From Governor Abbott, Lt. Governor Patrick, Speaker Dennis Bonnen to the Republican led House and Senate, to our local Republican County Judges including my own, Harrison County Judge Chad Sims, Republicans are not being Republicans!
Gone are the days of limited government and personal responsibility. What we see today is Big Government overreach, trust the government because we know whats best for you. Executive orders demanding business shut down, citizens to stop living their lives, stop gathering with your friends, stay at home and "flatten the curve" all because we have less than 1% of a chance of getting an infectious disease.
As of April 20, 2020 there have been 22 deaths related to COVID-19 in East Texas. In the two largest communities alone, Smith County & Gregg County, there have been 540 deaths unrelated to COVID-19. The news station CBS DFW is even reporting suicide hotlines have increased 300% since these draconian measures have been implemented, but COVID-19 is not the CAUSE of these increases, as former State Representative Matt Rinaldi says in a tweet; its the RESPONSE to this crisis by our leaders that has led to this crisis in mental health.
I never thought I would see the day where so called Republicans would cower to fear and hysteria over reason and facts. This virus is no more dangerous than the common flu, SARS, H1N1, or any other strain we have dealt with in the past. Everyone of those has killed more people than COVID-19 has. We didn't shut down the economy then, we shouldn't shut it down now.
I agree with Jonathan Stickland, current HD 92 representative, when he says, "The lack of leadership Governor Abbott has shown through this situation is beyond disappointing. He has proven to me that he does not care about the Constitution or liberty." The same can be said of our County Judges and Mayors. Only Mayor Richard Newton of Colleyville is leading the charge to re-open business. This last week, he issued a proclamation to begin opening up fitness centers, salons, and restaurant patio areas. Why more Republican mayors and county judges are not doing the same is beyond me. What happened to the promises of limited government? Where are these leaders, who supposedly believe in free enterprise, self-governance and personal responsibility?
The unprecedented actions of declaring all citizens, to stay at home and shelter in place, not to mention, closing businesses, commerce and issuing restrictions on travel have not only crippled our economy, but these orders have gone against America's very fabric of existence. These leaders took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and they have clearly violated that oath. I've pointed out before, that the responsibility of elected leaders in these types of crisis, is to first have a compelling reason to issue executive orders, and when that reason exist (I believe it does) the orders must be narrowly defined and be implemented in the least restrictive way. Punishing all citizens, restraining the American worker and halting business commerce does not meet Constitutional muster.
It's time elected Republican leaders start acting like Republican leaders and stop acting like fearful Democrats. State Representative Kyle Biederman. HD 73 says, "The longer we wait, the more damage is being done to Texans livelihoods. By forcing people into a recession, you are not allowing people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Every job is essential in Texas. The rights of all citizens are being violated by Federal, State and Local governments. People are getting restless. I urge you Governor Abbott, county judges and mayors" (Especially those that claim to be Republican), "to fight for the rights of small business and allow them to get back to work now."
#OpenTexasNow
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Thursday, May 23, 2019
PAC's & Lobbyist and their control of the Texas Legislature
To see the table below correctly, you'll need to view on a desktop or laptop.
On Monday May 20, 2019 the Texas House of representatives had a chance to curtail a long running practice where taxing entities like cities, schools and toll road projects would no longer be able to hire professional lobbyist with tax payer dollars, in order to lobby our legislators, many times against those same tax payers.
Senate Bill 29 authored by Senator Bob Hall who represents Senate District 2, originally sought to stop the practice outright. It was very similar legislation and companion to House Bill 281, authored by Rep. Mayes Middleton in the house. Middleton's bill died in the House Calendars Committee on April 11. This bill had 37 co-authors including East Texas reps Cody Harris, District 8, and Cole Hefner, District 5. SB 29 passed in the Senate on April 17, 18-13 with all Republicans voting Aye except Kel Seliger of SD 31.
On May 17, Rep. Dade Phelan of House District 21 offered a substitute to SB 29 in the House Committee on State Affairs. The substitute offered language that restricted any political subdivision that imposed a tax or regional mobility authority, toll road or transit authority from lobbying efforts. Read the substitute here. The substitute actually made it through the committee process on to the house floor.
For whatever reason, Rep. Middleton offered an amendment to the substitute that effectively exempted school districts, toll roads and the RMA's, leaving only in place county's and cities. There were several other changes that effected the bill within his amendment, to many to go through here but if you'd like to read through it, click here. Rep. Ashby, District 57 out of Lufkin offered an amendment to Middleton's amendment where the bill would only effect county's with populations larger than 250,000 residents. This amendment would limit the law to only a handful of counties in Texas. Ashby's amendment was approved by a vote of 90-54. East Texas reps voting for: Ashby, Bailes, Clardy, Dean, K. Bell, Harris, Paddie, and VanDeaver.
Amendment 1 as amended was approved by a vote of 81-59, All of the above Yea votes stayed the same with the exception of Paddie and Dean. Dean said he intended to vote Yes. Harris said he intended to vote No.
Several other amendments were offered that watered down this bill even further and when all was said and done, the bill failed by a vote of 58-85. East Texas reps that voted NO were; Ashby, K. Bell, Bailes, Clardy and VanDeaver. Voting FOR were Dean, Harris, Hefner and Schaefer. Over all, there were 24 Republicans that voted NO, in order to keep the practice of tax payer funded lobbying.
To sum up, the correct vote for Ashby's amendment would have been NO, the correct vote on Middleton's amendment would have been NO (watered down bill), and the correct vote on the bill itself was YES. (It at least would have been a start)
BTW, here are the campaign donation numbers for all in the last reporting cycle. Notice a pattern?
Paddie Ashby Bell, K. Dean Clardy
PAC's $226,564 $97,292 $54,606 $41,500 $50,375
Lobbyist $ 36,000 $10,650 $ 1,000 $ 800 $ 3,500
Ind. Out of District $ 27,500 $100,475 $19,000 $ 9,150 $26,375
Ind. In the District $ 28,775 $ 2,350 $16,250 $33,750 $ 450
Total $318,839 $210,767 $90,856 $85,200 $80,700
VanDeaver Harris Hefner Bailes Schaefer
PAC's $36,735 $29,541 $20,015 $19,750 $8,500
Lobbyist $ 1,500 $ 4,650 $ 3,700 $ 00 $ 500
Ind Out of District $16,720 $ 4,498 $ 8,100 $ 7,500 $1,100
Ind In the District $ 500 $ 9,050 $10,050 $ 3,350 $ 630
Total $55,455 $47,739 $41,865 $30,600 $10,730
On Monday May 20, 2019 the Texas House of representatives had a chance to curtail a long running practice where taxing entities like cities, schools and toll road projects would no longer be able to hire professional lobbyist with tax payer dollars, in order to lobby our legislators, many times against those same tax payers.
Senate Bill 29 authored by Senator Bob Hall who represents Senate District 2, originally sought to stop the practice outright. It was very similar legislation and companion to House Bill 281, authored by Rep. Mayes Middleton in the house. Middleton's bill died in the House Calendars Committee on April 11. This bill had 37 co-authors including East Texas reps Cody Harris, District 8, and Cole Hefner, District 5. SB 29 passed in the Senate on April 17, 18-13 with all Republicans voting Aye except Kel Seliger of SD 31.
On May 17, Rep. Dade Phelan of House District 21 offered a substitute to SB 29 in the House Committee on State Affairs. The substitute offered language that restricted any political subdivision that imposed a tax or regional mobility authority, toll road or transit authority from lobbying efforts. Read the substitute here. The substitute actually made it through the committee process on to the house floor.
For whatever reason, Rep. Middleton offered an amendment to the substitute that effectively exempted school districts, toll roads and the RMA's, leaving only in place county's and cities. There were several other changes that effected the bill within his amendment, to many to go through here but if you'd like to read through it, click here. Rep. Ashby, District 57 out of Lufkin offered an amendment to Middleton's amendment where the bill would only effect county's with populations larger than 250,000 residents. This amendment would limit the law to only a handful of counties in Texas. Ashby's amendment was approved by a vote of 90-54. East Texas reps voting for: Ashby, Bailes, Clardy, Dean, K. Bell, Harris, Paddie, and VanDeaver.
Amendment 1 as amended was approved by a vote of 81-59, All of the above Yea votes stayed the same with the exception of Paddie and Dean. Dean said he intended to vote Yes. Harris said he intended to vote No.
Several other amendments were offered that watered down this bill even further and when all was said and done, the bill failed by a vote of 58-85. East Texas reps that voted NO were; Ashby, K. Bell, Bailes, Clardy and VanDeaver. Voting FOR were Dean, Harris, Hefner and Schaefer. Over all, there were 24 Republicans that voted NO, in order to keep the practice of tax payer funded lobbying.
To sum up, the correct vote for Ashby's amendment would have been NO, the correct vote on Middleton's amendment would have been NO (watered down bill), and the correct vote on the bill itself was YES. (It at least would have been a start)
BTW, here are the campaign donation numbers for all in the last reporting cycle. Notice a pattern?
Paddie Ashby Bell, K. Dean Clardy
PAC's $226,564 $97,292 $54,606 $41,500 $50,375
Lobbyist $ 36,000 $10,650 $ 1,000 $ 800 $ 3,500
Ind. Out of District $ 27,500 $100,475 $19,000 $ 9,150 $26,375
Ind. In the District $ 28,775 $ 2,350 $16,250 $33,750 $ 450
Total $318,839 $210,767 $90,856 $85,200 $80,700
VanDeaver Harris Hefner Bailes Schaefer
PAC's $36,735 $29,541 $20,015 $19,750 $8,500
Lobbyist $ 1,500 $ 4,650 $ 3,700 $ 00 $ 500
Ind Out of District $16,720 $ 4,498 $ 8,100 $ 7,500 $1,100
Ind In the District $ 500 $ 9,050 $10,050 $ 3,350 $ 630
Total $55,455 $47,739 $41,865 $30,600 $10,730
Friday, January 25, 2019
Texas House Dis-Appointments
Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen released his much anticipated committee appointments on January 23rd for the 86th session of the legislature. Even after a disappointing general election for Republicans, where they saw their numbers dwindle in the House, there was still some optimism going into this session simply because of two factors. 1. Republicans still controlled the House and 2. Speaker Straus was no longer in charge. The latter was famous for putting in place committee chairs that would thwart any real conservative legislation getting through to the House floor. People across the State heard Speaker Bonnen say, the Republican Legislative Priorities were his Priorities and he would be more fair to let members control what goes on in the House.
So lets take a look at how the committee's fared. Out of 34 committee's, 22 have Republican Chairs, and 17 Vice Chairs. Only four committee's had both a Republican Chair and Vice Chair. Of the 22 Republican Chairs, they have a combined negative -.17 score on the 2017 Liberal-Conservative Score composed by Mark Jones of Rice University. This means, as a combined group, they are less conservative than 1/3 of the Republicans in the House. A score of .02 according to the study means you are more conservative than half your peers.
I also looked at the combined scores of the Committee Chairs from the Fiscal Responsibility Index by Empower Texans. That average score was 56 out of 100. Of the four most important committees in my opinion, State Affairs, Homeland Security, Ways & Means, and Calendars, the average Lib-Con score is -.51, with a far left Democrat, Pancho Neveraz chairing Homeland Security. This committee usually sees gun rights issues come up. Even the makeup of these four committee's do not lend confidence in any conservative policies coming to the floor.
It is hard to see how any of the Texas GOP Legislative priorities will see daylight in this session with these committee makeups. Property Tax Reform and School Finance Reform might come in some form but they probably won't be anything conservatives will like. Gun rights and Abortion issues will probably be dead in the water. I won't be holding my breath.
So lets take a look at how the committee's fared. Out of 34 committee's, 22 have Republican Chairs, and 17 Vice Chairs. Only four committee's had both a Republican Chair and Vice Chair. Of the 22 Republican Chairs, they have a combined negative -.17 score on the 2017 Liberal-Conservative Score composed by Mark Jones of Rice University. This means, as a combined group, they are less conservative than 1/3 of the Republicans in the House. A score of .02 according to the study means you are more conservative than half your peers.
I also looked at the combined scores of the Committee Chairs from the Fiscal Responsibility Index by Empower Texans. That average score was 56 out of 100. Of the four most important committees in my opinion, State Affairs, Homeland Security, Ways & Means, and Calendars, the average Lib-Con score is -.51, with a far left Democrat, Pancho Neveraz chairing Homeland Security. This committee usually sees gun rights issues come up. Even the makeup of these four committee's do not lend confidence in any conservative policies coming to the floor.
It is hard to see how any of the Texas GOP Legislative priorities will see daylight in this session with these committee makeups. Property Tax Reform and School Finance Reform might come in some form but they probably won't be anything conservatives will like. Gun rights and Abortion issues will probably be dead in the water. I won't be holding my breath.
