Texas Conservative Review on the Budget
The Texas Conservative Review is the work of Gary Polland, a former Harris County GOP chair and state Senate candidate. This is TCR’s take on the budget situation, from its April 22 issue.
The battle in Austin regarding balancing the next biennial budget continues. The Senate says “it favors” additional money through budget tweaks, fee adjustments, and the like. The House has the tighter budget and doesn’t want to dip into the Rainy Day Fund again. To TCR, the House position makes sense, as we don’t know what the fiscal picture will be two years from now, and it could be worse. It’s a better idea to make the budget reductions now with the state prioritizing its spending and eliminating unnecessary spending.
The problem with this reasoning is that it is designed to work in perpetuity. Budget writers never know what the fiscal picture will be two years from the moment they begin their work. Who knew in 2006 that 2008 would bring a long-lasting recession? I could point at this moment to increasing sales tax receipts and rising oil prices as reasons why spending the rainy day fund is sound policy: (1) the crisis is now, not two years from now; and (2) the price of oil is such that if we do use the rainy day fund now, the fund will be replenished by the end of the fiscal year. And TCR could still say, the fiscal picture could be worse in two years, we must make budget reductions now. TCR’s observation is a variation on something Governor Perry said earlier about why the fund shouldn’t be used now: there might be a hurricane. There are always reasons not to do something.
A lot of this is just parroting shibboleths like “prioritizing spending.” What is a budget if not prioritizing spending? TCR also calls for “eliminating unnecessary spending?” I’m for that. Who isn’t? But what spending is “unnecessary?” Schools? Health care? The commission on the arts? TCR’s analysis of the budget is just another bunch of slogans.
Don Q says:
That’s the whole point of the structural deficit. Every budget is going to be a problem from now on, until something is done about closing the gap between the state’s commitment to replace the money given up by the 06 property tax cuts and the state’s ability to actually fund that commitment.
So: 1) fix the margins tax and close enough loopholes to raise $10 billion per biennium; 2) let school districts raise their property tax rates back up; or 3) cut school funding. So far both the House and Senate are choosing variations on #3.
Reply »
Mr. Politico Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
What Don Q says…
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
These are exactly the same points I have been making. The Rainy Day Fund will be replenished. We should use it all for the next biennium. We also need to fix the structural deficit by fixing the margins tax as Don Q. points out or let school districts raise their property taxes back up. Option #3 cutting school funding drastically is not good for students or for getting businesses to move to a state that doesn’t provide an adequate amount of funds to have an educated workforce. Texas shouldn’t be at the bottom of funding for schools.
An educated population is worth the cost. I’m sure that someone will say we are just throwing more money at schools but what we are doing if we don’t keep education spending at current levels at least, is going to cripple public education in Texas. Maybe that is what some of the people that refuse to use the Rainy Day Fund are trying to do?
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
So, if we don’t “spend” enough (ie PAY OFF THE TEACHER UNION), the chilren will be more stoopid than they are now? How much is “enough”? $10,000 each? $100,000 each? We ALREADY SPEND MORE than almost any nation on EARTH and graduation rates fall and drop out rates rise. But the UNION gets more money. Get rid of the trivial, day care for kids the kids had, “free” breakfast, lunch and dinner and “summer feeding schedules” and tell the little darlings parents they need to TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN KIDS! I know it’s a HARD STEP, but until the educrats stop funding $50 million football stadiums, $200 million Taj Mahal marble floored high schools and outrageous teacher, teacher aide, “management” salarys and all the other PORK, we will NEVER get out of this educrat induced dilemma.
WE ARE BROKE! THERE ARE NO MORE TAXES THAT CAN BE SUCKED OUT OF THIS ROCK! DEAL WITH IT!
Reply »
Alan Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Texas spends more than any “nation” on Earth on education? Show me that figure.
Yes, some kids do get free or reduced price breakfast and/or lunch. I doubt cutting that out and making them do schoolwork on the Ethiopian famine diet will improve their academic performance.
The expensive football stadiums you are talking about are paid for by bonds that district residents vote on via ballot initiative.
Two things I’ve learned about you, Fiftycal, are that you don’t bother to check your own facts before you pontificate and spout angry rants, and that you need to turn off your caps lock key (it’s okay, my 78 year-old grandmother forgets it’s on too sometimes).
