as a Bush 2000 Domestic Policy Advisor. He has been Texas Solicitor General for the State of Texas under Attorney General Greg Abbott since 2003.

Ted Cruz, the son of a Cuban immigrant, has all these stellar accomplishments yet is only 38 years old. NR's take on Ted Cruz: "This rising star is extremely intelligent, a gifted communicator and a true conservative."

Two key things that Cruz 'gets'. First, he says: "I think what we misunderstand is that the ability to persuade and inspire is the single most important tool any public leader has." Agreed. Second, he recognizes the importance of being principled: "Credibility is the single most important asset anybody ever has," he told his students. (He is adjunct professor at UT law School.) "Be principled, be the voice of reason." Republican office-holders have lost their way on both counts and suffered defeat accordingly.

Two easy predictions: Ted Cruz will one day be Attorney General of Texas, and Ted Cruz will do a great job at it.

Priorities For the Texas Lege

There is a silver lining to that $9 billion hole in the budget that Susan Combs has predicted. Now the Texas lege has more important things to worry about than the phony Global Warming Threat.

It is easy to worry about the economy: "There is no way out of this mess without a reduction in the standard of living for US households." Texas will no escape being a part of the global recession. First, oil prices down mean the oil & gas industry is not going to make the money it made recently, and oil royalties are way down. That in turn will hit Texas Permanent School Fund and other revenue streams. Companies like Dell, TI, IBM, Toyota (making trucks in San Antonio) are cutting back. Construction has dipped. Yet Texas will do better than most states, having a record of stronger job growth than most states during the growth period.

What the Texas lege needs to do about it all is simple enough: Balance the budget without raising taxes or harming prospects for jobs and growth. That means, yes, to saying "No" to any job-killing regulations on CO2. Since 2008 temperatures were colder than 8 of the last 11 years, there has been no real global warming since 1998. Global cooling is happening just in time to save us from very dangerous regulations, and the recession is a reminder of what the real priorities should be: 1. Economic growth 2. Jobs 3. Fiscal responsibility.

Now if only the politicians in Washington were smart enough to figure that out too, we might not have gotten into this mess.

The Eyes of Texas are upon Independence

I saw this on a message board, and it was too thought-provoking not to share. Texas could be an independent nation, and would probably get along JUST FINE without the many additional burdens the Federal Government places on us. Food for thought as we contemplate surviving the Obama-nation!

Please note that Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from the Union . (Reference the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.)

We Texans love y'all, but we'll probably have to take action since B. Hussein Obama won the election. We'll miss you too.
Here is what can happen:
#1: Barack Hussein Obama becomes President of the United States , Texas immediately secedes from the Union .
#2: George W. Bush will become the President of the Republic of Texas .
So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?
1. NASA is just south of Houston , Texas . We will control the space industry.
2. We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States .
3. Defense Industry--we have over 65% of it. The term "Don't mess with Texas ," will take on a whole new meaning.
4. Oil - we can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry about that.
5. Natural Gas - again we have all we need and it's too bad about those Northern States. John Kerry will have to figure out a way to keep them warm....
6. Computer Industry - we currently lead the nation in producing computer chips and communications--small companies like Texas Instruments, Dell Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD, Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Miconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi, Nortel, Alcatel, etc, etc. The list goes on and on.
7. Medical Care - We have the largest research centers for cancer research, the best burn centers and the top trauma units in the world, as well as other large health centers. Dallas has some of the best hospitals in the United States .
8. We have enough colleges to keep us going: University of Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Rice, SMU, University of Houston , Baylor, UNT ( University of North Texas ), Texas Women's University, etc. Ivy grows better in the South anyway.
9. We have a ready supply of workers. We could just open the border when we need some more.
10. We have essential control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.
11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an Army, but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an Army in 24 hours if we need one. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call the Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over Chuck Norris and a couple of Texas Rangers.
12. We are totally self-sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs, and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables, and let's not forget seafood from the Gulf. Also, everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.
This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.
Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama:
Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President Obama will be able to drive around in his big 9 mpg SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.
You won't have any TV as the Space Center in Houston will cut off satellite communications.
You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr. Obama has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas as long as you survive the 2000 years it will take to get enough heat from Global Warming.
Signed, The People of Texas
P.S. This is not a threatening letter - just a note to give you something to think about!
SLEEP WELL TONIGHT THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE UPON YOU!!
One Nation Under God

KBH has shindig on Texas Issues

Hutchison held secret summit on state issues, at a hotel in Dallas with 100 'experts' from around Texas.