Sunday, January 13, 2019
The 86th begins without the fireworks
Last Tuesday, January 8th was the first day of the new legislative session in Texas. The biggest and most notable difference was that Joe Straus was no longer in attendance. Gone are the days of favoritism, lobby controlled legislation winding its way through committees, and stopping ones that would benefit the conservative cause. Tuesday, saw a new speaker sworn in to office for the first time in 10 years. Dennis Bonnen, a representative from Angleton, Tx., assumed the mantle of Speaker of the House for the 86th session. Speaker Bonnen was elected by unanimous vote of the entire body and perhaps more importantly, nominated unanimously by the House Republican Caucus earlier in December. You can see his acceptance speech Here starting at the 1:16:00 mark
The only other item of business for the week was the passing of the House Rules for this session. After last year, where the Rules debate became quite contentious and lasted several hours, this years debate barely lasted an hour and the fireworks were mostly duds. Only two amendments drew the ire of some activist across Texas. The first was an amendment by Rep. Matt Schaefer, (read here) from Tyler, which sought to increase staff budgets during the period between sessions, to the same amount they get during the session. It failed, but he and many members of the Freedom Caucus received criticism for it, due to it being perceived as not being fiscally conservative. The second amendment that drew some flak was by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, from Bedford. (read here) He proposed that constituents should be able to register their opinions, for/against a bill, at House District offices, rather than having to drive to Austin to do so. This amendment also failed but with mixed support from Freedom Caucus members. This particular amendment received the greatest amount of backlash from conservative activist around the state.
For some context, in the 85th session, during the rules debate, there were many amendments brought forth that tried to increase the transparency in which the House conducted its business. For instance, Rep Tony Tinderholt tried to pass rules that required the Calendars Committee to publish a record vote when that committee decided to pull a particular bill from reaching the floor. Many people, were expecting for this session to see the same types of rule changes proposed. Rep. Stickland's amendment, which he proposed in the 85th, was the only attempt this year at some resemblance of requiring the House to be more transparent. This author reached out, to several representatives from East Texas, in order to get a better understanding of why this rule was defeated so easily. Only Matt Schaefer and Cole Hefner responded. The biggest concern for each of them was that this rule change would have put some undo pressure in the district offices, which are already understaffed and underpaid. They also said the process and implementation of the rule change hadn't been completely vetted and properly studied in regards to fiscal issues. See Matt Schaefer's comments.
One thing is for sure, transparency in the House is still lagging. The House may operate on a better tone and less divisiveness, now that a new Speaker is in charge, but until Texans start seeing actual changes to how the House operates, there will always be some skepticism.
The only other item of business for the week was the passing of the House Rules for this session. After last year, where the Rules debate became quite contentious and lasted several hours, this years debate barely lasted an hour and the fireworks were mostly duds. Only two amendments drew the ire of some activist across Texas. The first was an amendment by Rep. Matt Schaefer, (read here) from Tyler, which sought to increase staff budgets during the period between sessions, to the same amount they get during the session. It failed, but he and many members of the Freedom Caucus received criticism for it, due to it being perceived as not being fiscally conservative. The second amendment that drew some flak was by Rep. Jonathan Stickland, from Bedford. (read here) He proposed that constituents should be able to register their opinions, for/against a bill, at House District offices, rather than having to drive to Austin to do so. This amendment also failed but with mixed support from Freedom Caucus members. This particular amendment received the greatest amount of backlash from conservative activist around the state.
For some context, in the 85th session, during the rules debate, there were many amendments brought forth that tried to increase the transparency in which the House conducted its business. For instance, Rep Tony Tinderholt tried to pass rules that required the Calendars Committee to publish a record vote when that committee decided to pull a particular bill from reaching the floor. Many people, were expecting for this session to see the same types of rule changes proposed. Rep. Stickland's amendment, which he proposed in the 85th, was the only attempt this year at some resemblance of requiring the House to be more transparent. This author reached out, to several representatives from East Texas, in order to get a better understanding of why this rule was defeated so easily. Only Matt Schaefer and Cole Hefner responded. The biggest concern for each of them was that this rule change would have put some undo pressure in the district offices, which are already understaffed and underpaid. They also said the process and implementation of the rule change hadn't been completely vetted and properly studied in regards to fiscal issues. See Matt Schaefer's comments.
One thing is for sure, transparency in the House is still lagging. The House may operate on a better tone and less divisiveness, now that a new Speaker is in charge, but until Texans start seeing actual changes to how the House operates, there will always be some skepticism.
Friday, November 30, 2018
The session is coming, the session is coming!
As of this writing, there are only 39 days until the 86th Texas Legislative Session begins. The general election back on Nov 6th saw a few changes in the makeup of both the House and Senate but not so much that Republicans lost control of either body. Going into the session, the House will be made up of 83 Republicans and 67 Democrats. The Senate will comprise 19 Republicans and 12 Democrats. Lt Gov. Dan Patrick won re-election and will preside over the Senate while Representative Dennis Bonnen out of Angleton, Tx., just south of Galveston, is considered the presumptive Speaker of the House. On January 8th, the House will vote to make the Speaker nominee official.
I'm hopeful the new session will address issues that Texans have been wanting for several cycles now but haven't been able to receive, mainly due to big money lobbyist and some outgoing legislatures that blocked those reforms each chance they got. In fact, Rep. Bonnen has indicated that the biggest influence on legislation in previous sessions, an Austin lobbyist, will no longer have a seat at the table this year.
In the March 2018 primaries, Republican voters went to the polls and voted on eleven different propositions, priority subjects that the Texas Republican Party wanted feedback on. All eleven propositions passed and here in East Texas, they did as well. Some of these propositions coincide with the Legislative Priorities developed at the Republican Party Texas Convention of 2018.
The biggest priorities I believe Texans want to see addressed, are property tax reform and school funding. In the primary, voters across the State said they wanted to replace the property tax system with a consumption base system, (Prop 1) with 68% of the vote and to cap revenue increases at 4%, (Prop 10) with 94% of the vote. Voter Fraud (Prop 8) and school choice, (Prop 5), were also propositions on the primary ballot.
The East Texas breakdown by house districts and the percentage each proposition received as an aggregate:
Prop 1 Prop 5 Prop 8 Prop 10
HD1, Gary VanDeaver 62 73 97 94
HD5, Cole Hefner 66 71 97 88
HD6, Matt Schaefer 64 81 95 94
HD7, Jay Dean 67 73 96 94
HD8, Cody Harris 67 75 96 93
HD9, Chris Paddie 65 77 97 95
HD11, Travis Clardy 68 79 96 95
We will continue to watch our legislatures and see if they vote the will of their constituents or continue to block reform and pay homage to special interest groups.
I'm hopeful the new session will address issues that Texans have been wanting for several cycles now but haven't been able to receive, mainly due to big money lobbyist and some outgoing legislatures that blocked those reforms each chance they got. In fact, Rep. Bonnen has indicated that the biggest influence on legislation in previous sessions, an Austin lobbyist, will no longer have a seat at the table this year.
In the March 2018 primaries, Republican voters went to the polls and voted on eleven different propositions, priority subjects that the Texas Republican Party wanted feedback on. All eleven propositions passed and here in East Texas, they did as well. Some of these propositions coincide with the Legislative Priorities developed at the Republican Party Texas Convention of 2018.
The biggest priorities I believe Texans want to see addressed, are property tax reform and school funding. In the primary, voters across the State said they wanted to replace the property tax system with a consumption base system, (Prop 1) with 68% of the vote and to cap revenue increases at 4%, (Prop 10) with 94% of the vote. Voter Fraud (Prop 8) and school choice, (Prop 5), were also propositions on the primary ballot.
The East Texas breakdown by house districts and the percentage each proposition received as an aggregate:
Prop 1 Prop 5 Prop 8 Prop 10
HD1, Gary VanDeaver 62 73 97 94
HD5, Cole Hefner 66 71 97 88
HD6, Matt Schaefer 64 81 95 94
HD7, Jay Dean 67 73 96 94
HD8, Cody Harris 67 75 96 93
HD9, Chris Paddie 65 77 97 95
HD11, Travis Clardy 68 79 96 95
We will continue to watch our legislatures and see if they vote the will of their constituents or continue to block reform and pay homage to special interest groups.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
What is a Speaker?
While most voters are focused on the midterm elections, taking place on Nov 6, 2018, there is another election that quite possibly may be of bigger significance for Texas residents.
On December 1, members of the Texas House Republican Caucus will meet to decide among themselves, who they want to be their choice as the next Speaker of the Texas House. With the retirement of Rep. Joe Straus, a Republican, who has held the position since 2009, a new Speaker will be chosen when the 86th Legislative session begins in January. For historical purposes, Speaker Straus won the speaker race in 2009 by garnering all 74 votes from the Democrat party along with 11 Republicans. In the preceding sessions, he continued to receive all democrat votes and a handful of Republican votes until 2017 when he received 100% from both sides. In 2017, he ran unopposed.
Ever since Rep. Straus took the speaker position, there has been a growing concern that many conservative bills were not being passed. There were many that believed conservative legislation, involving but not limited to policies such as gun rights, abortion and property taxes were not being passed, or even heard and passed out of committee's, while Straus was the speaker. The House Speaker has, among some of its duties, the responsibility to appoint committee chairs and assigning bills to respective committee's. In 2017, Republicans controlled the House 95-55. Of the 40 main committee's in the House, only 9 had a Republican Chair and Vice Chair, two committee's had a Democrat Chair and Vice Chair. Overall, Speaker Straus appointed Democrats to chair 14 committee's, and Republicans to chair just 26.
Because of the groundswell of voices throughout Texas, Republican Caucus chairman Tan Parker appointed a working group, that included our own Chris Paddie, HD9, to come up with a legal and enforceable procedure whereby the Texas House Republican Caucus selected the next speaker. The full report can be seen here. This group said among other things, 'there is no legal restrictions on the Republican caucus selecting or otherwise endorsing a nominee'. They also suggested that a Speaker candidate be selected from a majority of votes by the caucus. If there are more than 3 candidates and none of the candidates receive a majority of votes, then voting continues with the person receiving the least amount of votes eliminated, until one person receives the required majority.
In the March 2018 primaries, Texas Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of House Republicans selecting their speaker nominee and in June at the Texas GOP State convention, delegates said in their platform, "Republicans in the Texas House should select their Speaker nominee by secret ballot in a binding caucus without Democrat influence". There are currently six confirmed individuals that have declared their intention to be speaker. It has also been reported that some of those six are recruiting democrat support ahead of the Dec 1 vote.
Will Texas House Republicans keep to what Texas Republicans want and elect a speaker candidate without Democrat influence? Will they reject any candidate that claims Democrat support? And will all Texas House Republicans stick to the candidate that comes out of the caucus? Voters should call or write their representative and tell them to only elect a candidate that is not courting Democrat votes and to stick with the plan to support the Republican Speaker nominee.
Jan 8, 2019 is the first day of the 86th legislative session and when a new speaker will be confirmed.
On December 1, members of the Texas House Republican Caucus will meet to decide among themselves, who they want to be their choice as the next Speaker of the Texas House. With the retirement of Rep. Joe Straus, a Republican, who has held the position since 2009, a new Speaker will be chosen when the 86th Legislative session begins in January. For historical purposes, Speaker Straus won the speaker race in 2009 by garnering all 74 votes from the Democrat party along with 11 Republicans. In the preceding sessions, he continued to receive all democrat votes and a handful of Republican votes until 2017 when he received 100% from both sides. In 2017, he ran unopposed.
Ever since Rep. Straus took the speaker position, there has been a growing concern that many conservative bills were not being passed. There were many that believed conservative legislation, involving but not limited to policies such as gun rights, abortion and property taxes were not being passed, or even heard and passed out of committee's, while Straus was the speaker. The House Speaker has, among some of its duties, the responsibility to appoint committee chairs and assigning bills to respective committee's. In 2017, Republicans controlled the House 95-55. Of the 40 main committee's in the House, only 9 had a Republican Chair and Vice Chair, two committee's had a Democrat Chair and Vice Chair. Overall, Speaker Straus appointed Democrats to chair 14 committee's, and Republicans to chair just 26.
Because of the groundswell of voices throughout Texas, Republican Caucus chairman Tan Parker appointed a working group, that included our own Chris Paddie, HD9, to come up with a legal and enforceable procedure whereby the Texas House Republican Caucus selected the next speaker. The full report can be seen here. This group said among other things, 'there is no legal restrictions on the Republican caucus selecting or otherwise endorsing a nominee'. They also suggested that a Speaker candidate be selected from a majority of votes by the caucus. If there are more than 3 candidates and none of the candidates receive a majority of votes, then voting continues with the person receiving the least amount of votes eliminated, until one person receives the required majority.
In the March 2018 primaries, Texas Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of House Republicans selecting their speaker nominee and in June at the Texas GOP State convention, delegates said in their platform, "Republicans in the Texas House should select their Speaker nominee by secret ballot in a binding caucus without Democrat influence". There are currently six confirmed individuals that have declared their intention to be speaker. It has also been reported that some of those six are recruiting democrat support ahead of the Dec 1 vote.
