A special thanks to the Americans For Prosperity-Texas organization for giving me yet another platform to educate readers on the efforts of Dallas-Fort Worth taxpayer advocates.
My name is Joey Dauben, and I am the publisher of The Ellis County Observer; also a student at Southwestern Assemblies of God University in Waxahachie, but last week, I joined the team at the independent-weekly newspaper The Ellis County Press -- my former employer ('01-'04).
I'll be writing, investigating, blogging and reporting on the events and other political news each and every week. We're an independent paper, so we don't have to worry about offending advertisers with our coverage - and regardless of political party, status in the community, etc. - we're going to report it! We welcome - ahem - guest editorials (hint, hint, Peggy Venable), but for the most part, DFW will have yet another taxpayer force in the form of this hard-hitting newspaper.
Thanks again for reading, and I look forward to contributing to an already-stellar cast of taxpayer advocates.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The REAL University of Texas revealed in tuition debate
The University of Texas at Austin recently made headlines statewide when the board of regents proposed raising tuition an average of 15% over the next two years, after it has already risen more than 60% since tuition deregultion in 2003. After students literally marched on campus, demanding answers and fairness from university administrators, and after some pressure from the Legislature, the board of regents agreed to a 4.95% tuition increase cap for the next two years.
But not all of UT-Austin's administration agreed with this move. President William Powers, Jr. agreed with an advisory committee that recommended an increase of 7.8 percent next fall and 6.9 percent the following year. According to this article in the Austin American Statesman, regent James Huffines offered the resolution for the lower cap, but also mentioned that UT-Austin's tuition and fees are generally lower than those of comparable universities, including Pennsylvania State University and the University of Michigan.
Student leader Andrew Solomon supports the higher tuition plan, citing UT's financial aid programs for lower income families as a protection.
The logic being displayed by President Powers and Solomon is so eeriely similar to what we hear in the debates over health care funding, environmental regulation and others that we no longer wonder where this line of thinking begins. As tuition prices skyrocket at Texas' flagship universities, and the smaller universities fall into the "competitive" mindset and follow suit, more and more Texas students are being priced out of higher education. The average student at the University of Texas, should he have to fund his own education, often does so out of loans and racks up more than $20,000 in debt before he's 23 years old. And you were worried about credit cards!
As we price students out of this increasingly necessary part of their education, some are arguing that more financial aid is the answer. Students who come from the poorest families are given grants and special scholarships that alleviate the burden of tuition increases. Meanwhile, middle-income families who "make too much money" to qualify for that kind of aid face debt, and are paying ever-higher taxes to accommodate the grants and other financial aid offered to other students. This is a vicious cycle that has one solution - accountability and, until the universities exercise restraint, legislative regulation.
Universities in Texas are state agencies that receive state funds. Deregulation was anything but; the universities continue to receieve money from the state (right after deregulation, they received less, but the funding has increased again since then), and have total discretion over tuition increases.
The UT board of regents did the right thing by capping tuition increases for the next two years, but the Legislature still needs to address this issue in 2009 to prevent further burdening students and parents.
But not all of UT-Austin's administration agreed with this move. President William Powers, Jr. agreed with an advisory committee that recommended an increase of 7.8 percent next fall and 6.9 percent the following year. According to this article in the Austin American Statesman, regent James Huffines offered the resolution for the lower cap, but also mentioned that UT-Austin's tuition and fees are generally lower than those of comparable universities, including Pennsylvania State University and the University of Michigan.
Student leader Andrew Solomon supports the higher tuition plan, citing UT's financial aid programs for lower income families as a protection.
The logic being displayed by President Powers and Solomon is so eeriely similar to what we hear in the debates over health care funding, environmental regulation and others that we no longer wonder where this line of thinking begins. As tuition prices skyrocket at Texas' flagship universities, and the smaller universities fall into the "competitive" mindset and follow suit, more and more Texas students are being priced out of higher education. The average student at the University of Texas, should he have to fund his own education, often does so out of loans and racks up more than $20,000 in debt before he's 23 years old. And you were worried about credit cards!
As we price students out of this increasingly necessary part of their education, some are arguing that more financial aid is the answer. Students who come from the poorest families are given grants and special scholarships that alleviate the burden of tuition increases. Meanwhile, middle-income families who "make too much money" to qualify for that kind of aid face debt, and are paying ever-higher taxes to accommodate the grants and other financial aid offered to other students. This is a vicious cycle that has one solution - accountability and, until the universities exercise restraint, legislative regulation.
Universities in Texas are state agencies that receive state funds. Deregulation was anything but; the universities continue to receieve money from the state (right after deregulation, they received less, but the funding has increased again since then), and have total discretion over tuition increases.