Reply »
Karen Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Here is some interesting info regarding Federal School Nutrition Programs.
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/federal-school-nutrition-programs
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Does Fiftycal misspell words on purpose or did he quituate instead of graduate? I understand that guituate is not a real word but one we use here in Texas. Just asking? I’m not for football palaces either but I support public education and worthwhile programs.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 8:22 am
Fiftycal is jbb’s older, dumber brother
Kirk says:
I can’t believe the “conservatives” are in favor of continued savings by the state government. The state is prohibited from running a deficit, it should also be prohibited from running a surplus, which is essentially what the RDF is. I would expect conservatives and tea-party types to demand that the RDF be spent or refunded to taxpayers.
Also, if you are not ever going to spend the RDF, then why have it? It is just more government waste of taxpayers’ money.
Let’s bring the RDF into the sunshine and find out who is profiting from the ten billion dollar fund. Which bank or banks are earning millions of dollars of interest and padding their balance sheets? How much have they contributed toward Gov. Perry’s reelection campaign?
Reply »
James Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
The RDF keeps the interest it generates.. But thanks for helping us watch out for all those black helicopters…
Reply »
Karen Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
James,
So you think the money (RDF) is just sitting in a bank(s) drawing interest? ROTFL
http://www.choose-financial-freedom.com/how-do-banks-make-money.html
Reply »
Kirk Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Thanks, Karen. That’s exactly right. The banks may be paying the State a small amount of interest, but they are profiting by loaning the money out at higher interest. Three percent* on ten billion would be…$300million per year. (*Assuming they lend it out at 3% more than the interest they pay the State.) Not exactly chump change.
Karen Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Kirk,
You are welcome. Nope, it’s not exactly chump change. Here is some interesting info.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/fnotes/fn1102/
Kenneth D. Franks says:
We need to use it by it. By it I mean the Rainy Day Fund. I haven’t seen any black helicopters, don’t believe in conspiracy except maybe a conspiracy to underfund schools and services on purpose when we have funds that could be used to give us time to work on the not so secret structural deficit that Texas currently has.
Reply »
He Who Knows Everything says:
Why is it that the one who want to raise taxes for education are against vouchers. The vast majority of Conservatives would be in favor of raising education spending if they thought it would increase the quality of education. The record indicates the opposite has been the case.
Reply »
Momma Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Because people in private schools don’t want the gov’t intrusion tax money would bring, like accountablity in the form of TAKS tests.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
Vouchers would take money away from public schools which are already underfunded because they are currently operating on 2006 funds. You may believe money could be diverted to Christian schools but it also opens the door for state money to be diverted to any private school of any religion or belief. Would you support that? If you want your children or grandchildren to attend any type of secular or school of any religion you can break out your check book and pay for it.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
KFranks> If you want your children or grandchildren to attend any type of secular school or school of any religion you can break out your check book and pay for it.
Is it fair that when parents make that decision, the local public school keeps the funds that would have been used to educate those children?
“It’s fine that you want to pay for your kids to go to a parochial school. But we’ll keep the money anyway, thanks.”
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
I sent my children to a private Christian school one year because the nearest elementary school wasn’t one I wanted them to attend. We paid for it!
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
And the TEACHER UNION sez TANKS! Why am I paying for YOUR KIDS to go to government indoctrination skool again?
Big D Reply:
April 26th, 2011 at 12:37 am
anon-p 3:14, if you knew anything about school finance, you would know that the state of Texas gets the benefits from children going to private schools. Public schools are funded according to butts in seats.
Fiftycal, who paid for you to go to school? Or did you go to school? Or do you just enjoy being obtuse? If you say somebody sent you to private school, I’d say they should demand a refund.