Will Texas House Republicans keep to what Texas Republicans want and elect a speaker candidate without Democrat influence? Will they reject any candidate that claims Democrat support? And will all Texas House Republicans stick to the candidate that comes out of the caucus? Voters should call or write their representative and tell them to only elect a candidate that is not courting Democrat votes and to stick with the plan to support the Republican Speaker nominee.
Jan 8, 2019 is the first day of the 86th legislative session and when a new speaker will be confirmed.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
City of Longview Texas looking to increase its Debt
Will the city of Longview start to be known as the debt capital of East Texas?
I attended the town hall event last night held by city councilman David Wright at Spring Hill High School. He discussed plans for the proposed 20 year $104.2 million bond package the city is considering putting before the voters. He said the city council must decide by August 22, 2018. There were about 40 in attendance of which almost half were city employees. At one point, Mr Wright said of the bond, (I'm paraphrasing), "We can't live on our current budget, to do the things we want, we need more money". In other words, 'We need to raise your property taxes'.
The city of Longview operates on a $162M budget of which 8% is designated to pay down existing debt. It's current debt obligation according to the city's website is $65M in General Obligations (GO) that is not scheduled to expire until year 2033 and another $84M in Revenue Debt according to the Texas Comptrollers office (2016 numbers). The new bond would increase Longview's debt obligation to almost $245M.
That's not all, the four local school districts have also passed bonds in the last few years that have also raised property taxes. LISD in 2007 passed a $267M bond package and according to the TxComp. has $351M in GO debt and another $8.3M in Capital Appreciation debt (CAB). PTISD has $91.25M GO debt and $1.83M CAB debt, and SHISD has $63.4M in GO debt and $3.8M CAB and those residents that touch HISD are subject to $98.5M GO debt.
Longview City Council will hold its regular meeting this Thursday night the 26th. If you're concerned about all the debt this city is racking up, I encourage you to make your voice heard. Tell the city council to vote NO on any more bond elections. Longview residents just can't afford it.
Here are the particulars: (I have it broken down further if you're interested)
Building Projects - $52.4M
Infastucture - $28M
Parks - $ 24.7M
Infastucture - $28M
Parks - $ 24.7M
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Sending Mixed Signals
Now that the 2018 primaries are over, most will go on about their daily routines and forget about the elections, politics and policies until the next time they realize there's an election. Ninety percent of registered voters do not vote, as evidence by the dismal voter turnout. Based on my experience, I'm betting only three percent of those that bother to vote, have any idea of the issues or an idea of how the candidates stand on issues. People vote mostly because they have a friend who told them who they are voting for, or what they've seen on tv, heard on radio ads or what they've read on the many mailers that come during election time. Actual investigation and research are never done by most. This is how most incumbents keep winning. They rely on the uneducated electorate, the low information voter. When information does present itself, it's ignored or spun by the opposition as not true. However, Galileo reminds us that "the truth is easy to understand once it is discovered, the point is to discover it". This is why I write this blog, To help people discover the truth.
Thomas Jefferson linked an enlightened citizenry to an educated one. He spoke of governments degenerating when trusted to the rulers of its people. That the people themselves are the safe depositories to correct abuses in power, but they must be educated, to inform their discretion, so that freedom may be preserved. He said " though the people may acquiesce, they can not approve what they do not understand". I talked with hundreds of people over the course of these last primary elections, many of them on election day as they were exiting the voting locations. I found that many did not know who the candidates were or what positions they held on certain topics. It frustrated me so, that I thought, why are they voting at all? The overall returns of election night to me, were discouraging, not just because my favorite candidates lost, but because of how our citizenry doesn't pay enough attention to these matters. Jefferson also wrote "No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity", and " The most effectual means of preventing power to tyranny is to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large."
Candidates are one thing, when it comes to being educated before you vote, but ideas are quite another. In the Republican primary of 2018, there were 11 propositions on the ballot. For each proposition, voters were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement. These propositions came from the 2016 Texas GOP platform and voted on by the State Republican Executive Committee, to be placed before the Texas Republican primary voter. All eleven propositions passed. These propositions are not binding to any laws, but only to serve as guiding principles for Republican voters and ultimately, Republican legislators. These are opinion questions and as such, research and investigation are not necessary. Or are they?
Remember, these propositions came from the GOP 2016 platform. Many bills were presented in the last legislative session that reflected these platform positions. Bills like HB 948 by Representative Tony Tinderholt, which sought to abolish abortion in Texas. This was proposition #7 on your ballot. It is specifically plank #90 in the platform and linked to planks #88 & #89, right to life and reversing Roe v Wade. The fact that these ideas, platform planks did not pass in the 85th session, drove the SREC to place these positions on the ballot to get a better idea of what the electorate at large wanted, not just the delegates to the State Convention. Lets unpack all the propostions.
Prop 1: Replace the property tax system with a consumption based system. Passed 68%-32%
Prop 2: Toll roads approved by voters. Passed 90%-10%.
Prop 3: GOP members of house vote by secret ballot for speaker. Passed 85%-15%
Prop 4: Employers should use E-verify system. Passed 90%-10%
Prop 5: School Choice using tax credits. Passed 79%-21%
Prop 6: Bathroom Privacy. Passed 90%-10%
Prop 7: Abolish Abortion. Passed 68%-32%
Prop 8: End voter fraud. Passed 95%-5%
Prop 9: Repeal Obamacare. Passed 87%-13%
Prop 10: Cap revenue increases to 4%. Passed 94%-6%
Prop 11: No funding of sports teams. Passed 87%-13%
As you can see, all eleven propositions passed convincingly, including property tax reform and abolishing abortion, the two with the lowest spread but still a 36 point difference. These ideas are what the cumulative GOP voters in Texas want. Lets compare these numbers across the State to the counties in East Texas. The number below each proposition is the percentage of voters that voted FOR the position.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11
Cass 64 90 88 93 73 96 80 97 93 95 88
Harrison 65 91 87 91 75 95 76 96 89 95 88
Marrion 64 90 87 92 82 94 68 96 89 95 89
Panola 66 92 89 91 69 95 80 97 93 94 88
Sabine 66 93 89 95 83 98 75 98 93 96 87
Shelby 67 92 86 91 79 97 80 97 92 94 86
Gregg 63 89 86 91 73 92 75 95 89 93 87
Upshur 71 92 87 92 73 95 80 97 92 95 89
Smith 64 90 88 91 81 94 76 95 90 94 88
Cherokee 72 92 89 91 80 96 79 97 93 95 90
Rusk 66 92 89 92 78 95 78 96 91 95 88
Titus 66 92 86 91 71 96 77 97 91 95 88
Wood 60 91 89 93 74 95 76 97 92 94 90
Every county listed above falls in line with the state average. Our representatives, Chris Paddie, Jay Dean, Matt Schaefer and Cole Hefner represent these counties. Only Paddie and Schaefer had primary challengers in this last election and both won convincingly. The numbers for representative Schaefer fall in line with his voting record as it relates to each proposition. The voters in Smith county, with the exception of Prop 1 voted at the same rate or better on every other proposition. In regards to property tax reform, they still voted favorably by 28%. Representative Schaefer it would seem is representing his district well. He falls in line with what the voters of Smith county want.
On the other hand, the voters in House District 9 which includes Cass, Harrison, Marion, Panola, Sabine and Shelby counties, seem to be giving mixed signals. The numbers suggest they are overwhelmingly in support of all the propositions but then they also re-elected Chris Paddie, who voted against or didn't support many of the same propositions in the 85th session. Do we interpret this conflict as, there are many low information voters in HD 9 or voters in HD 9 are voting only for a person and not what they believe. In either case, voters in HD 9 need more 'truth discovery' about their elected officials or even their own belief systems. For instance, they said they wanted property tax reform and cap any increases to 4%, (Prop 1&10). Paddie voted against the Senate version that would have capped property tax increases at 4%, in fact, he sided with house leadership to dismiss the session a day early and cut off any debates on the floor or with the Senate. He didn't fight to abolish abortion, (Prop 7) in the aforementioned HB 948. Every county in HD 9 approved this position at or better than the state average. Even when it comes to school choice, voters in every HD 9 county approved this measure overwhelmingly, but yet Mr Paddie continually says he is not in favor of it and will always vote against it. Proposition 11 is another conflict of voter interest. Voters said the state should not be funding private sports teams or venues but representative Paddie voted in favor of doing so.
This phenomenon isn't exclusive to voters in HD 9, but to many districts across Texas. If Republican voters truly believe in the propositions put forth to them on this years primary ballot, then why do they keep electing men and women who do not support these positions? If this election taught me anything, its that there are more voters than not, that need a better understanding of how their representative votes in Austin as compared to what they actually believe. Voters in HD 9 and other districts need to stop sending Mixed Signals. Along with many others, its my goal to illuminate the minds of the people of East Texas.
Thomas Jefferson linked an enlightened citizenry to an educated one. He spoke of governments degenerating when trusted to the rulers of its people. That the people themselves are the safe depositories to correct abuses in power, but they must be educated, to inform their discretion, so that freedom may be preserved. He said " though the people may acquiesce, they can not approve what they do not understand". I talked with hundreds of people over the course of these last primary elections, many of them on election day as they were exiting the voting locations. I found that many did not know who the candidates were or what positions they held on certain topics. It frustrated me so, that I thought, why are they voting at all? The overall returns of election night to me, were discouraging, not just because my favorite candidates lost, but because of how our citizenry doesn't pay enough attention to these matters. Jefferson also wrote "No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity", and " The most effectual means of preventing power to tyranny is to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large."
Candidates are one thing, when it comes to being educated before you vote, but ideas are quite another. In the Republican primary of 2018, there were 11 propositions on the ballot. For each proposition, voters were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement. These propositions came from the 2016 Texas GOP platform and voted on by the State Republican Executive Committee, to be placed before the Texas Republican primary voter. All eleven propositions passed. These propositions are not binding to any laws, but only to serve as guiding principles for Republican voters and ultimately, Republican legislators. These are opinion questions and as such, research and investigation are not necessary. Or are they?
Remember, these propositions came from the GOP 2016 platform. Many bills were presented in the last legislative session that reflected these platform positions. Bills like HB 948 by Representative Tony Tinderholt, which sought to abolish abortion in Texas. This was proposition #7 on your ballot. It is specifically plank #90 in the platform and linked to planks #88 & #89, right to life and reversing Roe v Wade. The fact that these ideas, platform planks did not pass in the 85th session, drove the SREC to place these positions on the ballot to get a better idea of what the electorate at large wanted, not just the delegates to the State Convention. Lets unpack all the propostions.
Prop 1: Replace the property tax system with a consumption based system. Passed 68%-32%
Prop 2: Toll roads approved by voters. Passed 90%-10%.
Prop 3: GOP members of house vote by secret ballot for speaker. Passed 85%-15%
Prop 4: Employers should use E-verify system. Passed 90%-10%
Prop 5: School Choice using tax credits. Passed 79%-21%
Prop 6: Bathroom Privacy. Passed 90%-10%
Prop 7: Abolish Abortion. Passed 68%-32%
Prop 8: End voter fraud. Passed 95%-5%
Prop 9: Repeal Obamacare. Passed 87%-13%
Prop 10: Cap revenue increases to 4%. Passed 94%-6%
Prop 11: No funding of sports teams. Passed 87%-13%
As you can see, all eleven propositions passed convincingly, including property tax reform and abolishing abortion, the two with the lowest spread but still a 36 point difference. These ideas are what the cumulative GOP voters in Texas want. Lets compare these numbers across the State to the counties in East Texas. The number below each proposition is the percentage of voters that voted FOR the position.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11
Cass 64 90 88 93 73 96 80 97 93 95 88
Harrison 65 91 87 91 75 95 76 96 89 95 88
Marrion 64 90 87 92 82 94 68 96 89 95 89
Panola 66 92 89 91 69 95 80 97 93 94 88
Sabine 66 93 89 95 83 98 75 98 93 96 87
Shelby 67 92 86 91 79 97 80 97 92 94 86
Gregg 63 89 86 91 73 92 75 95 89 93 87
Upshur 71 92 87 92 73 95 80 97 92 95 89
Smith 64 90 88 91 81 94 76 95 90 94 88
Cherokee 72 92 89 91 80 96 79 97 93 95 90
Rusk 66 92 89 92 78 95 78 96 91 95 88
Titus 66 92 86 91 71 96 77 97 91 95 88
Wood 60 91 89 93 74 95 76 97 92 94 90
Every county listed above falls in line with the state average. Our representatives, Chris Paddie, Jay Dean, Matt Schaefer and Cole Hefner represent these counties. Only Paddie and Schaefer had primary challengers in this last election and both won convincingly. The numbers for representative Schaefer fall in line with his voting record as it relates to each proposition. The voters in Smith county, with the exception of Prop 1 voted at the same rate or better on every other proposition. In regards to property tax reform, they still voted favorably by 28%. Representative Schaefer it would seem is representing his district well. He falls in line with what the voters of Smith county want.