The UT board of regents did the right thing by capping tuition increases for the next two years, but the Legislature still needs to address this issue in 2009 to prevent further burdening students and parents.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Attack on religious beliefs is what former TEA staffer circulated
Attack piece on religious beliefs, disguised as “science”
Is what the former TEA staffer responsible for science curriculum was circulating
What's all the ruckus at the Texas Education Agency? Let’s just say that the TEA former staffer was promoting the author of a “hit piece” cloaked as science which does does little more than attack people of faith and was written under the organization known as "Center for Inquiry": a group of atheists and “non believers”.
Background:
In a recent Austin American Statesman article, it was revealed that the Texas Education Agency’s science policy staffer had become an advocate for a position, not an advisor.
It all has to do with the teaching of evolution in science curriculum and with the elected State Board of Education, chaired by Don McLeroy.
Chris Comer, TEA’s former head of science curriculum, said her opinions “cost her a job” though she resigned, and was not fired. (Even the AAS article linked below points out that the staffer appeared to have circumvented agency policies on other matters, but she appears to blame her departure on this incident alone.)
It appears Comer forwarded an e-mail from a pro-evolution group announcing a speech by Barbara Forrest, a key witness in a court case in Pennsylvania that ruled against teaching intelligent design (ID) in schools. It was sent to several individuals and two e-mail discussion groups used by science educators.
This TEA staffer is a bureaucrat -- education policy is not made by bureaucrats but by elected officials.
Here's the rub. Some TEA staffers and educrats don't want elected officials in charge...particularly if they are conservatives...particularly if they express their religious convictions!
McLeroy said that although he is a creationist, he doesn't necessarily think creationism should be taught in schools. Rather, he said, he supports current curriculum standards that say students should "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses."
McLeroy said he would support changes that further spell out what evolution's strengths and weaknesses are.
Sounds reasonable.
But it appears the other side isn’t so reasonable: According to the AAS, Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, said he plans to fight to get the "strengths and weaknesses" language removed from the state's curriculum standards.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/12/06/1206science.html
What was the material in question?
And what is in the paper Understanding the “Intelligent Design Creationist Movement, Its True Nature and Goals”? It is unclear if the paper wasforwarded by the then-TEA science curriculum advisor or a speaking engagement by its author is what was forwarded.
But the author of the paper clearly has an agenda.
The paper isn’t an intellectual, policy paper but is a political “hit piece” on anyone who supports intelligent design (ID) or who wants evolution to be taught as a theory. It is really an attack piece on the Discover Institute (which promotes ID). The paper name names, and among those individuals they attack are President Bush and former Sen. Rick Santorum,
And they bring in the Swift Boat Veterans, Microsoft, Time Warner, the John Birch Society, the Council for National Policy, and others.
The paper refers to we mere voters and taxpayers as “the scientifically uninformed American public.”
The paper expresses concern over any exploration of evolution, and opposes teaching evolution as a theory.
We are talking about Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement, Its True Nature and Goals” which recommends schools reject attempts to put intelligent design into the curriculum:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
It was published by the Center for Inquiry, Washington, D.C.
What is this group Center for Inquiry?
They are a self-proclaimed “Global Federation Committed to Science, Reason, Free Inquiry, Secularism, and Planetary Ethics”.
Center for Inquiry’s website states:
In the contemporary marketplace of ideas, one can find responsible, objective, and evidence-based information on everything from foreign policy to hormone replacement therapy. Yet when it comes to some of our most fundamental questions -- about human values, the transcendent, or the borderlands of science -- one often only hears from partisans of traditional religion, New Age practitioners, or anti-science movements.
With its network of scientists and other thinkers, its grassroots advocacy and public education organizations, and its popular and scholarly publications, the Center for Inquiry fills this gap, lending a credible voice to critical inquiry and the scientific outlook.
http://www.cfidc.org/membership.html
Their leading spokesman is CFI executive director Paul Kurtz. He is also on the board of The Council for Secular Humanism which proclaims to be “North America's leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god.”
Note: Secular Humanists are usually atheist or agnostic.
Paul Kurtz, he leader of CFI is also a founding members of CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) include scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, Martin Gardner, Sidney Hook, and others.
Paul Kurtz is an athiest but doesn't like labels.
Paul Kurtz Responds to Sam Harris
Category: New AtheismPosted on: October 9, 2007 4:16 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
The identity politics wrapped up in author Sam Harris' statements at a recent atheist conference here in Washington, DC has sparked a ton of discussion and debate. Paul Kurtz, chair of the Center for Inquiry and Editor of Free Inquiry, has circulated an important response via various email lists. Nathan Bupp, media relations director at CFI, asked that I post it here at Framing Science.
