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)
Tuesday, February 6, 2018
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
Friday, June 9, 2017
Priorities, Priorities
The 85th Texas Legislative Session ended on May 30, 2017 with plenty of fanfare and hoopla. During the final week emotions ran high as lawmakers threatened each other, and many important bills died a slow death. Read LONESTAR VOICE recap here. This week, Governor Abbott called for a special session to begin July 18th, resurrecting many of the bills and topics he deems vital for our legislators to take up and pass.
In May of 2016, the Republican Party of Texas, delegates, at their biannual convention passed a platform that included 5 key legislative priorities. The State Republican Executive Committee subsequently added 3 more items and sent the list to Governor Abbott, Lt. Governor Patrick and Speaker Joe Straus. These were the items deemed the most important to Republicans for this session. An updated letter from RPT chairman James Dickey and the SREC, calling for a special session can be read here.
As we noted at the beginning of the session, republicans hold the majority of seats in both the House and Senate, so it would be reasonable to expect these priorities to not only have passed but have passed early on and with overwhelming support. Lets take a look at each individually and how each representative within Senate District One did in relationship to the specific priorities.
Priority #1: Pass constitutional carry while maintaining licensing as optional for reciprocity purposes.
There were no bills filed in the Senate for this measure. The House however had 5 bills related to the priority but only 2 that met the priority language. HB 375 by Jonathan Stickland (92) never made it out of the Homeland Security Committee. Only Representatives Matt Schaefer (6) and Cole Hefner (5) signed on to this bill. HB 1911 was authored by Rep. James White (19) and later substituted by Rep. Schaefer on April 18th. The CSHB was reported to calendars on the 24th where it died. Rep. Jay Dean (7) signed as coauthor on May 2, Rep Hefner, Feb 22, Rep. Chris Paddie (9) on May 8, Rep Schaefer on March 13, and Rep. Gary VanDeaver (1) signed on March 28. Representatives Travis Clardy (11) and Byron Cook (8) did not sign on as coauthors. Rep. Schaefer sat on the Homeland Committee and Rep's Paddie and Cook were on the Calendars Committee. HB 300 which did nothing for Constitutional Carry but wanted to decrease the fees for licensing was placed on the general calendar, however its companion, SB 16 was passed and signed by the Governor on May 26. All SD 1 representatives signed on to this legislation except for Rep's Schaefer and VanDeaver.
Priority #2: Abolish Abortion
Only one bill was filed to completely abolish abortion in Texas in its entirety, HB 948 by Rep. Tony Tinderholt (94). It was referred to State Affairs and was never given a public hearing. Only Rep Hefner from SD 1 signed on as coauthor, he did so on Feb 6. Rep. Cook chairs the State Affairs Committee and Rep Paddie is a member. There were plenty of bills that addressed the practice of abortion and those will be addressed in a later issue.
Priority #3: Border Security
Only 6 total bills addressed this issue and none made it out of their respective committees. Rep Schaefer filed HB 2042 which dealt with interstate compact on border security and immigration enforcement. It was never heard in State Affairs committee. The State budget bill SB 1 dealt with funding and will be discussed in a separate article.
Priority #4: Call for a limited Article V convention of states
SJR 2 was passed by both chambers and filed with the Secretary of State's office on May 11. All SD 1 reps voted for it. All SD 1 reps except Sen. Hughes and Rep Cook signed as cosponsor of the resolution.
Priority #5: Replace the property tax system with an alternative other than the income tax and require voter approval to increase the overall tax burden.
Representative Valoree Swanson (150), introduced the only bill, HB 1050, which would abolish the property tax and replace it with a more equitable system of funding State obligations. It never made it out of the Ways and Means Committee. No one from SD 1 signed on to this bill. SB 2 by Senator Paul Bettencourt (7) deals with how property taxes are calculated and applied. House version here. This bill ended the session in Calendars and is one of the items to be discussed in the special session. A write up on SB 2 can be found here on our Facebook page. Senator Hughes signed on as coauthor March 20.
Priority #6: School Choice
SB 3, educational savings accounts by Senator Larry Taylor (11) passed the Senate on March 30 but stalled in the House Public Education Committee where Rep VanDeaver sits. HB 1335 by Rep Ron Simmons (65), established ESA's for special needs kids. It was left pending in Public Education Committee as well. This bill has also been placed as a special session item. No one from SD 1 has signed on to this bill.
Priority #7: Sanctuary Cities
SB 4 was passed and signed by the Governor on May 7. A more in depth analysis of this bill will come at a later date. All SD 1 representatives voted in favor of final version.
Priority #8: Religious Liberty
Several bills were filed this session regarding this issue, however the more notable ones were SB 6 by Senator Lois Kolkhorst (18) and HB 421 by Rep. Matt Rinaldi (115). SB 6 was the so called 'bathroom bill' and was passed in the Senate on March 15. The House State Affairs committee never took the bill up, however the Senate through SB 2078 included the measure under school safety concerns. Rep Paddie offered an amendment requiring school districts to have a separate bathroom facility for any child that doesn't feel comfortable using a common bathroom or locker room. Texas Tribune article here. Many grassroots organizations opposed this amendment. Letter here. This item was also listed a special session item. HB 421 is the 'church security act'. It made it to Calendars where it also died. Rep's Dean, Schaefer, Clardy and Hefner all signed on as co-authors. Rep. Cook, Paddie and VanDeaver did not. If I didn't already say it, Cook and Paddie are on the Calendars Committee.