On the other hand, the voters in House District 9 which includes Cass, Harrison, Marion, Panola, Sabine and Shelby counties, seem to be giving mixed signals. The numbers suggest they are overwhelmingly in support of all the propositions but then they also re-elected Chris Paddie, who voted against or didn't support many of the same propositions in the 85th session. Do we interpret this conflict as, there are many low information voters in HD 9 or voters in HD 9 are voting only for a person and not what they believe. In either case, voters in HD 9 need more 'truth discovery' about their elected officials or even their own belief systems. For instance, they said they wanted property tax reform and cap any increases to 4%, (Prop 1&10). Paddie voted against the Senate version that would have capped property tax increases at 4%, in fact, he sided with house leadership to dismiss the session a day early and cut off any debates on the floor or with the Senate. He didn't fight to abolish abortion, (Prop 7) in the aforementioned HB 948. Every county in HD 9 approved this position at or better than the state average. Even when it comes to school choice, voters in every HD 9 county approved this measure overwhelmingly, but yet Mr Paddie continually says he is not in favor of it and will always vote against it. Proposition 11 is another conflict of voter interest. Voters said the state should not be funding private sports teams or venues but representative Paddie voted in favor of doing so.
This phenomenon isn't exclusive to voters in HD 9, but to many districts across Texas. If Republican voters truly believe in the propositions put forth to them on this years primary ballot, then why do they keep electing men and women who do not support these positions? If this election taught me anything, its that there are more voters than not, that need a better understanding of how their representative votes in Austin as compared to what they actually believe. Voters in HD 9 and other districts need to stop sending Mixed Signals. Along with many others, its my goal to illuminate the minds of the people of East Texas.
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
Believe What I say...Not What I do!
House Representative Chris Paddie of Marshall has repeated two very distinctive mantras while on the campaign trail; telling constituents that he will always represent his district in Austin and not just what the Republican Party platform says, and that he supports public education and its employees.
To be fair, the party platform does have 260 different planks representing five general topics and 27 sub topics. It is lengthy and covers many areas, in which not every plank will be agreeable to every Republican. In fact, not a single plank received 100% agreement from the 6000 plus delegates to the State convention in 2016. So, to ask a representative to be 100% on board for every plank is not realistic. We can however, expect Republican representatives to be on board for the five legislative priorities that were voted on by the delegates and ultimately approved by the State Republican Executive Committee. They were:
1. Pass Constitutional Carry while maintaining licensing as optional for reciprocity purposes.
2. Abolish abortion by enacting legislation to stop the murder of unborn children; and to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life.
3. Prioritize the allocation of funds to effectively secure the border through whatever means necessary, including but not limited to barriers, personnel, and technology over land, sea, and air, because the federal government refuses to secure the southern border of Texas.
4. Call for a limited Article V convention of states for the specific purpose of restricting the power of the federal government, including the implementation of term limits, and balanced budget amendment. Any proposed amendments must be ratified by ¾ of the states.
5. And to replace the property tax system with an alternative other than the income tax and require voter approval to increase the overall tax burden.
[These priorities were the most important to the convention delegates and passed with overwhelming numbers, including the delegates that represented the county's in Chris' district. The delegates to the state convention are voted on at the County conventions and prior to that the delegates at the county conventions are voted on by the voters at the precinct conventions, local neighborhoods. These delegates from precinct to county to State represent the voters at the grass root levels of every county. Delegates at all levels represent the voters at a much more broad level than any one representative.]
Representative Paddie's voting record as it pertains to the five Republican Party Legislative priorities:
1. Two constitutional carry bills were filed in the 85th session, HB 375 and HB 1911. Neither passed. HB 375 was left pending in Homeland Security Committee, he did not author or coauthor which would show his support. HB 1911 died in Calendars committee, where Chris is a member. It was sent to calendars on April 26. In order for bills to be on heard on the House floor they must have been approved by the Calendars committee and read on the floor a second time by the 122nd day of the session, that was May 12. Chris would eventually sign on to HB 1911, on May 8th but only after many called his office and after he knew the bill would die in Calendars.
2. There was one bill that called for the abolition of abortion in the 85th session. HB 948 by representative Tony Tinderholt. Chris did not coauthor this bill and it died in State Affairs committee where Chris is also a member. In the special session, HB 14 was an attempt to curtail agreements between Texas agencies and abortion providers. After this bill passed in State Affairs on 7/27/17, chairman Byron Cook sat on it for 2 weeks prior to sending to Calendars. It did not make it out of Calendars but Chris signed on as coauthor on 8/11/17, the next to last person to do so. HB 214 took elective abortions out of health insurance policies and Chris signed on after it passed the house.
3. While more money has been appropriated for the purpose of DPS funding and border security, in the 84th session, one amendment to HB 1 (appropriations) by representative Tony Dale would have given even more funding to border security, diverting funds from diversity training to much needed assets such as airplanes and helicopters. The amendment was tabled with Chris voting the same, along with every democrat in the house.
4. This is the only priority Chris is consistent in supporting the platform.
5. Says he is for property tax reform but voted against tax payers having a say in any property tax increase by taxing authorities. HB 486, would allow tax payers to vote on tax increases by school districts if the district wants to raise to a previous higher rate. He fought against automatic elections if a county or city raised your tax rates. He voted to silence any voices in the house that wanted to debate property tax reforms on the floor. He fought against lower rollback rates. The list goes on with this priority. This single issue may be the reason he scored so low on many conservative taxpayer watchdog organizations.
Looking at the RPT priorities, Chris only fully supported 1 of the top 5. Now lets go back and look at his claims of supporting his district. The biggest issue he claims is education. It's true that the education industry is one of the biggest employers in HD 9. So what has Chris done to support it? I went back to the first time he was elected until today to see what bills he has authored or joint authored in regards to helping education and the classroom teacher.
In the 83rd session, he joint authored HB 1784 which tried to provide technical training to high school dropouts. He joint authored HB 2201 which required additional credits in math and science curriculum to graduate high school. He authored HB 3472, dealing with the Public Education Information Management System (PIEMS).
In the 84th session, Chris didn't author or joint author a single item dealing with education
In the 85th session, Chris didn't author or joint author a single item dealing with education.
In other words, his rhetoric doesn't match his actions. Not a single bill to help classroom teachers get funding, to provide more money for their classrooms, money for projects, money for increased teacher pay. He didn't file one bill that would help retired teachers receive more benefits or improve upon either the retirement system or its healthcare component. The question then is; Exactly why are teachers and teacher groups supporting him? Or is it really the school boards and administrators that support him? Because again, remember, he voted against homeowners and in favor of the taxing authorities that want to increase your property taxes.
Lastly, when it comes to supporting his district, there have been several referendums on the ballot since Chris has been in office, that he has not supported while in Austin.
In 2016:
Prop 1, "Replacing the property tax", voters passed, 78%-28%
Prop 2, "Prohibit union dues collected from govt employees checks", voters passed, 53%-47%
In 2014:
Prop 3, "Abolish the Franchise Tax", voters passed, 90%-10%
In 2012:
Prop 1, "School Choice", voters passed 82%-18%
Prop 4, "Limiting increases in govt. spending", voters passed 93%-7%
Is he really supporting the concerns of his district, or the concerns of those Austin lobby groups that he gets so much money from? (See Who's Who..Part 2)
To be fair, the party platform does have 260 different planks representing five general topics and 27 sub topics. It is lengthy and covers many areas, in which not every plank will be agreeable to every Republican. In fact, not a single plank received 100% agreement from the 6000 plus delegates to the State convention in 2016. So, to ask a representative to be 100% on board for every plank is not realistic. We can however, expect Republican representatives to be on board for the five legislative priorities that were voted on by the delegates and ultimately approved by the State Republican Executive Committee. They were:
1. Pass Constitutional Carry while maintaining licensing as optional for reciprocity purposes.
2. Abolish abortion by enacting legislation to stop the murder of unborn children; and to ignore and refuse to enforce any and all federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and court rulings, which would deprive an unborn child of the right to life.
3. Prioritize the allocation of funds to effectively secure the border through whatever means necessary, including but not limited to barriers, personnel, and technology over land, sea, and air, because the federal government refuses to secure the southern border of Texas.
4. Call for a limited Article V convention of states for the specific purpose of restricting the power of the federal government, including the implementation of term limits, and balanced budget amendment. Any proposed amendments must be ratified by ¾ of the states.
5. And to replace the property tax system with an alternative other than the income tax and require voter approval to increase the overall tax burden.
[These priorities were the most important to the convention delegates and passed with overwhelming numbers, including the delegates that represented the county's in Chris' district. The delegates to the state convention are voted on at the County conventions and prior to that the delegates at the county conventions are voted on by the voters at the precinct conventions, local neighborhoods. These delegates from precinct to county to State represent the voters at the grass root levels of every county. Delegates at all levels represent the voters at a much more broad level than any one representative.]
Representative Paddie's voting record as it pertains to the five Republican Party Legislative priorities:
1. Two constitutional carry bills were filed in the 85th session, HB 375 and HB 1911. Neither passed. HB 375 was left pending in Homeland Security Committee, he did not author or coauthor which would show his support. HB 1911 died in Calendars committee, where Chris is a member. It was sent to calendars on April 26. In order for bills to be on heard on the House floor they must have been approved by the Calendars committee and read on the floor a second time by the 122nd day of the session, that was May 12. Chris would eventually sign on to HB 1911, on May 8th but only after many called his office and after he knew the bill would die in Calendars.
2. There was one bill that called for the abolition of abortion in the 85th session. HB 948 by representative Tony Tinderholt. Chris did not coauthor this bill and it died in State Affairs committee where Chris is also a member. In the special session, HB 14 was an attempt to curtail agreements between Texas agencies and abortion providers. After this bill passed in State Affairs on 7/27/17, chairman Byron Cook sat on it for 2 weeks prior to sending to Calendars. It did not make it out of Calendars but Chris signed on as coauthor on 8/11/17, the next to last person to do so. HB 214 took elective abortions out of health insurance policies and Chris signed on after it passed the house.
3. While more money has been appropriated for the purpose of DPS funding and border security, in the 84th session, one amendment to HB 1 (appropriations) by representative Tony Dale would have given even more funding to border security, diverting funds from diversity training to much needed assets such as airplanes and helicopters. The amendment was tabled with Chris voting the same, along with every democrat in the house.
4. This is the only priority Chris is consistent in supporting the platform.
5. Says he is for property tax reform but voted against tax payers having a say in any property tax increase by taxing authorities. HB 486, would allow tax payers to vote on tax increases by school districts if the district wants to raise to a previous higher rate. He fought against automatic elections if a county or city raised your tax rates. He voted to silence any voices in the house that wanted to debate property tax reforms on the floor. He fought against lower rollback rates. The list goes on with this priority. This single issue may be the reason he scored so low on many conservative taxpayer watchdog organizations.
Looking at the RPT priorities, Chris only fully supported 1 of the top 5. Now lets go back and look at his claims of supporting his district. The biggest issue he claims is education. It's true that the education industry is one of the biggest employers in HD 9. So what has Chris done to support it? I went back to the first time he was elected until today to see what bills he has authored or joint authored in regards to helping education and the classroom teacher.
In the 83rd session, he joint authored HB 1784 which tried to provide technical training to high school dropouts. He joint authored HB 2201 which required additional credits in math and science curriculum to graduate high school. He authored HB 3472, dealing with the Public Education Information Management System (PIEMS).
In the 84th session, Chris didn't author or joint author a single item dealing with education
In the 85th session, Chris didn't author or joint author a single item dealing with education.
In other words, his rhetoric doesn't match his actions. Not a single bill to help classroom teachers get funding, to provide more money for their classrooms, money for projects, money for increased teacher pay. He didn't file one bill that would help retired teachers receive more benefits or improve upon either the retirement system or its healthcare component. The question then is; Exactly why are teachers and teacher groups supporting him? Or is it really the school boards and administrators that support him? Because again, remember, he voted against homeowners and in favor of the taxing authorities that want to increase your property taxes.
Lastly, when it comes to supporting his district, there have been several referendums on the ballot since Chris has been in office, that he has not supported while in Austin.
In 2016:
Prop 1, "Replacing the property tax", voters passed, 78%-28%
Prop 2, "Prohibit union dues collected from govt employees checks", voters passed, 53%-47%
In 2014:
Prop 3, "Abolish the Franchise Tax", voters passed, 90%-10%
In 2012:
Prop 1, "School Choice", voters passed 82%-18%
Prop 4, "Limiting increases in govt. spending", voters passed 93%-7%
Is he really supporting the concerns of his district, or the concerns of those Austin lobby groups that he gets so much money from? (See Who's Who..Part 2)
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
Who's Who Part 2 of 2
So now that we've run through the big Political Action Committee's, and where they stand on the liberal conservative spectrum, (see Part 1 of this blog), lets take a look at each representative in Senate District One and each persons donations since Jan 1, 2016, the last election cycle.