Kurtz appears to agree with the proposal to drop the label "atheist" but argues strongly that other terms such as "secular humanist" are important and appropriate. These terms signal a philosophical tradition that goes beyond just negative attacks on religion and that promotes alternative values and institutions.
What Label for People Like Us?
A Message From Paul Kurtz
I note with interest that Margaret Downey organized a blockbuster atheist conference in the Washington, D.C. area to which she brought many of the "new atheists." We congratulate her on her energy. However, may I agree with Sam Harris who states that in accepting the label of "atheist" that "we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture... a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms."
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/10/paul_kurtz_responds_to_sam_har.php
All this controversy is really over the elected State Board of Education in Texas and their oversight of the state curriculum, something which many educrats don’t like.
(Heaven forbid mere elected representatives direct our children’s education, not education bureaucrats!)
To clarify the SBOE’s intent, Chairman Don McLeroy wrote this in a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News:
Re: Clarifying my motivation for questioning evolution
From: Don McLeroy, Chair of Texas State Board of Education
December 15, 2007
Dear Editor,
What do you teach in science class? You teach science. What do you teach in Sunday school class? You teach your faith. Thus, in your story “Teaching of evolution to go under microscope” (December 13, 2007), it is important to remember that some of my quoted comments were made in a 2005 Sunday school class and that the rest of my responses to the reporter were made in reference to those comments. The story does accurately represent that I am a Christian and that my faith in God is something that I take very seriously. My Christian convictions are shared by many people.
Given these religious convictions, I would like to clarify any mistaken impression one may make from the article about my motivation for questioning evolution. My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence. In science class, there is no place for dogma and "sacred cows"; no subject should be “untouchable” as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student.
What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception. Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations in science, it is then that you get your science stopper. In science class it is important to remember that the consensus of a conviction does not determine whether it is true or false. In science class, you teach science.
Sincerely,
Don McLeroy
Chair, State Board of Education
So what's the stink about? Some atheists are fighting our schoolchildren hearing that evolution is a theory. hum.....
Is what the former TEA staffer responsible for science curriculum was circulating
What's all the ruckus at the Texas Education Agency? Let’s just say that the TEA former staffer was promoting the author of a “hit piece” cloaked as science which does does little more than attack people of faith and was written under the organization known as "Center for Inquiry": a group of atheists and “non believers”.
Background:
In a recent Austin American Statesman article, it was revealed that the Texas Education Agency’s science policy staffer had become an advocate for a position, not an advisor.
It all has to do with the teaching of evolution in science curriculum and with the elected State Board of Education, chaired by Don McLeroy.
Chris Comer, TEA’s former head of science curriculum, said her opinions “cost her a job” though she resigned, and was not fired. (Even the AAS article linked below points out that the staffer appeared to have circumvented agency policies on other matters, but she appears to blame her departure on this incident alone.)
It appears Comer forwarded an e-mail from a pro-evolution group announcing a speech by Barbara Forrest, a key witness in a court case in Pennsylvania that ruled against teaching intelligent design (ID) in schools. It was sent to several individuals and two e-mail discussion groups used by science educators.
This TEA staffer is a bureaucrat -- education policy is not made by bureaucrats but by elected officials.
Here's the rub. Some TEA staffers and educrats don't want elected officials in charge...particularly if they are conservatives...particularly if they express their religious convictions!
McLeroy said that although he is a creationist, he doesn't necessarily think creationism should be taught in schools. Rather, he said, he supports current curriculum standards that say students should "analyze, review and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses."
McLeroy said he would support changes that further spell out what evolution's strengths and weaknesses are.
Sounds reasonable.
But it appears the other side isn’t so reasonable: According to the AAS, Steven Schafersman, president of Texas Citizens for Science, said he plans to fight to get the "strengths and weaknesses" language removed from the state's curriculum standards.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/12/06/1206science.html
What was the material in question?
And what is in the paper Understanding the “Intelligent Design Creationist Movement, Its True Nature and Goals”? It is unclear if the paper wasforwarded by the then-TEA science curriculum advisor or a speaking engagement by its author is what was forwarded.
But the author of the paper clearly has an agenda.
The paper isn’t an intellectual, policy paper but is a political “hit piece” on anyone who supports intelligent design (ID) or who wants evolution to be taught as a theory. It is really an attack piece on the Discover Institute (which promotes ID). The paper name names, and among those individuals they attack are President Bush and former Sen. Rick Santorum,
And they bring in the Swift Boat Veterans, Microsoft, Time Warner, the John Birch Society, the Council for National Policy, and others.
The paper refers to we mere voters and taxpayers as “the scientifically uninformed American public.”
The paper expresses concern over any exploration of evolution, and opposes teaching evolution as a theory.