Does she still need help to figure out the right thing to do after 14 years in office, or is it Governor 2010 prep work?

Senator Hutchison opposed the one-year ban on earmarks. Senator Cornyn supported it. I’d say that lately Senator Cornyn is doing a better job of listening to what the people want.

God Blessed Texas...

...With Affordable Housing and a Good Economy

Seen in an AP story on Yahoo News last Thursday:

"Four Texas metropolitan areas were among the biggest population gainers asAmericans continued their trend of moving to the Sun Belt in 2006 and 2007,according to Census Bureau estimates to be released Thursday. ....

"People are running away from unaffordable housing, from the economic slowdown," said Karl Eschbach, a state demographer in Texas. "I would expect Texas to stay at the top of a slowing game." ....

According to figures compiled by Eschbach, 16 percent of Americans who moved to other states between July 2006 and July 2007 came to Texas, which led the nation for the second straight year in that category."

For more, click here.

Update on Electricity Market in Texas

The Texas Policycast for March 27th: Checking Texas' electricity marketplace (MP3): Bill Peacock, Director of the Foundation's Center for Economic Freedom, shares his findings on the health and vitality of the Texas competitive electric market. Key quotes: "Since we have gone to full deregulation, electricity prices have declined. Compared to rest of country, we have improved slightly since 2001. ... In real dollars, electricity prices are about where they were before deregulation, which is great considering other energy costs have gone up. ... Number of consumers picking new competitive rate plans are going up. ... Competition is working and consumers are choosing."

Bottom-line: Electricity deregulation, which was threatened with a roll-back in 2007, is working.

UPDATE, 4/2: Link to "Texas Consumers Benefit from Competitive Electricity Market", by Bill Peacock.

Travis Bucks the Trend

Although Prop 15 won by 60% overall statewide, and won big in Tarrant, Harris (63% support) and the other urban counties, the vote in Travis county was 31,297 for to 30,933 against. In Lance's hometown, the race was a squeaker! What happened? Statesman mentions the puzzlement:

But the county's opposition to cancer research bonds is stumping supporters and opponents of the proposal.

It could be that a late effort by some Austin-area fiscal conservative groups, opposing the idea of going into debt to fund cancer research, was enough to make the difference in a low-turnout election. Just 8.4 percent of registered voters went to the polls.
...

That group was Austinite Don Zimmerman's political action committee, Prop15 Families Against Cancer Tax. The group organized late and raised just $3,500, Zimmerman said. But it put up 50 signs in the area and held a news conference and a debate.

Proposition 15 supporters acknowledged that made a difference.

I'm not stumped at all that it made a difference. When I went to the polling place a 4x8 sign "Stop the Cancer Tax" was there. In my precinct on election day, there was a whopping 61% NO vote on the proposition, far more negative vote than in early voting, with a total 259 no to 157 yes. My precinct voted yes for all the other propositions.

Don Zimmerman helped stop excessive RRISD bonds a few years back and has fought against other taxhiking proposals. This time Don and his group Prop 15 Fact managed to get local media visibility to his opposition via press conferences, and got signs up a few weeks prior to the election. He brought in some of the LP guys like Wes Benedict to do the small-Government advocating that the Republican party leaders wouldn't do.

We noted before the election his website www.Prop15FACT.org, which cross-linked to op eds against the proposition such as our op-ed. Our online guide and op-eds at the Travis Monitor managed to get several thousands hits in the runup to the election. Travis county bucked the trend because of the efforts of Don Zimmerman and his co-activists at Prop 15 Fact. Well done.

Abstinence Ed vs politicized science

Dallas Morning News has an article on a study that, according to the article, says "Abstinence-only programs aren't certain to curb teen sex". Drill down on the study and you find that the 'comprehensive' programs are touted for 'positive outcomes' such as "increasing use of condoms". So a program that tells kids to use condoms leads to more condom use than one that does not, and that makes it better. This is then touted by Planned Parenthood as a reason to strip abstinence sex ed and force 'comprehensive' sex ed funding only.

Kyleen Wright from Texans for Life was quoted in that article and sent out a 'Dear Friend' email to remind us of a few key points:

The Dallas Morning News Reporter who interviewed me for the story in today's paper (see article below) left out some very important facts that I shared with him.