For purposes of being consistent, I only counted contributions totaling $500 or more during the time period. I did not include Byron Cook since he is no longer running for re-election.
HD 1 Representative Gary VanDeaver:
Gary received $189,000 in total PAC money and $81,250 from individuals. The number of PAC's totaled 71 and individuals totaled 33. The largest contributor to his campaign was the Texas House Leadership Fund, run by ex-speaker Joe Straus. Totaling $57,500, this was the largest contribution to any representative in SD 1. The next largest donation to Rep. VanDeaver was from Associated Republicans of Texas at $40,700. This group was detailed in the previous blog. These two donations amount to just under 52% of the total PAC money given to Gary in this period. The top 5 PAC donors to his campaign were 1. Texas House Leadership Fund-$57,500 2. Associated Republicans of Texas-$40,700 3. Texas State Teachers Association-$13,000 4. Texans For Lawsuit Reform-$6,000 Tied for 5th at $5,000 a piece were Association of Texas Professional Educators, TREPAC, and Texas Farm Bureau.
Gary's largest individual donor was Charles Butt at $12,500. Mr Butt is the chairman and CEO of HEB grocery stores out of San Antonio. One of the wealthiest individuals in Texas, Mr. Butt also gave $100,000 to the Texas House Leadership Fund, and funded challengers to conservative lawmakers Matt Rinaldi and Jonathan Stickland. In the 2016 cycle, Mr Butt donated $1.84 Million to PAC's as well as moderate to liberal candidates. Mr. VanDeaver's top 5 individual donors were 1. Charles Butt-$12,500 2. Kyle Davis-$11,500 3. Chad Patterson-$10,000 4. Charles Patterson-$10,000 5. Nelson Roach-$10,000. These 5 make up 66% of his individual donors.
HD 5 Representative Cole Hefner
Cole had 59 PAC's give him $151,000 with Empower Texans being the largest donor at $41,400. Empower Texans was started by Tim Dunn, CEO of oil driller CrownQuest in Midland, Texas. They tend to concentrate their support and donations to legislators that lean to the conservative side of the scale. The top 5 PAC's on Cole's list were 1. Empower Texans-$41,400 2. Texas Home School Coalition-$22,250 3. Texans for Lawsuit Reform-$10,000 4. Texas Right to Life-$10,000 5. Young Conservatives of Texas-$8,833. These 5 donors make up 61% of his PAC money.
The largest individual donor for Cole, at $17,000, was the late Lonnie "Bo' Pilgrim of Pilgrim's Pride chicken in Pittsburg, Texas. The next 4 were Bill Priefert-$12,000, Mayes Middleton-$7500, Stacy Hock-$7,500, and Monty Bennett-$7,000. Cole's individual donors totaled 75 persons and $140,000. Put another way, his PAC/Individual donor $$$$ ratio is approximately 1:1
HD 6 Representative Matt Schaefer
Matt received the least amount of money of any SD 1 legislator both in PAC money and from individual donors. The surprising statistic though, is that he had fewer PAC donors than he did from individuals. Money from PAC sources totaled only $19,000 from 15 sources. The largest from Texas Right to Life at $5,000. His individual donations came in at $58,000 from 40 people. Matt received 3x the amount of donations from 3x the number of individuals over PAC's. His largest donor came from Thomas Grahm, a physician out of Tyler, at $7,500. In order, they were Thomas Grahm-$7,500, Texas Right to Life-$5,000, Dick Saulsbury-$5,000, Paul Ditwiller-$5,000 and Dan Wilks-$3,750.
HD 7 Representative Jay Dean
First year legislator Jay Dean had no problems picking up donations from both PAC's and individuals, mostly business owners in the Gregg County area. His time spent as mayor of Longview, surely helped him in his fundraising efforts. Both his PAC donations and private donations came in at $151,000 respectively, totaling just north of $300,000 in all. His largest donation came from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, $30,500. Also on the list in his top 5 of PAC money is the Texas Medical Association, $5,750. Since TLR and TMA work very closely together in supporting moderate Republicans, this is not surprising. The other three top PAC's were TREPAC-$15,000, Associated Republicans of Texas-$10,000, and Blackridge, an Austin lobbyist firm at $8,500.
Jay's biggest individual donor was John Martin, owner of R&K Distributors in Longview. He gave Jay a total of $18,500 over this time period. R&K is the local distributor of Anheuser-Busch products. Some interesting connections here are that Wholesale Beers Distributors PAC is also on Jay's donor list of which Mr. Martin also contributed to the tune of $10,000. It doesn't stop there, Associated Republicans of Texas was Jay's 3rd largest PAC contributor and records show that John Nau, owner of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in Texas gave ART its biggest donation of $217,000. One might conclude that Jay has the Beer industry's support. The other top individual donors were Ruben Martin of Kilgore-$18,000, LaFama Foods-$10,000, Ron Hutchinson-$10,000, and Charles Butt-$8,500.
HD 9 Representative Chris Paddie
The biggest winner in PAC donations from Texas House reps in SD 1 goes to Chris Paddie. Totaling $210,000 from 122 PAC's and Austin lobby's, Chris outpaced VanDeaver by 11%, Hefner by 35% and Dean by 39%. While Dean and Hefner had almost a 1:1 ratio of the different donors, Chris had almost a 4:1 ratio. His individual donations totaled only $75,000 from 33 people. Of that $75,000, one person, Terry Bailey, of Center, Tx gave $25,000. The next 9 largest donors gave a combined $27,500 and the bottom 23 made up the rest. Within the top 10, only half were from inside his district. With so much support and money coming from outside his district, 91% of all donations, its a wonder he has any time for interest within his district.
The largest PAC money came from TREPAC-$20,000, ($77,000 since 2011). The other top PAC donors were Texans for Lawsuit Reform-$10,500, Atmos Energy-$4,000, KOCHPAC-$4,000, and Texas Auto Dealers-$4,000. KOCHPAC also gave Joe Straus $10,000 during the cycle. They are in the Oil & Gas industry.
HD 11 Representative Travis Clardy
Travis received $177,000 in total from all PAC's and individuals. PAC's gave him $116,500 with the largest 5 coming from TREPAC-$20,000, Friends of the University-$5,000, Allen-Boone lobby firm-$3,500, Focused Advocacy-$3,500, and TLR-$3,500. His largest individual donors came from Lufkin brothers, Max and Ronald Haney-$10,000 each. They are nursing home directors. This might explain his vote for HB 2766, dubbed the "Granny Tax", which charges the most vulnerable, our elderly, a tax when using a nursing care facility. The tax collected would then be funneled back to the nursing home provider. His total PAC donors equaled 67, individuals-22, a 3:1 ratio.
SD 1 Senator Bryan Hughes
Total political contributions from all sources equaled $1.45 Million since Jan 2016. This will require a separate blog. As of this writing, I'm only half way through analyzing his reports.
For purposes of being consistent, I only counted contributions totaling $500 or more during the time period. I did not include Byron Cook since he is no longer running for re-election.
HD 1 Representative Gary VanDeaver:
Gary received $189,000 in total PAC money and $81,250 from individuals. The number of PAC's totaled 71 and individuals totaled 33. The largest contributor to his campaign was the Texas House Leadership Fund, run by ex-speaker Joe Straus. Totaling $57,500, this was the largest contribution to any representative in SD 1. The next largest donation to Rep. VanDeaver was from Associated Republicans of Texas at $40,700. This group was detailed in the previous blog. These two donations amount to just under 52% of the total PAC money given to Gary in this period. The top 5 PAC donors to his campaign were 1. Texas House Leadership Fund-$57,500 2. Associated Republicans of Texas-$40,700 3. Texas State Teachers Association-$13,000 4. Texans For Lawsuit Reform-$6,000 Tied for 5th at $5,000 a piece were Association of Texas Professional Educators, TREPAC, and Texas Farm Bureau.
Gary's largest individual donor was Charles Butt at $12,500. Mr Butt is the chairman and CEO of HEB grocery stores out of San Antonio. One of the wealthiest individuals in Texas, Mr. Butt also gave $100,000 to the Texas House Leadership Fund, and funded challengers to conservative lawmakers Matt Rinaldi and Jonathan Stickland. In the 2016 cycle, Mr Butt donated $1.84 Million to PAC's as well as moderate to liberal candidates. Mr. VanDeaver's top 5 individual donors were 1. Charles Butt-$12,500 2. Kyle Davis-$11,500 3. Chad Patterson-$10,000 4. Charles Patterson-$10,000 5. Nelson Roach-$10,000. These 5 make up 66% of his individual donors.
HD 5 Representative Cole Hefner
Cole had 59 PAC's give him $151,000 with Empower Texans being the largest donor at $41,400. Empower Texans was started by Tim Dunn, CEO of oil driller CrownQuest in Midland, Texas. They tend to concentrate their support and donations to legislators that lean to the conservative side of the scale. The top 5 PAC's on Cole's list were 1. Empower Texans-$41,400 2. Texas Home School Coalition-$22,250 3. Texans for Lawsuit Reform-$10,000 4. Texas Right to Life-$10,000 5. Young Conservatives of Texas-$8,833. These 5 donors make up 61% of his PAC money.
The largest individual donor for Cole, at $17,000, was the late Lonnie "Bo' Pilgrim of Pilgrim's Pride chicken in Pittsburg, Texas. The next 4 were Bill Priefert-$12,000, Mayes Middleton-$7500, Stacy Hock-$7,500, and Monty Bennett-$7,000. Cole's individual donors totaled 75 persons and $140,000. Put another way, his PAC/Individual donor $$$$ ratio is approximately 1:1
HD 6 Representative Matt Schaefer
Matt received the least amount of money of any SD 1 legislator both in PAC money and from individual donors. The surprising statistic though, is that he had fewer PAC donors than he did from individuals. Money from PAC sources totaled only $19,000 from 15 sources. The largest from Texas Right to Life at $5,000. His individual donations came in at $58,000 from 40 people. Matt received 3x the amount of donations from 3x the number of individuals over PAC's. His largest donor came from Thomas Grahm, a physician out of Tyler, at $7,500. In order, they were Thomas Grahm-$7,500, Texas Right to Life-$5,000, Dick Saulsbury-$5,000, Paul Ditwiller-$5,000 and Dan Wilks-$3,750.
HD 7 Representative Jay Dean
First year legislator Jay Dean had no problems picking up donations from both PAC's and individuals, mostly business owners in the Gregg County area. His time spent as mayor of Longview, surely helped him in his fundraising efforts. Both his PAC donations and private donations came in at $151,000 respectively, totaling just north of $300,000 in all. His largest donation came from Texans for Lawsuit Reform, $30,500. Also on the list in his top 5 of PAC money is the Texas Medical Association, $5,750. Since TLR and TMA work very closely together in supporting moderate Republicans, this is not surprising. The other three top PAC's were TREPAC-$15,000, Associated Republicans of Texas-$10,000, and Blackridge, an Austin lobbyist firm at $8,500.
Jay's biggest individual donor was John Martin, owner of R&K Distributors in Longview. He gave Jay a total of $18,500 over this time period. R&K is the local distributor of Anheuser-Busch products. Some interesting connections here are that Wholesale Beers Distributors PAC is also on Jay's donor list of which Mr. Martin also contributed to the tune of $10,000. It doesn't stop there, Associated Republicans of Texas was Jay's 3rd largest PAC contributor and records show that John Nau, owner of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in Texas gave ART its biggest donation of $217,000. One might conclude that Jay has the Beer industry's support. The other top individual donors were Ruben Martin of Kilgore-$18,000, LaFama Foods-$10,000, Ron Hutchinson-$10,000, and Charles Butt-$8,500.
HD 9 Representative Chris Paddie
The biggest winner in PAC donations from Texas House reps in SD 1 goes to Chris Paddie. Totaling $210,000 from 122 PAC's and Austin lobby's, Chris outpaced VanDeaver by 11%, Hefner by 35% and Dean by 39%. While Dean and Hefner had almost a 1:1 ratio of the different donors, Chris had almost a 4:1 ratio. His individual donations totaled only $75,000 from 33 people. Of that $75,000, one person, Terry Bailey, of Center, Tx gave $25,000. The next 9 largest donors gave a combined $27,500 and the bottom 23 made up the rest. Within the top 10, only half were from inside his district. With so much support and money coming from outside his district, 91% of all donations, its a wonder he has any time for interest within his district.
The largest PAC money came from TREPAC-$20,000, ($77,000 since 2011). The other top PAC donors were Texans for Lawsuit Reform-$10,500, Atmos Energy-$4,000, KOCHPAC-$4,000, and Texas Auto Dealers-$4,000. KOCHPAC also gave Joe Straus $10,000 during the cycle. They are in the Oil & Gas industry.