We are talking about Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement, Its True Nature and Goals” which recommends schools reject attempts to put intelligent design into the curriculum:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
It was published by the Center for Inquiry, Washington, D.C.
What is this group Center for Inquiry?
They are a self-proclaimed “Global Federation Committed to Science, Reason, Free Inquiry, Secularism, and Planetary Ethics”.
Center for Inquiry’s website states:
In the contemporary marketplace of ideas, one can find responsible, objective, and evidence-based information on everything from foreign policy to hormone replacement therapy. Yet when it comes to some of our most fundamental questions -- about human values, the transcendent, or the borderlands of science -- one often only hears from partisans of traditional religion, New Age practitioners, or anti-science movements.
With its network of scientists and other thinkers, its grassroots advocacy and public education organizations, and its popular and scholarly publications, the Center for Inquiry fills this gap, lending a credible voice to critical inquiry and the scientific outlook.
http://www.cfidc.org/membership.html
Their leading spokesman is CFI executive director Paul Kurtz. He is also on the board of The Council for Secular Humanism which proclaims to be “North America's leading organization for non-religious people. A not-for-profit educational association, the Council supports a wide range of activities to meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god.”
Note: Secular Humanists are usually atheist or agnostic.
Paul Kurtz, he leader of CFI is also a founding members of CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry) include scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, Martin Gardner, Sidney Hook, and others.
Paul Kurtz is an athiest but doesn't like labels.
Paul Kurtz Responds to Sam Harris
Category: New AtheismPosted on: October 9, 2007 4:16 PM, by Matthew C. Nisbet
The identity politics wrapped up in author Sam Harris' statements at a recent atheist conference here in Washington, DC has sparked a ton of discussion and debate. Paul Kurtz, chair of the Center for Inquiry and Editor of Free Inquiry, has circulated an important response via various email lists. Nathan Bupp, media relations director at CFI, asked that I post it here at Framing Science.
Kurtz appears to agree with the proposal to drop the label "atheist" but argues strongly that other terms such as "secular humanist" are important and appropriate. These terms signal a philosophical tradition that goes beyond just negative attacks on religion and that promotes alternative values and institutions.
What Label for People Like Us?
A Message From Paul Kurtz
I note with interest that Margaret Downey organized a blockbuster atheist conference in the Washington, D.C. area to which she brought many of the "new atheists." We congratulate her on her energy. However, may I agree with Sam Harris who states that in accepting the label of "atheist" that "we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture... a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms."
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/10/paul_kurtz_responds_to_sam_har.php
All this controversy is really over the elected State Board of Education in Texas and their oversight of the state curriculum, something which many educrats don’t like.
(Heaven forbid mere elected representatives direct our children’s education, not education bureaucrats!)
To clarify the SBOE’s intent, Chairman Don McLeroy wrote this in a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News:
Re: Clarifying my motivation for questioning evolution
From: Don McLeroy, Chair of Texas State Board of Education
December 15, 2007
Dear Editor,
What do you teach in science class? You teach science. What do you teach in Sunday school class? You teach your faith. Thus, in your story “Teaching of evolution to go under microscope” (December 13, 2007), it is important to remember that some of my quoted comments were made in a 2005 Sunday school class and that the rest of my responses to the reporter were made in reference to those comments. The story does accurately represent that I am a Christian and that my faith in God is something that I take very seriously. My Christian convictions are shared by many people.
Given these religious convictions, I would like to clarify any mistaken impression one may make from the article about my motivation for questioning evolution. My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence. In science class, there is no place for dogma and "sacred cows"; no subject should be “untouchable” as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student.
What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception. Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations in science, it is then that you get your science stopper. In science class it is important to remember that the consensus of a conviction does not determine whether it is true or false. In science class, you teach science.
Sincerely,
Don McLeroy
Chair, State Board of Education
So what's the stink about? Some atheists are fighting our schoolchildren hearing that evolution is a theory. hum.....
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Environmentalist Agenda is Counter-Productive
One of the biggest issues we will hear about in the 2008 election cycle is the “Global Climate Change Crisis!” Extremist liberals have labeled the threat of global warming as their “crisis of the year.” The buzz over this crisis is so great that even government bureaucracies are asking their own scientists to propose projects to study the impact of global climate change. Once again, liberals have found another avenue to create additional bureaucracy and regulation to control the lives of American citizens.
The liberal elite have in innate distrust of American businesses to act responsibly and to adjust to markets. With respect to the “global climate change crisis,” the liberals are working towards regulating businesses, individuals, and industries that liberals perceive as a threat to the environment. In reality, they are looking to regulate businesses, individuals, and industries that do not follow the liberal agenda of the socialist utopian society. The global climate change crisis is spurred on by foreign countries in an effort to level the playing international playing field by taking the US economy down a notch.