Liberals and "sexperts" are using junk science to discredit abstinence while Congress debates abstinence education funding. Unfortunately, the media is largely giving them a pass.

It is a fact that teen pregnancy and birth rates (not to mention STD & abortion rates) doubled during the 1980's, when condom/contraceptive promoters reigned in the schools, exploiting AIDS fears. After seeing the devastating numbers in the early 1990's, Texans for Life and others began offering abstinence education in the schools. Since then, the pregnancy and birth rates have fallen every year, so that we have experienced 60-year lows in this decade. As my mom would say, the proof's in the puddin'!

Texas, like all border states, has struggled to match reductions in other states, but they are reductions nonetheless. Note that our pregnancy rate is not the highest. Texas, unlike other states, does not attempt to solve the teen pregnancy problem with abortion.

In 2003, Texas was awarded a federal grant for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and births, without increasing abortions.

Data confirms Kyleen Wright is right on teen pregnancy trends in 1990s.

Texas Voters Say Yes to Bonds and Props

Well, all 16 Texas Constitution props passed, including 5 bond propositions - money for student loans, jails, roads, colonias water systems and cancer research. It is an interesting election cycle when supposedly liberal New Jersey defeats a stem cell reasearch initiative, but Texas passes a cancer research initiative by over 60%. Elsewhere in the country taxpayers struck down spending, but here the wallets were open. The lowest-passing propositions however was the cancer research proposition.

Maybe it's the fact that stem cell was taken off the table, and Republicans like Gov Perry rushed to support something that was bipartisan feel-goodism. There was a last-minute concerns from some on the right that this might be a backdoor plot for embryonic stem cell research. I doubt that was the intention, and a late Texas Alliance for Life email broadcast that TAL had no position on prop 15 and that it also could herald funding in Texas for ethical non-embryonic stem cell research, such as adult stem cell research. This is far different from embyonic stem cell research that includes therapeutic cloning (which kills embryonic humans to harvest stem cells). So in fact, another way to look at it is this: Republican leaders jumped on the bandwagon to show a pro-research political position that didn't violate pro-life ethical judgments.

We at Travis Monitor might have agreed on the logic, but we did the math and found Proposition 15 and the other bond proposals wanting on the fiscal responsibility score. A simple fact that calls all the bonds into question: The legislature had an $8 billion surplus in January but decided to go the bond route for items that should have been dealt with out of general revenues and ongoing expenses. Why use debt when you can pay cash? On prop 12, they have a crisis in road funding papered over with an inappropriate grab of general bond debt, while the gas tax diversion continues. On prop 16, it was a 'good money after bad' situation.

One ironic reason that Prop 15 was not fiscally sound is that medical research is so popular politically that it gets huge funding already at the Federal level - $30 billion for the NIH and over $5 billion for cancer research (NCI) alone. The cancer research need is more than met already at the Federal level.

We do hope some good will come out of this expenditure of our Texas taxpayer dollars, which requires oversight and accountability. To ensure that the $3 billion Prop 15 pot of money goes to top-notch medical research in Texas and not for corruption, cornyism or mediocrity, there will have to be rigorous oversight on this. Hoping to get rigorous oversight out of the Texas lege though is a bit like hoping an Aggie can cure cancer (Sorry Aggies, I couldn't resist.) Hope springs eternal.

Stop the Cancer Tax - Vote No on Prop 15

Of the five bond proposals up for vote, the one that is least accountable and least deserving support is Proposition 15, an attempt to get Texans to pay for a $3 billion cancer research boondoggle.

Even though it seems to have universal support by the 'powers-that-be', there is an organized group out there fighting for taxpayers on this and against the proposition. www.Prop15FACT.org has the facts on the proposition and the real costs and (non)-benefits. They been able to get some airplay - a news clip on VoteNO campaign.

www.Prop15FACT.org references our previous Travis Monitor op-ed - Texas Cancer program & Proposition 15 - Not Needed. We noted earlier how this adds less than 1% to Federal and state medical research money, and does it in an inefficient (why bonds?) and unaccountable manner (why a 10-year open-ended commitment without ability to trim budgets?). It's a bad deal all around.

And it is the taxpayers here in Texas who will pay for whatever boondoggle program the tax-and-spend politicians can get the voters to support. It seems that time and again, the taxpayer is the forgotten element in the debates and discussions on these sorts of issues. It's about time we made the taxpayer the key part of the consideration.