In May of 2016, the Republican Party of Texas, delegates, at their biannual convention passed a platform that included 5 key legislative priorities. The State Republican Executive Committee subsequently added 3 more items and sent the list to Governor Abbott, Lt. Governor Patrick and Speaker Joe Straus. These were the items deemed the most important to Republicans for this session. An updated letter from RPT chairman James Dickey and the SREC, calling for a special session can be read here.
As we noted at the beginning of the session, republicans hold the majority of seats in both the House and Senate, so it would be reasonable to expect these priorities to not only have passed but have passed early on and with overwhelming support. Lets take a look at each individually and how each representative within Senate District One did in relationship to the specific priorities.
Priority #1: Pass constitutional carry while maintaining licensing as optional for reciprocity purposes.
There were no bills filed in the Senate for this measure. The House however had 5 bills related to the priority but only 2 that met the priority language. HB 375 by Jonathan Stickland (92) never made it out of the Homeland Security Committee. Only Representatives Matt Schaefer (6) and Cole Hefner (5) signed on to this bill. HB 1911 was authored by Rep. James White (19) and later substituted by Rep. Schaefer on April 18th. The CSHB was reported to calendars on the 24th where it died. Rep. Jay Dean (7) signed as coauthor on May 2, Rep Hefner, Feb 22, Rep. Chris Paddie (9) on May 8, Rep Schaefer on March 13, and Rep. Gary VanDeaver (1) signed on March 28. Representatives Travis Clardy (11) and Byron Cook (8) did not sign on as coauthors. Rep. Schaefer sat on the Homeland Committee and Rep's Paddie and Cook were on the Calendars Committee. HB 300 which did nothing for Constitutional Carry but wanted to decrease the fees for licensing was placed on the general calendar, however its companion, SB 16 was passed and signed by the Governor on May 26. All SD 1 representatives signed on to this legislation except for Rep's Schaefer and VanDeaver.
Priority #2: Abolish Abortion
Only one bill was filed to completely abolish abortion in Texas in its entirety, HB 948 by Rep. Tony Tinderholt (94). It was referred to State Affairs and was never given a public hearing. Only Rep Hefner from SD 1 signed on as coauthor, he did so on Feb 6. Rep. Cook chairs the State Affairs Committee and Rep Paddie is a member. There were plenty of bills that addressed the practice of abortion and those will be addressed in a later issue.
Priority #3: Border Security
Only 6 total bills addressed this issue and none made it out of their respective committees. Rep Schaefer filed HB 2042 which dealt with interstate compact on border security and immigration enforcement. It was never heard in State Affairs committee. The State budget bill SB 1 dealt with funding and will be discussed in a separate article.
Priority #4: Call for a limited Article V convention of states
SJR 2 was passed by both chambers and filed with the Secretary of State's office on May 11. All SD 1 reps voted for it. All SD 1 reps except Sen. Hughes and Rep Cook signed as cosponsor of the resolution.
Priority #5: Replace the property tax system with an alternative other than the income tax and require voter approval to increase the overall tax burden.
Representative Valoree Swanson (150), introduced the only bill, HB 1050, which would abolish the property tax and replace it with a more equitable system of funding State obligations. It never made it out of the Ways and Means Committee. No one from SD 1 signed on to this bill. SB 2 by Senator Paul Bettencourt (7) deals with how property taxes are calculated and applied. House version here. This bill ended the session in Calendars and is one of the items to be discussed in the special session. A write up on SB 2 can be found here on our Facebook page. Senator Hughes signed on as coauthor March 20.
Priority #6: School Choice
SB 3, educational savings accounts by Senator Larry Taylor (11) passed the Senate on March 30 but stalled in the House Public Education Committee where Rep VanDeaver sits. HB 1335 by Rep Ron Simmons (65), established ESA's for special needs kids. It was left pending in Public Education Committee as well. This bill has also been placed as a special session item. No one from SD 1 has signed on to this bill.
Priority #7: Sanctuary Cities
SB 4 was passed and signed by the Governor on May 7. A more in depth analysis of this bill will come at a later date. All SD 1 representatives voted in favor of final version.
Priority #8: Religious Liberty
Several bills were filed this session regarding this issue, however the more notable ones were SB 6 by Senator Lois Kolkhorst (18) and HB 421 by Rep. Matt Rinaldi (115). SB 6 was the so called 'bathroom bill' and was passed in the Senate on March 15. The House State Affairs committee never took the bill up, however the Senate through SB 2078 included the measure under school safety concerns. Rep Paddie offered an amendment requiring school districts to have a separate bathroom facility for any child that doesn't feel comfortable using a common bathroom or locker room. Texas Tribune article here. Many grassroots organizations opposed this amendment. Letter here. This item was also listed a special session item. HB 421 is the 'church security act'. It made it to Calendars where it also died. Rep's Dean, Schaefer, Clardy and Hefner all signed on as co-authors. Rep. Cook, Paddie and VanDeaver did not. If I didn't already say it, Cook and Paddie are on the Calendars Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)