Americans have a keen interest in preserving our environment for future generations and for be good stewards of our natural resources. Liberals have caused a stir among mainstream Americans by using their age old tactic of driving a wedge between the average American and businesses. But if you look at the policies that the liberals entertain to solve this “crisis,” the solution will be worse than the current situation.
Increasing government regulations on emissions only costs taxpayers more money. It also takes money out of the hands of the corporations that hire the best and brightest engineers and entrepreneurs to create new technology to allow the market and individuals making decisions to pursue a clean environment. Higher taxes and more regulation only hurt the American consumer by driving the cost of products up and by putting the services into the hands of largely incompetent bureaucrats.
By having an incentive-laden market, in which people are financially rewarded for their ingenuity and service, we can achieve the solutions that we need to spur technology forward to use fewer natural resources and to be better stewards of the resources available. Government bureaucrats have never come up with these environmental solutions, yet through the policies proposed by the liberal elite, only the government will be around to determine the regulations. By lifting environmental regulations, lowering taxes, and reducing the size of bureaucracies, we can allow our markets and our brightest individuals to determine our solutions instead of disgruntled bureaucrats.
The liberal elite have in innate distrust of American businesses to act responsibly and to adjust to markets. With respect to the “global climate change crisis,” the liberals are working towards regulating businesses, individuals, and industries that liberals perceive as a threat to the environment. In reality, they are looking to regulate businesses, individuals, and industries that do not follow the liberal agenda of the socialist utopian society. The global climate change crisis is spurred on by foreign countries in an effort to level the playing international playing field by taking the US economy down a notch.
Americans have a keen interest in preserving our environment for future generations and for be good stewards of our natural resources. Liberals have caused a stir among mainstream Americans by using their age old tactic of driving a wedge between the average American and businesses. But if you look at the policies that the liberals entertain to solve this “crisis,” the solution will be worse than the current situation.
Increasing government regulations on emissions only costs taxpayers more money. It also takes money out of the hands of the corporations that hire the best and brightest engineers and entrepreneurs to create new technology to allow the market and individuals making decisions to pursue a clean environment. Higher taxes and more regulation only hurt the American consumer by driving the cost of products up and by putting the services into the hands of largely incompetent bureaucrats.
By having an incentive-laden market, in which people are financially rewarded for their ingenuity and service, we can achieve the solutions that we need to spur technology forward to use fewer natural resources and to be better stewards of the resources available. Government bureaucrats have never come up with these environmental solutions, yet through the policies proposed by the liberal elite, only the government will be around to determine the regulations. By lifting environmental regulations, lowering taxes, and reducing the size of bureaucracies, we can allow our markets and our brightest individuals to determine our solutions instead of disgruntled bureaucrats.
Monday, October 29, 2007
What happened to the property tax cut?
You were promised a school 1/3 property tax cut. Where did that tax cut go and why open your pocketbooks even wider in the November election?
November's statewide ballot initiatives total almost $10 billion in state spending. School districts are asking for almost $7 billion more in taxes, and local governments are seeking $9 billion in bonds. Texans will be asked to consider shouldering considerable additional public debt with numerous measures on November 6. Currently, the state's outstanding general-obligation bond debt is $7.5 billion. If passed, the state initiatives could more than double that.
Local governments -- including the 106 school districts seeking tax hikes, 52 school districts, 12 cities, seven counties and three colleges asking for bond approvals -- will hit taxpayers’ pocketbooks even harder.
Where did your tax cut go? We anticipated that property tax savings would evaporate as local governments either increased rates or continued to bring in more property tax revenue as appraisals increased. That is why we championed taxpayer protections which included both revenue cap triggers (which would have provided for voter approval of revenue increases above the growth in population and inflation) and lowering appraisal caps.
Having provided the property tax cut “swap” while not putting taxpayer protections in place, the Legislature’s action was irresponsible. It will result in a tax increase for most taxpayers in only a few years.Texans paid the second highest property taxes as a percentage of home values in the country. With our home values are on the rise, property tax creep is an important issue
Here in Travis County we are hit particularly hard:
30th in property taxes as % of home value
51st in the country in the property taxes you paid; and
53rd in relation to taxes as percentage of income. Williamson County fared as badly – with:
16th in taxes as a % of home value;
49th in property taxes paid
And 60th in the country in taxes as percentage of income.
These figures are not just in relation to the 254 counties in Texas but in all counties across the country. There are 3,143 Counties, Parishes or Independent Cities in the USA Local governments have increased their spending at an unsustainable rate – in 25 years, increasing an astonishing 158% when per-person income increased by 39%. Local government debt has also grown at an alarming rate – increasing 270% in 25 years, more than 5 times the rate of income growth.