Reply »
Gary Polland says:
Paul-You should just read further into my article this week and the one from a few weeks ago. The number one area we can save money is in criminal justice using innovative ideas like house arrest leg monitors for early release for non-violent offenders who behave in prison and some of the Texas Public Policy Foundations great work on criminal justice like treatment versus incarceration all of which saves money and leaves more for education and nursing homes. And if you are requesting other ideas I will be happy to roll up my sleeves. The good news about a tight budget we actually have to work at spending money effectively and also we need to think outside the box.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
How bout’ this? We REPEAL all the drug laws and FREE all the drug prisoners? A really bold step would be to TAX MJ and other drugs, but that won’t work right now. But this frees up all the cops to go after criminals, which may be the same subset of people. But instead of bogus “drug paraphenalia” charges for having aluminum foil or a “glass” pipe, they can arrest for DWI if the person is driving or PI if they are “stoned” in public.
Of course the feds will squeal like stuck PIGS, but that’s OK. Let them ship 25,000 FBI agents down here to bust in doors and get them evil DRUG ADDICTS behind bars.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
We shouldn’t free all drug prisoners BUT we have way too many people in the criminal justice system that are minor offenders and I don’t mean under 18 but people who could be productive citizens except they can’t get a job or are in jail for what should have been a fine instead of time in jail. You and I and every taxpayer pay for this. A traffic ticket or a fine for small amounts of M.J. as you call it would free up officers to work on serious crimes. Also false alarms on house alarm systems take up a tremendous amount of police resources especially in cities. My house is protected by my right to own a gun. With your handle I’m sure yours is too.
Reply »
anita Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Gary, you funny. Seems we tried the “treatment versus incarceration” thing about 20 years ago. It worked well, but an ascendant Republican party gutted it, primarily because it was the signature program of the last Democratic governor this state had.
I guess in 20 years, your successor will be touting funding public education as an innovative government program.
Reply »
Karen says:
The conservative lawmakers/Tea Party keep saying they want to run the Texas govt. like a business but a smart businessman would not continue a failed revenue policy. (margins tax) This should have been the first item on our lawmakers agenda in this legislative session. Therefore, one can perhaps conclude that the conservative/Tea Party lawmakers are putting their political ideology/agenda ahead of what is actually best for Texas and Texans.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Let me guess. You are burning incense to Thugge for someone to bring up the INCOME TAX, right? Oh, the beauty of it all. Then you could REALLY sock it to the EVIL RICHE!
Well, you are only about 100 votes short in the House and 19 votes short in the Senate. And I don’t think you could get 20% approval in the election.
But there are 43 other states that have that invasive tax. Pick one and move there. I’m sure they don’t have any funding problem.
Reply »
RonKab Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
If it weren’t for the fact that Texas is near the bottom of virtually every list as far as funding goes, your comment might make some sense. Is there some waste? Absolutely. Is there enough waste to absorb 33% of our discretionary funding? I don’t even have to answer that one.
Reply »
He Who Knows Everything says:
I went to a meeting in Houston of Voucher advocates. Ninety % were middle or low income minorities who could not afford a private school but want to have a choice and a chance for a better education for their kids. My wealthy friends are not for vouchers because they would let the great unwashed attend school with their children.
The best reason for vouchers is that they would improve the quality of public schools. Would you liberals be for vouchers that would only go to low income families?
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Are you kidding? How do you think socialists keep the proletariat “on the plantation”? They don’t teach the kids anything but “you can’t make it, the system is against you, you might as well get stoned, gangbang and have some kids when you are 14″. Which is, of course, how the kids PARENTS were taught when they went thru the SAME SCHOOL. And of course the PARENTS have had menial jobs and only get by with government HANDOUTS. So the kids figure they will do the same thing.
Edukation? Naw, dat’s fo chumps.
Reply »
RonKab Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Slow down and re-read what you wrote before you post it. Maybe you’ll find ways how to make some sense … and actually contribute to this blog.
Reply »
Momma says:
The “best” private schools prefer families that can pay large tuition bills AND donate additional money and plan annual fundraisers.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
OOOOOOOOH! Them EVIL RICHE! Much better for the government skool to put on PTA events to “fund” their activitys.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Did you know that Texas Comptroller (sic) Susan Combs has a big sign on her desk that says:
“…The best reason for vouchers is that they would improve the quality of public schools…”
They keep saying it…but somehow they never seem able to explain how taking money AWAY from the public school system is going to IMPROVE it. Perhaps they can explain that one some time…with other than “competition”, etc. since it is harder to compete when you have something taken away…
More James Buchanan that Harry Truman!