HD 11 Representative Travis Clardy
Travis received $177,000 in total from all PAC's and individuals. PAC's gave him $116,500 with the largest 5 coming from TREPAC-$20,000, Friends of the University-$5,000, Allen-Boone lobby firm-$3,500, Focused Advocacy-$3,500, and TLR-$3,500. His largest individual donors came from Lufkin brothers, Max and Ronald Haney-$10,000 each. They are nursing home directors. This might explain his vote for HB 2766, dubbed the "Granny Tax", which charges the most vulnerable, our elderly, a tax when using a nursing care facility. The tax collected would then be funneled back to the nursing home provider. His total PAC donors equaled 67, individuals-22, a 3:1 ratio.
SD 1 Senator Bryan Hughes
Total political contributions from all sources equaled $1.45 Million since Jan 2016. This will require a separate blog. As of this writing, I'm only half way through analyzing his reports.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Who's Who? Part 1 of 2
As 2018 approaches, so does the 2018 primary season. I'm sure you've already received more than you want campaign mailers from those running for political office. Many of the mailers come from candidates themselves but you'll also receive mailers from organizations and Political Action Committees, touting one candidate over another. It's important to know who these PAC's are and the typical candidate they support. One of the best resources to gain this information is Transparency Texas.org. An unbiased look at all the different PAC's and donors that take and give to political campaigns in Texas, Transparency Texas is almost a one stop information center. Transparency Texas has listed the top 10 PAC's in terms of donations received thus far for the 2018 election cycle. You can find them here. The top donors thus far are listed here.
Transparency Texas has also listed what they deem as the four political tribes in Texas and where each PAC falls on the scale. This is important, because as a voter, you want to know if the PAC aligns with your own belief system. You may also want to know, in case you're considering to donate to one of these PAC's. For instance, Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) and Texas Real Estate Association (TREPAC) are the two biggest PAC's in Texas. According to Transparency Texas, they tend to give money to candidates that lean moderate to liberal republican and the occasional democrat. On the other end, is Empower Texans. They give money to candidates who lean more conservative. Here in East Texas, two local PAC's are known to support the more conservative candidate, Grassroots-We The People in Tyler and VOCAL in Longview. (Full disclosure, ETLW is a product of VOCAL and author is the treasurer).
Another source is the Texas Ethics Commission. Anyone can look up a candidate, PAC or incumbent's donations and expenses. (Don't worry, I've already done this for you, coming in Part 2 of this report). I started with the PAC that sent the most recent mailer, Associated Republicans of Texas. They were endorsing Chris Paddie. Their mission statement includes, "ART is committed to winning Texas House and Senate seats by allocating resources to the right candidates, in the right districts, at the right time". See their website here. However, looking at the list of candidates they support, it looks as though, only candidates that fall in the liberal to moderate faction receive any funds. Run by some of the wealthiest individuals in the state they are one of the most influential Texas PAC's. You can read more on ART here. Jay Dean of Longview was also a recipient of this organization.
As mentioned, TREPAC is another big hitter. Their legislative priorities usually tend to align with the Conservative Republican wing of the House, yet their giving heavily favors Liberal Republicans, as evidenced by funding Chris Paddie, Joe Straus, Drew Darby, Byron Cook, Jason Villaba and Charlie Geren. The reason? Texas Association of Realtors likes having a seat at the table. They likely believe they must have one in order to get things done.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform is the largest Political Action Committee in the state. Since 2015 they have received $11 million dollars in donations. Richard Weekley, of Houston is a co-founder of Weekley Homes and co-founder, Chairman and CEO of (TLR), a statewide tort reform organization. He has given $923k since 2015 to this PAC and also gives individual donations to candidates, (we'll see who in just a bit). Robert McNair, Houston Texans owner, also tops the $900k donation mark to them. Their biggest expense has been to the political consultants Murphy, Nasica and Associates, which works exclusively with establishment politicians favored by the House leadership cartel. Paddie, Dean, and Cook have employed this firm that has been known to "get dirty" during campaign season. Ironically, the second biggest expense from TLR since 2015 is to State Senator Bryan Hughes of Mineola.
Clicking on the links above should give you plenty to read and research before I post Part 2 of this blog where I'll be detailing where each SD 1 reps donations came from since the beginning of the last election cycle. It's shaping up to be quite interesting!
Transparency Texas has also listed what they deem as the four political tribes in Texas and where each PAC falls on the scale. This is important, because as a voter, you want to know if the PAC aligns with your own belief system. You may also want to know, in case you're considering to donate to one of these PAC's. For instance, Texans for Lawsuit Reform (TLR) and Texas Real Estate Association (TREPAC) are the two biggest PAC's in Texas. According to Transparency Texas, they tend to give money to candidates that lean moderate to liberal republican and the occasional democrat. On the other end, is Empower Texans. They give money to candidates who lean more conservative. Here in East Texas, two local PAC's are known to support the more conservative candidate, Grassroots-We The People in Tyler and VOCAL in Longview. (Full disclosure, ETLW is a product of VOCAL and author is the treasurer).
Another source is the Texas Ethics Commission. Anyone can look up a candidate, PAC or incumbent's donations and expenses. (Don't worry, I've already done this for you, coming in Part 2 of this report). I started with the PAC that sent the most recent mailer, Associated Republicans of Texas. They were endorsing Chris Paddie. Their mission statement includes, "ART is committed to winning Texas House and Senate seats by allocating resources to the right candidates, in the right districts, at the right time". See their website here. However, looking at the list of candidates they support, it looks as though, only candidates that fall in the liberal to moderate faction receive any funds. Run by some of the wealthiest individuals in the state they are one of the most influential Texas PAC's. You can read more on ART here. Jay Dean of Longview was also a recipient of this organization.
As mentioned, TREPAC is another big hitter. Their legislative priorities usually tend to align with the Conservative Republican wing of the House, yet their giving heavily favors Liberal Republicans, as evidenced by funding Chris Paddie, Joe Straus, Drew Darby, Byron Cook, Jason Villaba and Charlie Geren. The reason? Texas Association of Realtors likes having a seat at the table. They likely believe they must have one in order to get things done.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform is the largest Political Action Committee in the state. Since 2015 they have received $11 million dollars in donations. Richard Weekley, of Houston is a co-founder of Weekley Homes and co-founder, Chairman and CEO of (TLR), a statewide tort reform organization. He has given $923k since 2015 to this PAC and also gives individual donations to candidates, (we'll see who in just a bit). Robert McNair, Houston Texans owner, also tops the $900k donation mark to them. Their biggest expense has been to the political consultants Murphy, Nasica and Associates, which works exclusively with establishment politicians favored by the House leadership cartel. Paddie, Dean, and Cook have employed this firm that has been known to "get dirty" during campaign season. Ironically, the second biggest expense from TLR since 2015 is to State Senator Bryan Hughes of Mineola.
Clicking on the links above should give you plenty to read and research before I post Part 2 of this blog where I'll be detailing where each SD 1 reps donations came from since the beginning of the last election cycle. It's shaping up to be quite interesting!
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Sweet Little Lies
I was reminded of that Fleetwood Mac song "Little Lies" when I saw the latest mailer from Chris Paddie, House District Nine Representative out of Marshall, Texas. The big headline he wants voters to believe is that he 'Hates Taxes' and that his opponent, Garrett Boersma, also from Marshall, is a Democrat running as a Republican. Anyone that knows Garrett, even Mr. Paddie, knows that Garrett has been a life long Republican and has been consistent in his conservative beliefs, both as a businessman and a city commissioner. When Paddie ran and won his race to become State representative in 2011, it was Boersma who took his place on the Marshall City Council. The two have known each other for years and both have attended the same Republican events in Marshall during that time. One of the most conservative legislators in Texas, Matt Schaefer from Tyler, volunteered and blocked walk for Garrett during his city commission campaign. I guaranty this, if Matt Schaefer thought Garrett Boersma was a democrat, he wouldn't have had anything to do with him. This is but the tip of the iceberg.
The main point from Mr. Paddie's mailer is to give the voter the impression that Garrett was for a massive tax increase on the good people of Marshall. He references the city commission meeting minutes of September 18, 2015 to prove his point. It's a classic diversion technique when a politician doesn't want you to look at his own record. Voters deserve the truth. I think its worth looking into.
The meeting minutes referenced do indicate the Marshall City commission voted to raise property taxes for the maintenance and operations of the city. The rate was passed by a vote of 5-0. However, if you look at the item agenda just above this vote, you'll find a vote being taken to approve the city budget. This vote was 3-2. One of the two votes against the budget was commissioner Boersma. Why would Boersma vote against the budget proposal and then vote for the tax increase?
To understand this answer, further research needed to be done. I started by looking at the meeting minutes prior to when Boersma was in office. On September 22, 2011 the city commission voted 5-0 to increase taxes "for specific purposes" the city deemed necessary. Mr. Paddie was on the city commission during this time. The commission also approved diverting money from the budget to pay for the debt they had been incurring by kicking problems down the road. This commission also approved on October 6, 2011 to raise the Water Rates for Marshall citizens. Still nothing mentioned in regards to keeping up the maintenance and operations of the city, things like good roads and infrastructure. Paddie once again voting to kick the can down the road. On December 8, 2011, the Marshall city commission again raised property tax rates by approving a resolution that said "All Goods in transit" are subject to property taxes. This meant any personal property that was acquired in or imported into the state and then forwarded on to another location is subject to property tax. The commission had a choice as to whether or not to impose this tax according to state statutes. That same month, Paddie and the commission voted to take from the Marshall budgets general and water reserve funds and transfer it to the water and sewer operating budget. This would be like taking from your savings account to pay for a budget you're not able to live under. (He has voted to do the same thing as a state representative, taking from the Texas Rainy Day Fund) To accuse Mr. Boersma of raising taxes and implying he himself never did, is disingenuous at best, dishonest in his records at worst.
Fast forwarding to 2015, and the vote in question, according to the Marshall News Messenger, Boersma had proposed his own budget plan at an earlier workshop that focused all of the General Fund excess revenue, along with the property tax revenue, to both reduce the inter fund transfer rate and provide $443,088 for water and sewer, leaving $250,000 for capital outlay. "My concerns are…we're right on the cusp of beginning a strategic plan, and tonight is a great illustration…we got a salary survey literally today," Boersma said Thursday, referring to a Police and Fire Salary Survey comparing Marshall salary information to surrounding cities. "If we're going to make permanent adjustments to our compensation structure…we ought to consider giving a modest raise that will allow us to fully fund the capital expenditures we've been talking about."
Mr. Boersma also wrote about the budget and tax increase here. In the article, he sights that for many years, prior to this vote, the city commissioners in Marshall, including Paddie, had been kicking the problem down the road, never actually trying to solve it. "We have not funded our water and sewer replacement for many years". He emphasized that although the city had received more revenue due to higher property tax evaluations, the city failed in the previous twenty year period to adequately fund for the repair and replacement of city operations or create adequate reserves. For his part, Boersma tried to convince his fellow commissioners to apply this tax increase to projects that the city government is supposed to do, not superfluous items or pet projects. In voting against the budget, Boersma voted against the way in which the property tax increase would be used. He knew money was needed to fix the problems the past commissioners created, and once the budget was passed, he could only hope to work with his fellow commissioners to spend the money in a responsible way.
Back to the mailer. As I said above, creating a false diversion of your opponents record so that no one looks at yours is a classic move by politicians, Paddie is no exception. You can look up his liberal record from my last post. He has a conservative rating of under 63% from all the major conservative organizations, not exactly a conservative stalwart. Since we're talking taxes and his claim that he 'hates' them, lets just look at a few votes from this past legislative session. HB 486, allowing school districts to raise your taxes without a vote. See Texans For Fiscal Responsibility's explanation here. Paddie, wanted school districts to be able to raise your taxes without the required vote necessary by citizens to do so. He also opposed, letting voters have a say when the city or county wants to raise your taxes by the amount over the required limit. In the same bill, SB 1, he opposed lowering the property tax rollback rate from its current 8% level down to 4% or even the compromise of 6%.
Chris says this on his website: "Chris is committed to meaningful property tax relief that arms the taxpayer to successfully challenge their appraisal boards, holds local taxing entities accountable for their rates, and gives families direct approval over local government attempts to reach deeper into our pocket. More than anything, Chris wants to keep more money in your pocket and protect your property". The evidence above proves otherwise.