Local governments have accumulated $132 BILLION in debt – more than $5,700 for every man, woman and child in Texas. Actually, the interest payments on local government debt in Texas total more than what local governments spend on police and fire protection combined.
Texans need taxpayer protections that put taxpayers in control over how much government we want and are willing to pay for -- and we should not call a school tax increase a "rollback" election. We should also end taxpayer-funded lobbying and stop government spending our money to advertise (you got it, to take mroe of our money).
November's statewide ballot initiatives total almost $10 billion in state spending. School districts are asking for almost $7 billion more in taxes, and local governments are seeking $9 billion in bonds. Texans will be asked to consider shouldering considerable additional public debt with numerous measures on November 6. Currently, the state's outstanding general-obligation bond debt is $7.5 billion. If passed, the state initiatives could more than double that.
Local governments -- including the 106 school districts seeking tax hikes, 52 school districts, 12 cities, seven counties and three colleges asking for bond approvals -- will hit taxpayers’ pocketbooks even harder.
Where did your tax cut go? We anticipated that property tax savings would evaporate as local governments either increased rates or continued to bring in more property tax revenue as appraisals increased. That is why we championed taxpayer protections which included both revenue cap triggers (which would have provided for voter approval of revenue increases above the growth in population and inflation) and lowering appraisal caps.
Having provided the property tax cut “swap” while not putting taxpayer protections in place, the Legislature’s action was irresponsible. It will result in a tax increase for most taxpayers in only a few years.Texans paid the second highest property taxes as a percentage of home values in the country. With our home values are on the rise, property tax creep is an important issue
Here in Travis County we are hit particularly hard:
30th in property taxes as % of home value
51st in the country in the property taxes you paid; and
53rd in relation to taxes as percentage of income. Williamson County fared as badly – with:
16th in taxes as a % of home value;
49th in property taxes paid
And 60th in the country in taxes as percentage of income.
These figures are not just in relation to the 254 counties in Texas but in all counties across the country. There are 3,143 Counties, Parishes or Independent Cities in the USA Local governments have increased their spending at an unsustainable rate – in 25 years, increasing an astonishing 158% when per-person income increased by 39%. Local government debt has also grown at an alarming rate – increasing 270% in 25 years, more than 5 times the rate of income growth.
Local governments have accumulated $132 BILLION in debt – more than $5,700 for every man, woman and child in Texas. Actually, the interest payments on local government debt in Texas total more than what local governments spend on police and fire protection combined.
Texans need taxpayer protections that put taxpayers in control over how much government we want and are willing to pay for -- and we should not call a school tax increase a "rollback" election. We should also end taxpayer-funded lobbying and stop government spending our money to advertise (you got it, to take mroe of our money).
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Proposition 2 Shows the Problems with Higher Education Finance
Proposition 2 Shows the Problems with Higher Education Finance
In 2003, the State Legislature passed the tuition deregulation plan which gave university systems the ability to raise their own tuition rates. Previously, the tuition rates for state universities were controlled by the State Legislature. We were assured by university presidents and regents that the power to raise tuition with limited legislative oversight would not be misused, but that there were legitimate budget for universities that would not be funded by the legislature.
Let’s fast forward to 2007.
Over the past four years under the “unlimited tuition plan,” universities have increased tuition as much as 35 percent per school in some cases. This increase in tuition has priced many students out of higher education and put many families in financial hardship, bankrupted the original Texas Tomorrow Fund, and reduced the amount of students receiving legitimate student aid. The Legislature and the university presidents both understand the financial hardships they have put on students and their families, but in true bureaucratic style, instead of working on the root of spending problem, they have instead allowed Proposition 2 to come before the voters.
Proposition 2 allows the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to sell bonds to give an additional $500 million in student aid for college students. What is wrong with this? One government bureaucracy (THECB) is increasing its own bureaucracy by taking out 30-year loans at taxpayer expense to give money to another bureaucracy (state university) which is spending money without control. These universities are allowed to raise their own tuition while at the same time are having their legislative appropriations increased. It is the best of both worlds for university bureaucracies. We now have the uncontrolled spending policies of one bureaucracy being offset by additional spending by another bureaucracy. And, the worst part, the students that are receiving this aid will be paying back the bonds, with interest, for the next 30 years.
The intent of Proposition 2 is to benefit college students, but in fact, all it benefits is the public university systems in Texas. Texas truly needs a competitive university funding system to drive the cost of higher education down while driving the quality of the education up. We currently have the exact opposite situation happening in Texas, costs are increasing while quality is decreasing, and now current taxpayers and future taxpayers will be required to pay for even more of it.