Vote NO on Prop 12, highway bond issue

Should we give TxDOT $5 billion in bond money to build roads? Proposition 12 says: "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds by the Texas Transportation Commission in an amount not to exceed $5 billion to provide funding for highway improvement projects."

Surely we do need roads and they do need funding. This authorizes but doesn't appropriate the money for projects, which would have to still be arrpoved by the legislature. Still, there are several reasons that suggest we ought to vote NO on this proposition.

The principle reason is that this bond issue doesn't fix the main problem with road construction financing and only makes the situation worse through general obligation debt-financing. This bond issue begs the question of why transportation funding is coming from general funds and not directed gas tax. Senator Wentworth and others in the last session identified diversion from gas tax to other purposes as one of the reasons we were moving in the direction of toll roads. Consider this FAQ from CTRMA on gas tax:

Texas is a "donor state" that gets less in funding than it pays in federal gas taxes. The state also does not use all its gas tax revenue directly on road projects.

In effect, we are being told that since our gax tax revenues were moved to other states and not available for our use, we've got to have toll roads. Does that make sense? About as much sense as Texas declared a huge surplus and then turning around and asking for adding a lot more debt.

Texas gets back less than 80 cents on the dollar of Federal gas tax money (combining transit and highway money), and TxDOT says that:

"For highways and transit programs combined, SAFETEA-LU shifts an estimated $13.3 billion in Highway Trust Fund dollars attributable to Texas away from the state’s mobility needs."

Texas collected $3.5 billion at the state level from gas taxes, but one-third of the amount is diverted for social programs:

More than one-third of the money Texas motorists pay in driving taxes and fees is diverted into spending on projects that do not contribute to the upkeep and expansion of the road network. Texans pay $3.5 billion into the fund annually through the gas tax and various vehicle licensing fees that apply only to drivers. Of this amount, nearly $1.5 billion is spent on items more properly funded with general revenue, including $725 million on public education and $765 million on social welfare programs including tourism and medical care.

Yett attempts to address this diversion failed and it is getting worse: " Then, after the session, news trickled out that lawmakers filched another $243 million from the State Highway Fund to plug budget holes, despite bold talk about stemming such bleeding of the fund and a $14 billion state surplus to play with."

A chart on the diversion of highway funds:

A no vote would be difficult for TxDOT's immediate construction funding, but would send a message to TxDOT and our elected officials to quit trying to make things right with multiple wrongs and instead address the issue of road financing the right way: Be more frugal and wise about utilizing the gax tax revenues in road building and mainenance; get our share of the Federal highway trust fund back to Texas; make sure that Texas gas taxes are used for the purpose they are collected for - Texas road transit needs; stop reaching into other pockets (whether it is toll booths or general funds) because you have a hole in the one where you keep your money. Fix the hole, use the gas tax, and stay out of debt!

More on other propositions.

Texas Cancer program & Proposition 15 - Not Needed

This is the total National Cancer Institute's Budget request for FY2008: $5,799,225 This budget is just one part of the huge budget of $30 billion for the National Institute for Health. Such huge Federal spending begs a simple question about state-level spending proposals: Why add more to it?

In a single year, the Federal Government will increase spending on cancer by $800 million, and spend more on cancer in one year than proposition 15 will spend in 10 years. It is a myth to suggest, as advocates have, that cancer spending is 'stagnant'; it's been growing. It's a myth too that the Texas incremental funding will change the pace of discovery and innovation in cancer research in any significant way. An incremental funding level of less than 5% of public and private research funding will only help in incremental way. This is not about curing cancer or not. This is about whether to saddle taxpayers at the state-level with state-directed research funding in a targetted area; and furthermore, about whether we should fund it with bonds and an endowment as opposed to other appropriations methods. Both aspects of this proposal are questionable.

Cancer is a worthwhile topic for research, but consider the bang for the buck factor: With the National Cancer Institute, over $5 billion a year is allocated and the cost to Texas taxpayers would equate (assuming Texas has 7% of Federal tax load) to about the $300 million commitment of proposition 15. Spending federal money gives a return on Texas cancer investment dollars 15 times greater than at state-level, since we are sharing the load across the U.S. If the goal is to accelerate curing cancer, incremental Federal funding would be a more equitable way to go. If the goal on the other hand is to keep research in Texas, one might well ask why not take a good slice of the $5 billion NCI funding instead. Prop 15 will cost a lot and deliver much less than what we get out of spending at NCI.