Chris voted for HB 2766, the "Granny Tax", which charges the most vulnerable, our elderly, a tax when using a nursing care facility. The tax collected would then be funneled back to the nursing home provider. Every democrat in the house voted for this bill. He also voted to change the Texas Constitution by allowing city, county and school board governments to charge higher taxes and rates for services offered by prohibiting mandates the State has set forth and the corresponding funds needed. See HJR 73
There are many other examples of how Chris Paddie does not 'hate' taxes as he claims on his mailer. In fact, it seems to be the opposite. From his time on the Marshall City Council to his time in the Texas House, he has more of a propensity to kick problems down the road for future generations, including teachers. He loves robbing the pockets of future Texans incomes, and we can see that in his votes, where he time and again grows the amount of debt your children owe. I wonder if Chris has Stevie Nicks and Fleetwood Mac in his playlist. I imagine him whistling "Little Lies" while he's driving back and forth between Austin and his district, figuring out what he'll say to his constituents next? Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies...
The main point from Mr. Paddie's mailer is to give the voter the impression that Garrett was for a massive tax increase on the good people of Marshall. He references the city commission meeting minutes of September 18, 2015 to prove his point. It's a classic diversion technique when a politician doesn't want you to look at his own record. Voters deserve the truth. I think its worth looking into.
The meeting minutes referenced do indicate the Marshall City commission voted to raise property taxes for the maintenance and operations of the city. The rate was passed by a vote of 5-0. However, if you look at the item agenda just above this vote, you'll find a vote being taken to approve the city budget. This vote was 3-2. One of the two votes against the budget was commissioner Boersma. Why would Boersma vote against the budget proposal and then vote for the tax increase?
To understand this answer, further research needed to be done. I started by looking at the meeting minutes prior to when Boersma was in office. On September 22, 2011 the city commission voted 5-0 to increase taxes "for specific purposes" the city deemed necessary. Mr. Paddie was on the city commission during this time. The commission also approved diverting money from the budget to pay for the debt they had been incurring by kicking problems down the road. This commission also approved on October 6, 2011 to raise the Water Rates for Marshall citizens. Still nothing mentioned in regards to keeping up the maintenance and operations of the city, things like good roads and infrastructure. Paddie once again voting to kick the can down the road. On December 8, 2011, the Marshall city commission again raised property tax rates by approving a resolution that said "All Goods in transit" are subject to property taxes. This meant any personal property that was acquired in or imported into the state and then forwarded on to another location is subject to property tax. The commission had a choice as to whether or not to impose this tax according to state statutes. That same month, Paddie and the commission voted to take from the Marshall budgets general and water reserve funds and transfer it to the water and sewer operating budget. This would be like taking from your savings account to pay for a budget you're not able to live under. (He has voted to do the same thing as a state representative, taking from the Texas Rainy Day Fund) To accuse Mr. Boersma of raising taxes and implying he himself never did, is disingenuous at best, dishonest in his records at worst.
Fast forwarding to 2015, and the vote in question, according to the Marshall News Messenger, Boersma had proposed his own budget plan at an earlier workshop that focused all of the General Fund excess revenue, along with the property tax revenue, to both reduce the inter fund transfer rate and provide $443,088 for water and sewer, leaving $250,000 for capital outlay. "My concerns are…we're right on the cusp of beginning a strategic plan, and tonight is a great illustration…we got a salary survey literally today," Boersma said Thursday, referring to a Police and Fire Salary Survey comparing Marshall salary information to surrounding cities. "If we're going to make permanent adjustments to our compensation structure…we ought to consider giving a modest raise that will allow us to fully fund the capital expenditures we've been talking about."
Mr. Boersma also wrote about the budget and tax increase here. In the article, he sights that for many years, prior to this vote, the city commissioners in Marshall, including Paddie, had been kicking the problem down the road, never actually trying to solve it. "We have not funded our water and sewer replacement for many years". He emphasized that although the city had received more revenue due to higher property tax evaluations, the city failed in the previous twenty year period to adequately fund for the repair and replacement of city operations or create adequate reserves. For his part, Boersma tried to convince his fellow commissioners to apply this tax increase to projects that the city government is supposed to do, not superfluous items or pet projects. In voting against the budget, Boersma voted against the way in which the property tax increase would be used. He knew money was needed to fix the problems the past commissioners created, and once the budget was passed, he could only hope to work with his fellow commissioners to spend the money in a responsible way.
Back to the mailer. As I said above, creating a false diversion of your opponents record so that no one looks at yours is a classic move by politicians, Paddie is no exception. You can look up his liberal record from my last post. He has a conservative rating of under 63% from all the major conservative organizations, not exactly a conservative stalwart. Since we're talking taxes and his claim that he 'hates' them, lets just look at a few votes from this past legislative session. HB 486, allowing school districts to raise your taxes without a vote. See Texans For Fiscal Responsibility's explanation here. Paddie, wanted school districts to be able to raise your taxes without the required vote necessary by citizens to do so. He also opposed, letting voters have a say when the city or county wants to raise your taxes by the amount over the required limit. In the same bill, SB 1, he opposed lowering the property tax rollback rate from its current 8% level down to 4% or even the compromise of 6%.
Chris says this on his website: "Chris is committed to meaningful property tax relief that arms the taxpayer to successfully challenge their appraisal boards, holds local taxing entities accountable for their rates, and gives families direct approval over local government attempts to reach deeper into our pocket. More than anything, Chris wants to keep more money in your pocket and protect your property". The evidence above proves otherwise.
Chris voted for HB 2766, the "Granny Tax", which charges the most vulnerable, our elderly, a tax when using a nursing care facility. The tax collected would then be funneled back to the nursing home provider. Every democrat in the house voted for this bill. He also voted to change the Texas Constitution by allowing city, county and school board governments to charge higher taxes and rates for services offered by prohibiting mandates the State has set forth and the corresponding funds needed. See HJR 73
There are many other examples of how Chris Paddie does not 'hate' taxes as he claims on his mailer. In fact, it seems to be the opposite. From his time on the Marshall City Council to his time in the Texas House, he has more of a propensity to kick problems down the road for future generations, including teachers. He loves robbing the pockets of future Texans incomes, and we can see that in his votes, where he time and again grows the amount of debt your children owe. I wonder if Chris has Stevie Nicks and Fleetwood Mac in his playlist. I imagine him whistling "Little Lies" while he's driving back and forth between Austin and his district, figuring out what he'll say to his constituents next? Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies...
Friday, November 24, 2017
SD1 Legislator Scorecards
Below is how your legislator scored according to the various political organizations that keep a close eye on Austin. I've compiled the list from the 85th, 84th and 83rd legislative sessions. Each organization has their own specific criteria they watch for with the exception of the Mark Jones/Rice University Study, in which they compare each recorded vote with that of their peers. This scorecard tells you how far left or how far right the representative leans. I've also linked to the scorecards if you would like to dig a little deeper.
TV = Texas Values Action
TFR = Texans for Fiscal Responsibility
TURF = Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom
YCT = Young Conservatives of Texas
RICE = Mark Jones/Rice University Left vs Right
TRL = Texas Right to Life
TEF = Texas Eagle Forum*
Notes about the scorecards:
*85th session scores were not available at publication, 84th session scores were used to complete averages
**Representative first elected to 85th session
#Representative first elected to 84th session
^Representative scores in 83rd & 84th are as a Texas Rep. and 85th scores are as a Texas Senator
Numbers from the Rice University study are derived by taking the Lib-Con score and adding 100. For example, in the 85th session, Cole Hefner received a 20. Adding 100 gave him 120. Chris Paddie received a -38. Adding 100 gave him a 62.
The average score, we believe, should be considered as to how Conservative the Representative is. The higher the average, the more Conservative.
| 85th Session | |||||||||
| TV | TFR | TURF | YCT | RICE | TRL | TEF | Avg | ||
| HD 1 | VanDeaver# | 69 | 40 | 76 | 50 | 58 | 90 | 54 | 62.43 |
| HD 5 | Hefner** | 100 | 90 | 100 | 93 | 120 | 100 | 100.50 | |
| HD 6 | Schaefer | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 154 | 100 | 95 | 107.00 |
| HD 7 | Dean** | 82 | 57 | 100 | 60 | 83 | 100 | 80.33 | |
| HD 8 | Cook | 59 | 39 | 67 | 49 | 71 | 65 | 47 | 56.71 |
| HD 9 | Paddie | 70 | 42 | 67 | 41 | 62 | 100 | 55 | 62.43 |
| HD 11 | Clardy | 70 | 40 | 57 | 45 | 50 | 90 | 52 | 57.71 |
| SD 1 | Hughes^ | 100 | 89 | 100 | 80 | 118 | 100 | 88 | 96.43 |
| 84th Session | ||||||||
| TFR | TURF | YCT | Rice | TRL | TEF | Avg | ||
| HD 1 | VanDeaver | 64 | 50 | 51 | 86 | 100 | 54 | 70.2 |
| HD 5 | Hefner | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HD 6 | Schaefer | 100 | 70 | 94 | 148 | 100 | 95 | 102.4 |
| HD 7 | Dean | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HD 8 | Cook | 61 | 56 | 48 | 85 | 63 | 47 | 62.6 |
| HD 9 | Paddie | 60 | 50 | 52 | 85 | 100 | 55 | 69.4 |
| HD 11 | Clardy | 60 | 67 | 46 | 80 | 97 | 52 | 70 |
| SD 1 | Hughes | 91 | 90 | 86 | 116 | 100 | 88 | 95.17 |
| 83rd Session | ||||||||
| TFR | TURF | YCT | Rice | TRL | TEF | Avg | ||
| HD 1 | VanDeaver | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HD 5 | Hefner | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HD 6 | Schaefer | 100 | 85 | 95 | 168 | 100 | 100 | 108 |
| HD 7 | Dean | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| HD 8 | Cook | 42 | 55 | 44 | 93 | 96 | 69 | 66.5 |
| HD 9 | Paddie | 55 | 65 | 62 | 109 | 100 | 80 | 78.5 |
| HD 11 | Clardy | 49 | 55 | 59 | 107 | 55 | 70 | 65.83 |
| SD 1 | Hughes | 92 | 85 | 78 | 123 | 100 | 90 | 94.67 |
TV = Texas Values Action
TFR = Texans for Fiscal Responsibility
TURF = Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom
YCT = Young Conservatives of Texas
RICE = Mark Jones/Rice University Left vs Right
TRL = Texas Right to Life
TEF = Texas Eagle Forum*
Notes about the scorecards:
*85th session scores were not available at publication, 84th session scores were used to complete averages
**Representative first elected to 85th session
#Representative first elected to 84th session
^Representative scores in 83rd & 84th are as a Texas Rep. and 85th scores are as a Texas Senator
Numbers from the Rice University study are derived by taking the Lib-Con score and adding 100. For example, in the 85th session, Cole Hefner received a 20. Adding 100 gave him 120. Chris Paddie received a -38. Adding 100 gave him a 62.
The average score, we believe, should be considered as to how Conservative the Representative is. The higher the average, the more Conservative.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Constitutional Amendments, How we see it!
Early voting began October 23rd and runs until November 3rd, with election day on November 7th for Texans to have their say on seven proposed Texas Constitutional amendments that were passed by the 85th Texas Legislature. Below are the propositions with ballot language, pros & cons, synopsis, links to the enabling bills and our recommendations. We encourage everyone to do their own research and vote on these proposals.
We fully understand that most of the proposals, if not all, will pass with a high percentage, as in previous Constitution elections. We believe that's simply because of low voter turnout and voters not being completely informed on the issues or not caring enough about the issues. We encourage you to engage your friends and neighbors and encourage them to exercise their Constitutional rights.
Proposition 1 - Enabling Legislation HJR 21 Recommended Vote *Yes
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization for less than the market value of the residence homestead and harmonizing certain related provisions of the Texas Constitution.”
This amendment, would change an amendment approved by Texas voters in 2011 and would authorize property tax exemptions for certain partially disabled veterans or their surviving spouses whose homes were donated to them by charity for less than market value. Proposition 1 would also include surviving spouses as long as they do not remarry.
In 2007 a constitutional amendment passed exempting all or part of property taxes for veterans having 100% disability.
In 2009 a LAW passed exempting 100% of property taxes for veterans with 100% disability that was "service related".
In 2011 a constitutional amendment passed exempting surviving spouses from property taxes of a 100% disabled veteran, but only for those in which the veteran died on or before Jan 1 2010.
In 2013, a constitutional amendment passed allowing the exemption amount to follow the surviving spouse to a new homestead as long as the spouse didn't remarry. (Conceivably, a young person, as long as they never remarry could have a lifetime of avoiding property taxes)
In 2015, the "date-of-death" restriction from 2011 was removed, paving the way for all surviving spouses to enjoy the property tax exemption. In addition, any surviving spouses that move to Texas also receive the exemption. (For those taxing districts with higher population of disabled veterans, the State subsidizes these cities with taxes from other districts)
*VOCAL believes the ultimate goal is to see the property tax abolished. We have much respect for those that sacrifice in our Armed Services and believe there is allowance for supporting homestead exemptions, payments based on the market price of the property, however, shrinking the tax base coupled with tax abatement's to businesses by municipalities creates more burden on fewer and fewer tax payers. Because Prop 1 is extending benefits to a select few and clarifying language from previous passed amendments and laws already in place We reluctantly recommend a YES vote.