In 2003, the State Legislature passed the tuition deregulation plan which gave university systems the ability to raise their own tuition rates. Previously, the tuition rates for state universities were controlled by the State Legislature. We were assured by university presidents and regents that the power to raise tuition with limited legislative oversight would not be misused, but that there were legitimate budget for universities that would not be funded by the legislature.
Let’s fast forward to 2007.
Over the past four years under the “unlimited tuition plan,” universities have increased tuition as much as 35 percent per school in some cases. This increase in tuition has priced many students out of higher education and put many families in financial hardship, bankrupted the original Texas Tomorrow Fund, and reduced the amount of students receiving legitimate student aid. The Legislature and the university presidents both understand the financial hardships they have put on students and their families, but in true bureaucratic style, instead of working on the root of spending problem, they have instead allowed Proposition 2 to come before the voters.
Proposition 2 allows the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) to sell bonds to give an additional $500 million in student aid for college students. What is wrong with this? One government bureaucracy (THECB) is increasing its own bureaucracy by taking out 30-year loans at taxpayer expense to give money to another bureaucracy (state university) which is spending money without control. These universities are allowed to raise their own tuition while at the same time are having their legislative appropriations increased. It is the best of both worlds for university bureaucracies. We now have the uncontrolled spending policies of one bureaucracy being offset by additional spending by another bureaucracy. And, the worst part, the students that are receiving this aid will be paying back the bonds, with interest, for the next 30 years.
The intent of Proposition 2 is to benefit college students, but in fact, all it benefits is the public university systems in Texas. Texas truly needs a competitive university funding system to drive the cost of higher education down while driving the quality of the education up. We currently have the exact opposite situation happening in Texas, costs are increasing while quality is decreasing, and now current taxpayers and future taxpayers will be required to pay for even more of it.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Take Back the Debate on SCHIP
Take Back the Debate on SCHIP
By Randy A. Samuelson
In watching the recent debates on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), I quickly realized that liberals are dominating the debate on the issue. Republican Presidential candidates are agreeing in principle that it is a proper role of government to provide health care for children. I have to wonder why conservatives are not changing the debate to fit our principles and goals instead of changing our goals and principles to fit the debate.
At the core of the conservative argument and debate should be that we are looking out for the best interest of families and children in America and we have the same common desires as the liberals. Our goals are the same, but our method is what is different. The liberals, who are controlling the debate, wish to create and expand taxes to provide government mandated health care for children, and eventually, everybody. Conservatives wish to utilize businesses and the expansion of the economy to provide for the needed insurance. Only by expanding our national economy through incentives for business can we have the necessary prosperity to ensure that all children are insured. Only businesses produce high-paying jobs and wealth. Government seizes wealth through taxes which takes away business incentives to create wealth and therefore creates a demand for additional government services and solutions.
The health care provided by SCHIP will eventually drive up the cost of insurance for all of us because the children who are given the insurance are high risk applicants for non-payment, diseases due to their living situations, and other such issues. For insurance companies to continue to provide this coverage to the recipients of SCHIP will require the rest of us to pay higher costs for our own health insurance, higher costs for actual health care so our doctors can make money, and higher taxes so the government can reimburse the insurance companies. How does this benefit the children? In reality, our children are given a loan by the federal government to spend on health care, but the interest rate on that loan in indiscernibly large through higher taxes and higher insurance premiums later in life.
Once again, the intentions of the liberals are offset by their plan of action to achieve such results. This is a prime opportunity for conservatives to take over the debate on this issue and push for personal Health Savings Accounts and the expansion of the economy so that individuals can afford to pay for their own health insurance instead of looking to the government. Conservatives, take back the debate! Stop agreeing with the liberals on the need for SCHIP and instead push for the economic policies that ensure that all Americans can afford affordable insurance!
By Randy A. Samuelson
In watching the recent debates on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), I quickly realized that liberals are dominating the debate on the issue. Republican Presidential candidates are agreeing in principle that it is a proper role of government to provide health care for children. I have to wonder why conservatives are not changing the debate to fit our principles and goals instead of changing our goals and principles to fit the debate.
At the core of the conservative argument and debate should be that we are looking out for the best interest of families and children in America and we have the same common desires as the liberals. Our goals are the same, but our method is what is different. The liberals, who are controlling the debate, wish to create and expand taxes to provide government mandated health care for children, and eventually, everybody. Conservatives wish to utilize businesses and the expansion of the economy to provide for the needed insurance. Only by expanding our national economy through incentives for business can we have the necessary prosperity to ensure that all children are insured. Only businesses produce high-paying jobs and wealth. Government seizes wealth through taxes which takes away business incentives to create wealth and therefore creates a demand for additional government services and solutions.