Furthermore, it is less likely that state-directed funding would focus on the best competitive research. Would a newly created state-level agency have the experience and expertise in targetting research as well as the NCI? No. The plan must be to keep the research in Texas, but would throwing money at a research center make it best-in-class? It should help upgrade research centers, but there is no guarantee this would happen.

Any problems over poor research would be limited if the $3 billion were appropriated yearly and subject to legislative oversight. But alas, that is the fatal flaw in this idea - it won't be. The funding will be on autopilot for 10 years. We are inviting a future scandal where we find out that the money was was mis-spent on inferior research. Once the votes say "aye", we are locked into a $3 billion 10-years commitment, even if the funding agency doesn't perform, even if the research opportunities to fund aren't up to par, even if we have buyer's remorse about focussing on cancer as opposed to other opportunities, even if the fiscal situation goes bad and we need to reprioritize state budgets.

These issues are compounded with the error of funding this program via bonds, which will add to costs via interest payments. So, instead of ongoing appropriations, we have an inflexible pig-in-a-poke that will lack the ability of oversight needed to keep the program efficient. For all these reasons - the excellent and well-funded Federal programs, the lack of accountability and oversight built into the proposal, and the inherent weakness in state-level directed research funding - the proposition 15 should be opposed. And it should be noted, whichever way the vote goes, it won't do anything to change our progress against cancer.

Sorry Lance, proposition 15 is not needed.

Rate the Texas tax-and-spenders

TFR's Fiscal Responsibility Scorecard let's you check the fiscal responsibility rating of your local legislators. This judges the legislators on tax and spend issues. The bigger the tax-and-spender the lower the rating.

The Travis county legislators are all D's by party label and get Fs on fiscal responsibility:

• Dukes (D) district 46 33.33%
• Bolton(D) district 47 21.43%
• Howard, Donna(D) district 48 33.33%
  
• Naishtat (D) district 49 26.67%
  
• Strama (D) district 50 43.75%
  
• Rodriguez (D) district 51 28.57%

A sad case of fiscal irresponsibility, based on votes that included unraveling welfare reform, levying a 'granny tax' on nursing home residents, and choosing spending over tax relief, that may be spreading to Hays. Patrick Rose is better than the Travis contingent but is still flunking:

• Rose (D) district 45 46.67%
  

These guys in Williamson are looking better but not great:

• Krusee (R) 52 64.29%
  
• Gattis (R) 20 66.67%
  

The prize for fiscal responsibility in the area must go to Nathan Macias, who represents Comal county.

• Macias (R) 73 93.33%
  

Guide to the 2007 Texas Constitutional Amendment election

Ballot language for the November constitutional amendment elections. Sources for information provided below includes info from about.com, Texas Insider's Fresh Ink, Rep Hochberg.

Proposition 1 - HJR 103: "The constitutional amendment providing for the continuation of the constitutional appropriation for facilities and other capital items at Angelo State University on a change in the governance of the university."

What it does: This amendment updates the constitution to reflect that Angelo State University, once a part of the Texas State University System, is now part of the Texas Tech University System. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 2 - SJR 57: "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of $500 million in general obligation bonds to finance educational loans to students and authorizing bond enhancement agreements with respect to general obligation bonds issued for that purpose."

What it does: This amendment would allow the state to issue $500 million in bonds to finance education loans for college and university students. Authorizes debt-financed spending of money for a non-capital purpose, which is ill-advised. Recommendation: NO.

Proposition 3 - HJR 40: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide that the maximum appraised value of a residence homestead for ad valorem taxation is limited to the lesser of the most recent market value of the residence homestead as determined by the appraisal entity or 110 percent, or a greater percentage, of the appraised value of the residence homestead for the preceding tax year."

What it does: Clarifying that the appraised value of a homestead for property taxes cannot increase by more than 10% in any year, even if more than a year has passed since the home was last appraised. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 4 - SJR 65: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the issuance of up to $1 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for maintenance, improvement, repair, and construction projects and for the purchase of needed equipment."

What it does: This proposition would authorize the state to issue $1 billion in bonds for needed equipment and construction projects for state agencies including Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Youth Commission, and Department of State Health Services. Authorizes debt-financed spending of money for a mixed capital and non-capital purpose. Recommendation: NO.