Proposition 2 - Enabling Legislation SJR 60 Recommended Vote *NO
“The constitutional amendment to establish a lower amount for expenses that can be charged to a borrower and removing certain financing expense limitations for a home equity loan, establishing certain authorized lenders to make a home equity loan, changing certain options for the refinancing of home equity loans, changing the threshold for an advance of a home equity line of credit, and allowing home equity loans on agricultural homesteads.”
This amendment lowers certain limits and raises others on home equity loans.
*VOCAL believes Prop 2 could potentially erase constitutional protections for homeowners which were carefully negotiated when home equity loans were first authorized. It would disguise the potential for lender fee increases because the amendment excludes from the calculation of the fee cap certain items that generally represent the highest up‐front costs ‐ that of third‐party appraisals, surveys, title insurance, and title examination reports. Lenders would have greater incentive to increase their own origination fees despite the two percent limit and Prop 2 increases the prospective profits from loan origination fees, and would encourage improvident lending. Lenders could later sell badly performing loans on the secondary market – such was the behavior that contributed to the 2007‐2009 recession. VOCAL is also concerned with the enabling language "establishing certain authorized lenders". Will this mean, only financial institutions approved by the Texas government have this opportunity to service homeowners? VOCAL recommends a NO vote.
Proposition 3 - Enabling Legislation SJR 34 Recommended Vote *Yes
“The constitutional amendment limiting the service of certain officeholders appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate after the expiration of the person’s term of office.”
Members of most boards and commissions appointed by the Governor serve 6-year terms, but the Constitution currently requires appointees to serve until their successors are in office.This amendment would eliminate “holdover” appointments by removing officeholders from their positions at the conclusion of their term rather than allowing them to stay on until their position has been filled through appointment.
Proposition 4 - Enabling Legislation SJR 6 Recommended Vote *NO
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to require a court to provide notice to the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute and authorizing the legislature to prescribe a waiting period before the court may enter a judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.”
This amendment would require courts to notify the Texas Attorney General if a case could impact the constitutionality of a state law.
*VOCAL believes this amendment could blur the lines between the 3 separate branches of Texas government and cause unwarranted delay in due process. Many are not aware that the Texas AG is part of the Executive branch, not judicial. Prop 4 would increase the cost of due process to those initiating the court action. This amendment was passed as a law originally and then declared UNCONSTITIONAL. We believe Laws should be constitutional and uphold our God-given rights. Any challenge to the constitutionality of a law should be taken seriously and in an expeditious manner. VOCAL recommends a NO vote.
“The constitutional amendment on professional sports team charitable foundations conducting charitable raffles.”
This amendment would expand the definition of “professional sports team,” giving more organizations the ability to conduct “charitable raffles. Current definition of "sports teams" created in 2015 with the 84th legislative session include, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and MLS. Prop 5 is seeking to expand the definition to include, American Hockey League, East Coast Hockey League, American Assoc. of Independent Baseball, Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, Minor League Baseball, the NBA development league, National Women's Soccer League, NASCAR, United Soccer League, Major Arena Soccer League, Women's NBA, and any organization hosting a PGA event. It also removes the "CASH ONLY" purchase of raffle tickets and would allow "DEBIT CARD" purchases.
We fully understand that most of the proposals, if not all, will pass with a high percentage, as in previous Constitution elections. We believe that's simply because of low voter turnout and voters not being completely informed on the issues or not caring enough about the issues. We encourage you to engage your friends and neighbors and encourage them to exercise their Constitutional rights.
Proposition 1 - Enabling Legislation HJR 21 Recommended Vote *Yes
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of part of the market value of the residence homestead of a partially disabled veteran or the surviving spouse of a partially disabled veteran if the residence homestead was donated to the disabled veteran by a charitable organization for less than the market value of the residence homestead and harmonizing certain related provisions of the Texas Constitution.”
This amendment, would change an amendment approved by Texas voters in 2011 and would authorize property tax exemptions for certain partially disabled veterans or their surviving spouses whose homes were donated to them by charity for less than market value. Proposition 1 would also include surviving spouses as long as they do not remarry.
- Supporters say disabled veterans deserve breaks
- Opponents urge focus on reducing property taxes for everyone rather than exempting specific categories of people, regardless of how deserving, and creating higher taxes for others.
In 2007 a constitutional amendment passed exempting all or part of property taxes for veterans having 100% disability.
In 2009 a LAW passed exempting 100% of property taxes for veterans with 100% disability that was "service related".
In 2011 a constitutional amendment passed exempting surviving spouses from property taxes of a 100% disabled veteran, but only for those in which the veteran died on or before Jan 1 2010.
In 2013, a constitutional amendment passed allowing the exemption amount to follow the surviving spouse to a new homestead as long as the spouse didn't remarry. (Conceivably, a young person, as long as they never remarry could have a lifetime of avoiding property taxes)
In 2015, the "date-of-death" restriction from 2011 was removed, paving the way for all surviving spouses to enjoy the property tax exemption. In addition, any surviving spouses that move to Texas also receive the exemption. (For those taxing districts with higher population of disabled veterans, the State subsidizes these cities with taxes from other districts)
*VOCAL believes the ultimate goal is to see the property tax abolished. We have much respect for those that sacrifice in our Armed Services and believe there is allowance for supporting homestead exemptions, payments based on the market price of the property, however, shrinking the tax base coupled with tax abatement's to businesses by municipalities creates more burden on fewer and fewer tax payers. Because Prop 1 is extending benefits to a select few and clarifying language from previous passed amendments and laws already in place We reluctantly recommend a YES vote.
Proposition 2 - Enabling Legislation SJR 60 Recommended Vote *NO
“The constitutional amendment to establish a lower amount for expenses that can be charged to a borrower and removing certain financing expense limitations for a home equity loan, establishing certain authorized lenders to make a home equity loan, changing certain options for the refinancing of home equity loans, changing the threshold for an advance of a home equity line of credit, and allowing home equity loans on agricultural homesteads.”
This amendment lowers certain limits and raises others on home equity loans.
- Supporters say it will make it easier and more affordable to get an equity loan and places caps on certain fees.
- Opponents say Prop 2 could raise costs for borrowers and decrease borrower protections.
*VOCAL believes Prop 2 could potentially erase constitutional protections for homeowners which were carefully negotiated when home equity loans were first authorized. It would disguise the potential for lender fee increases because the amendment excludes from the calculation of the fee cap certain items that generally represent the highest up‐front costs ‐ that of third‐party appraisals, surveys, title insurance, and title examination reports. Lenders would have greater incentive to increase their own origination fees despite the two percent limit and Prop 2 increases the prospective profits from loan origination fees, and would encourage improvident lending. Lenders could later sell badly performing loans on the secondary market – such was the behavior that contributed to the 2007‐2009 recession. VOCAL is also concerned with the enabling language "establishing certain authorized lenders". Will this mean, only financial institutions approved by the Texas government have this opportunity to service homeowners? VOCAL recommends a NO vote.
Proposition 3 - Enabling Legislation SJR 34 Recommended Vote *Yes
“The constitutional amendment limiting the service of certain officeholders appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate after the expiration of the person’s term of office.”
Members of most boards and commissions appointed by the Governor serve 6-year terms, but the Constitution currently requires appointees to serve until their successors are in office.This amendment would eliminate “holdover” appointments by removing officeholders from their positions at the conclusion of their term rather than allowing them to stay on until their position has been filled through appointment.
- Supporters say it will keep Governor appointees from staying in office long after their terms expire.
- Opponents say it could leave too many vacancies.
Proposition 4 - Enabling Legislation SJR 6 Recommended Vote *NO
“The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to require a court to provide notice to the attorney general of a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute and authorizing the legislature to prescribe a waiting period before the court may enter a judgment holding the statute unconstitutional.”
This amendment would require courts to notify the Texas Attorney General if a case could impact the constitutionality of a state law.
- Supporters say this ensures that the state has an opportunity to defend against constitutional challenges to Texas law.
- Opponents say Prop. 4 will create longer wait times in constitutional court cases, prolong justice for Texans, and interfere with the state’s separation of powers.
*VOCAL believes this amendment could blur the lines between the 3 separate branches of Texas government and cause unwarranted delay in due process. Many are not aware that the Texas AG is part of the Executive branch, not judicial. Prop 4 would increase the cost of due process to those initiating the court action. This amendment was passed as a law originally and then declared UNCONSTITIONAL. We believe Laws should be constitutional and uphold our God-given rights. Any challenge to the constitutionality of a law should be taken seriously and in an expeditious manner. VOCAL recommends a NO vote.
Note: Representatives Matt Rinaldi, Bricoe Cain, Jonathan Stickland, Tony Tinderholt and Senator Bob Hall voted against this legislation in the regular session.
Proposition 5 - Enabling Legislation HJR 100 Recommended Vote *NO
“The constitutional amendment on professional sports team charitable foundations conducting charitable raffles.”
This amendment would expand the definition of “professional sports team,” giving more organizations the ability to conduct “charitable raffles. Current definition of "sports teams" created in 2015 with the 84th legislative session include, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL and MLS. Prop 5 is seeking to expand the definition to include, American Hockey League, East Coast Hockey League, American Assoc. of Independent Baseball, Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, Minor League Baseball, the NBA development league, National Women's Soccer League, NASCAR, United Soccer League, Major Arena Soccer League, Women's NBA, and any organization hosting a PGA event. It also removes the "CASH ONLY" purchase of raffle tickets and would allow "DEBIT CARD" purchases.
- Supporters say Prop. 5 would increase cash flow to nonprofit charities, especially in rural areas.
- Opponents fear this would expand a form of gambling and encourage other sports and non-sports groups to seek eligibility to hold raffles as well
*The original amendment was only recently passed in 2015 and didn't take effect until 2016. There hasn’t been sufficient history since the 2015 amendment, to make an educated decision on these raffles and more time is needed. Government is not forcing anyone to participate, however there is a government cost to administer and police the “authorized” activity. VOCAL believes government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding who participates in charity in the first place. VOCAL recommends a NO vote
Note: Representatives Biedermann, Cain, Isaac, Lang, Leach, Rinaldi, Schaefer, Shaheen, Stickland, Swanson, Tinderholt, Zedler and Senators Birdwell, Burton, Hall, Hancock, Huffines, Taylor of Collin all voted against this legislation in the regular session.
Proposition 6 - Enabling Legislation SJR 1 Recommended Vote *NO
"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a first responder who is killed or fatally injured in the line of duty.”
This amendment would allow the Texas Legislature to provide a property tax exemption of the total appraised value of a homestead for surviving spouses of first responders killed or fatally injured in the line of duty, as long as the surviving spouse does not remarry. The exemption is allowed should the surviving spouse move and is retro-active to include all surviving spouses of deceased first responders. [The list of "first responders" includes: peace officers, paid probation officers, parole officers, paid jailer, organized police reserve or auxiliary unit, employees of the correctional institutions division, jailer or guard of a county jail, juvenile correction employee, employee of the Dept of Aging and Disability Services or Dept of State Health Services, individual certified by the Texas Commission on Fire Protection, an individual whose primaries duties are aircraft crash and rescue fire fighting, a member of a organized volunteer fire fighting unit, performs emergency medical services or operates an ambulance, a Chaplain for volunteer fire unit, law enforcement agency, or Texas Dept of Criminal Justice, a trainee for any of the positions listed above, an employee of DPS and deployed into field to assist law enforcement operations and employees of Texas Parks & Wildlife that assist/supports law enforcement.]
- Supporters say Prop. 6 would ensure families of fallen first responders, who have already suffered devastating loss, are not forced out of their homes by property taxes.
- Opponents urge focus on reducing property taxes for everyone rather than exempting specific categories of people, regardless of how deserving, and creating higher taxes for others.
Proposition 7 - Enabling Legislation HJR 37 Recommended Vote *Neutral
“The constitutional amendment relating to legislative authority to permit credit unions and other financial institutions to award prizes by lot to promote savings.”
This amendment would allow banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions to conduct promotional activities such as “savings promotion raffles, encouraging persons who would otherwise not be inclined to save money. This amendment does expand the boundaries of who may offer raffles, where the Texas Constitution currently limits them to charity events and/or organizations.
- Supporters say: This amendment would give banks and credit unions the ability to host savings promotion raffles, also known as prize-linked savings accounts (PLSAs), which offer incentives to save rather than spend or gamble away earnings.
- Critics say: This amendment amounts to a carve-out for one industry to do a raffle and would be the only non-charitable raffle allowed in the state.
*VOCAL believes there are questions as to what business the state has in deciding such transactions that carry little to no risk for the consumer. Reportedly there is no cost to the consumer, just a business expense to the financial institution however; there will be additional government costs to administer and police this activity. While gambling is not condoned, freedom to conduct business without government interference is supported. VOCAL is Neutral on this amendment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)