The health care provided by SCHIP will eventually drive up the cost of insurance for all of us because the children who are given the insurance are high risk applicants for non-payment, diseases due to their living situations, and other such issues. For insurance companies to continue to provide this coverage to the recipients of SCHIP will require the rest of us to pay higher costs for our own health insurance, higher costs for actual health care so our doctors can make money, and higher taxes so the government can reimburse the insurance companies. How does this benefit the children? In reality, our children are given a loan by the federal government to spend on health care, but the interest rate on that loan in indiscernibly large through higher taxes and higher insurance premiums later in life.
Once again, the intentions of the liberals are offset by their plan of action to achieve such results. This is a prime opportunity for conservatives to take over the debate on this issue and push for personal Health Savings Accounts and the expansion of the economy so that individuals can afford to pay for their own health insurance instead of looking to the government. Conservatives, take back the debate! Stop agreeing with the liberals on the need for SCHIP and instead push for the economic policies that ensure that all Americans can afford affordable insurance!
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Taxpayer Pledges
It's almost that time again. As primary season approaches, several organizations, including Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Tax Reform, will be encouraging candidates to sign Taxpayer Pledges.
If you're interested to see who in Texas has signed on in the past, check out Americans for Prosperity's list here: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1562
Ask your elected officials and candidates for elective offices - what will you do today to lower my taxes?
If you're interested to see who in Texas has signed on in the past, check out Americans for Prosperity's list here: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=1562
Ask your elected officials and candidates for elective offices - what will you do today to lower my taxes?
Monday, October 1, 2007
Happy New Year! a.k.a. Hold on to your wallets.
The motto for federal employees today is “10-1!” What does this mean? Today is the beginning of the 2008 federal fiscal year and, you guessed it, bureaucrats are eager to spend your tax money! After having one month of limited spending due to the closing out of the books for the 2007 fiscal year, the shackles of fiscal responsibility are removed! Bureaucrats are on parole from spending restraints!
The amount of spending by bureaucrats in the 2008 fiscal year will determine how much money is appropriated to each agency in 2009. So, when you come across a federal employee today, wish them happy New Year and ask him “What are you doing to lower my taxes today?”
The amount of spending by bureaucrats in the 2008 fiscal year will determine how much money is appropriated to each agency in 2009. So, when you come across a federal employee today, wish them happy New Year and ask him “What are you doing to lower my taxes today?”
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Third Session
For the third session we are watching Gov. Roy Romer's "America's Public Schools: A Crisis and an Opportunity" here again, are a few highlights
-If the US is going to maintain the economic advantage that we currently have we need to rank higher than 24th in Math among industrialized nations.
-The number of drop outs in American schools is at 1.2 million
-There is a need for more rigorous national standards across the country
-The States would be able to come up with the tests, but the Federal Government would pay for them.
-The most important quality for any school system is teaching. The best way to improve this is by recruiting better individuals, currently teachers in the US generally come from the bottom third of their graduating classes.
-To keep the best teachers there should be some form of merit pay based on their student's performance
-Currently the US has 13 fewer class days a year than the top countries in education, and that needs to be fixed
We have now voted to switch to Porter Gross' "Defending America Requires Fixing our our Intelligence System" We picked it up in the middle, so this will only reflect what I have been able to view.
-The Israeli intelligence is the best in the world because they believe that any mistake on their part will cause an explosion or death to their people. The US does not act with that same kind of urgency.
-Our system is not efficient enough in turning intelligence to acting on it.
-The US can't retreat back behind the oceans, they must get the info from the direct sources, not hearing it from global news
-The US military and intelligence needs to have greater freedom to act on information, and not have to worry about Washington.
-If the US is going to maintain the economic advantage that we currently have we need to rank higher than 24th in Math among industrialized nations.
-The number of drop outs in American schools is at 1.2 million
-There is a need for more rigorous national standards across the country
-The States would be able to come up with the tests, but the Federal Government would pay for them.
-The most important quality for any school system is teaching. The best way to improve this is by recruiting better individuals, currently teachers in the US generally come from the bottom third of their graduating classes.
-To keep the best teachers there should be some form of merit pay based on their student's performance
-Currently the US has 13 fewer class days a year than the top countries in education, and that needs to be fixed
We have now voted to switch to Porter Gross' "Defending America Requires Fixing our our Intelligence System" We picked it up in the middle, so this will only reflect what I have been able to view.
-The Israeli intelligence is the best in the world because they believe that any mistake on their part will cause an explosion or death to their people. The US does not act with that same kind of urgency.
-Our system is not efficient enough in turning intelligence to acting on it.
-The US can't retreat back behind the oceans, they must get the info from the direct sources, not hearing it from global news
-The US military and intelligence needs to have greater freedom to act on information, and not have to worry about Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)