Proposition 5 - SJR 44: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit the voters of a municipality having a population of less than 10,000 to authorize the governing body of the municipality to enter into an agreement with an owner of real property in or adjacent to an area in the municipality that has been approved for funding under certain programs administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture under which the parties agree that all ad valorem taxes imposed on the owner's property may not be increased for the first five tax years after the tax year in which the agreement is entered into."

What it does: This amendment would authorize the Legislature to allow a city with a population under 10,000 to hold an election to freeze the property taxes for properties within or near areas designated for redevelopment under the Downtown Revitalization Program or the Main Street Improvements Program administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture. Since the actual language is quite specific, it begs the question of which if any specific town this was written for. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 6 - HJR 54: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation one motor vehicle owned by an individual and used in the course of the owner's occupation or profession and also for personal activities of the owner."

What it does: This proposition would authorize the Legislature by general law to exempt from ad valorem taxation one car owned by an individual that was used in the individual’s occupation or profession and also used for personal activities that did not involve the production of income. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 7 - HJR 30: "The constitutional amendment to allow governmental entities to sell property acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owners at the price the entities paid to acquire the property."

What it does: This amendment allows property that was sold to the government through eminent domain to be bought back by the seller at the original sales price if the government does not use the property. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 8 - HJR 72: "The constitutional amendment to clarify certain provisions relating to the making of a home equity loan and use of home equity loan proceeds."

What it does: This amendment adds clarification and more precise language to existing provisions for home equity loans. Among the changes are a provision for a second home equity loan on the same property sooner than one year after the first home equity loan in the event of a declared state of emergency, such as a natural disaster. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 9 - SJR 29: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt all or part of the residence homesteads of certain totally disabled veterans from ad valorem taxation and authorizing a change in the manner of determining the amount of the existing exemption from ad valorem taxation to which a disabled veteran is entitled."

What it does: With this amendment, a disabled veteran with a service-connected disability with a disability rating of 100 percent or totally disabled may be exempted from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of their residence homestead. It also adds some clarifications regarding exemptions for disabled veterans with less than 100 percent disability. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 10 - HJR 69: "The constitutional amendment to abolish the constitutional authority for the office of inspector of hides and animals."

What it does: This amendment cleans up the wording of the constitution to remove references to the former office of Inspector of Hides and Animals. Technical change. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 11 - HJR 19: "The constitutional amendment to require that a record vote be taken by a house of the legislature on final passage of any bill, other than certain local bills, of a resolution proposing or ratifying a constitutional amendment, or of any other nonceremonial resolution, and to provide for public access on the Internet to those record votes."

What it does: This proposition would require a vote taken in either house of the Legislature to be by record vote if the vote was on final passage of a bill or any other measure other than a resolution of a purely ceremonial or honorary nature. Open Government. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 12 - SJR 64: "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds by the Texas Transportation Commission in an amount not to exceed $5 billion to provide funding for highway improvement projects."

What it does: Proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this amendment can be used to pay for authorized highway improvement projects, costs associated with issuing the bonds, and making payments on related credit agreements. Recommendation: NO. See op-ed.


Proposition 13 - HJR 6: "The constitutional amendment authorizing the denial of bail to a person who violates certain court orders or conditions of release in a felony or family violence case."

What it does: Allows judges to deny bail to defendents in family violence cases who violate certain conditions of their initial release on bail. Gives judges flexibility in denying bail. This was put forth after a domestic violence case where a man violated bail conditions and ended up killing his wife; while this could be abused, it would be hard to deny giving judge's discretion when needed to deny bail. Recommendation: YES.

Proposition 14 - HJR 36: "The constitutional amendment permitting a justice or judge who reaches the mandatory retirement age while in office to serve the remainder of the justice's or judge's current term."

What it does: This proposition would allow judges who had reached the mandatory age of retirement (75 years old) during their termo of office to finish their terms. If an elected state justice or judge reaches mandatory retirement age during the first four years of the 6 year term to which they were elected, the expiration of that term would be on December 31 of the fourth year of the term. This is being done for the sake of one State Judge who doesn't deserve to have his stay in office extended. Recommendation: NO.

Proposition 15 - HJR 90: "The constitutional amendment requiring the creation of the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorizing the issuance of up to $3 billion in bonds payable from the general revenues of the state for research in Texas to find the causes of and cures for cancer."

What it does: This proposition would establish the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas and authorize the issuance of $3 million in bonds to fund research on all forms of human cancer. Recommendation: NO. See opinion.

Proposition 16 - SJR 20: "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $250 million to provide assistance to economically distressed areas."

What it does: This authorizes the state to issue $250 million in bonds to help meet the water and wastewater infrastructure needs in economically distressed areas. Recommendation: No.

UPDATE: 10/23/07 - Updated Prop 14 and prop 16 to "No" after further review.

Taxpayers Await Future Bondage

$3 billion for Cancer. $5 billion for Roads. And $1 billion for prisons. Yikes. Don't ask where the budget surplus went, it will be going to debt bondage.

Mark Strama Explains His Support of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Below is the text of a letter I received from Texas House District 50 Representative, Mark Strama. He was responding to an email or phone call from me in which I expressed my opposition to embryonic stem cell research. I don't recall what exactly I said but I'm sure it was in line with my comments to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, posted April 18, 2007.

MARK STRAMA DISTRICT 50
July 31, 2007

Dear Constituent:

Thank you for your correspondence during the legislative session regarding stem cell research. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this issue with me.

I support stem cell research. It is an emerging medical technology that has many possibilities to benefit the citizens of Texas. While stem cell research, specifically embryonic stem cell research, is a contentious issue, the medical benefits this research has already shown to provide include possible cures for diabetes, reforming damaged nerve terminals, and rehabilitating people with multiple sclerosis. I believe the lives of the millions of Texans and their families who suffer from these diseases deserve our investment in this promising and competitive field of medicine.

Thank you again for writing to me about this important issue. If my office can be of assistance to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us at 463-0821.

Sincerely,

Mark Strama
MARK.STRAMA@HOUSE.STATE.TX.US

Texas' Energy Future

We don't often quote the leftie site dKos, but a pro-nuclear Texas progressive there has a report on Texas nuclear power plant expansions:

The difficulties with the coal proposals and the remaining demand for increased baseload capacity provided a window for NRG Energy, the largest shareholder (44%) of the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) to propose expanding the 2 existing units at STP to 4. TXU similarly proposed expanding the two units at Comanche Peak (Dallas region) to four; these plans remain active after TXU scrapped most coal designs. Two additional plants on greenfield sites are also proposed; one by an Amarillo group, the other by Exelon corp. to be situated on the Gulf Coast somewhere near the STP site. In total, these represent somewhere in the neighborhood of 8000 MW capacity on top of ~4500 MW existing nuclear capacity. For scale, Texas capacity was approx. 63,000 MW in Summer 2006.

The report indicates the proposed South Texas Plant expansion (from 2 to 4 units) got a lot of local support in public comment hearings:

On Wednesday, June 27, the NRC held an initial public hearing to discuss the Letter of Intent that NRG has filed and how the Combined-Operating License process differs from previous instances. I attended this meeting -- quite a trip at 80 miles from my residence in central Houston -- and found the crowd of nearly 180 people almost entirely in favor of the proposal. Notably, Bay City Mayor Richard Knapik and Matagorda Co. Judge Nate McDonald gave strong statements of support during the Q&A period. Additionally, a representative for US Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) informed me the congressman is also strongly in favor of the expansion. Local residents commended STP on being a clean and quiet neighbor, providing clean energy and high quality jobs to the region. The main exceptions were representatives from the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and the SEED Coalition who expressed doubts about the safety and "green-ness" of the plant.

The STP expansion appears to be "technologically and financially sound" and supported locally, so a very good chance it will sail through.

It would be great if this momentum continues, and Texas remains a key energy producer beyond the usual fossil fuels, adding more nuclear and wind to our energy portfolio.

Education News

Education News
(Connie Sadowski)

Texas Commissioner of Education Shirley J. Neeley announced today that she is resigning as head of the Texas Education Agency effective July 1.

Neeley was appointed to the top public education post in January of 2004 by Gov. Rick Perry. Commissioner Neeley said she motivated her staff to work towards becoming a more "kinder, gentler, more customer friendly state agency"--something, said Connie Sadowski with the Austin CEO Foundation we all should strive for to benefit the children of Texas. We wish her well in all she endeavors."

To view the PERSONAL LETTER TO CO-WORKERS AND FRIENDS as well as the entire Texas Education Agency press release as well as other education news, please go to www.ceoaustin.org/eduNews.
There you may also subscribe to the free Edu News