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
Gee, let’s see. If there were CHOICE (socialists like CHOICE don’t they?), then parents that cared about their kids environment could CHOSE (there’s that word again. See, it’s just “choice” in a different context, in case you flunked English) where to send their kids for edukation. And in a year or two, the government skools would have FEWER kids, so the leftover teachers would have more time to give to those kids. And the private skools could hire the BEST TEACHERS, not being forced by the UNION to keep all the DEAD WOOD. Then government skools could drop the phony “every kid is going to college” mantra and at least teach them how to make change without having the cash register do it for them and the ones in private skool would get an ACTUAL EDUCATIon instead of socialist pablum and indoctrination.
Reply »
Alan Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
People already do have a choice. If you want to send your kids to private school, nobody’s holding a gun to your head and saying you can’t.
Some people can’t afford private school tuition. And I can’t afford to drive a Maserati, but I don’t demand that the government give me a voucher to pay for one.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
“I don’t demand that the government give me a voucher to pay for one.”
This takes the cake– any person who wants to use THEIR money to go to a school of THEIR choice is demanding the government give them a handout– sort of like asking for a Maserati.
WUSRPH says:
Sorry for the mangled entry above. I do not know how the first sentence got into the entry…It was from something I did yesterday. I hope Paul can remove it.
The correct entry is:
“…The best reason for vouchers is that they would improve the quality of public schools…”
They keep saying it…but somehow they never seem able to explain how taking money AWAY from the public school system is going to IMPROVE it. Perhaps they can explain that one some time…with other than “competition”, etc. since it is harder to compete when you have something taken away…
Reply »
Kirk says:
There is nothing conservative about stockpiling large amounts of cash while you simultaneously layoff teachers and other government workers.
Perry’s 2006 business tax plan/property tax swap was far more nefarious than we could have imagined because it essentially removed the decision-making for public education from local school board to the legislature. 2006 will go down in history books as the beginning of the end of publicly-funded education.
Reply »
Karen says:
Did you know Texas has a Diaster Relief Fund?
https://www.texasonline.state.tx.us/tolapp/disasterfund/home.do
Reply »
Julie says:
What’s all this talk about conservatives would favor vouchers!
Vouchers are dead as an issue. No one in the Texas Legislature – no Republican, no Democrat — filed a bill in the current session to establish a voucher program.
That should tell you something. The Legislature has no interest in bringing vouchers to your neighborhood.
In the last regular session, a Republican introduced a bill that would have established a voucher program, but that lawmaker’s bill died in committee. It never made to the floor of either chamber for a vote.
Why?
Because there’s not enough support for vouchers.
Add me to the list of people who think vouchers should remain on the reject list.
Reply »
1L Reply:
April 25th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
How about HB 1115 by Ken Paxton:
Relating to a franchise or insurance premium tax credit for contributions made to certain nonprofit educational assistance organizations.
It may be going nowhere, but it was filed and even got a committee hearing last week.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Julie hates vouchers because all liberals hate vouchers. For them, government control must be maintained at all costs no matter how much it hurts poor children. School choice is the civil rights issue of the 21st century but people like Julie the Ridiculous Republican poser don’t give a damn about keeping kids trapped in poor performing schools which decades of data show will keep on peforming poorly no matter how many blank checks we write them. Thousands of poor people are begging to be set free from the government monopoly of poor performing schools but Julie the Ridiculous Republican Poser and fellow libs will continue to ignore them and continue with their sanctimonious hypocritical bleating.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
1LReply,
HB 1115 is not a voucher program.
Reply »
Karen says:
This is some interesting info.
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/state-workers-were-ready-to-bolt-over-cuts-1432744.html
Reply »
Karen says:
Not only are our GOP/Tea Party lawmakers not fixing the problem, it appears they are going to make the problem worse? We cannot afford to educate our children, health care for our elderly, children and poor yet we can afford this?
House panel votes to extend business tax break
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7532333.html
Reply »
Karen says:
Texas driver’s license fee may go up $8
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7536713.html
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I’m looking forward to the direct mail piece being dropped on R’s on their action resulting in the firing of 80K Texas teachers while giving tax breaks to yacht buyers.
Good times.
Reply »
Briscoe Democrat says:
Burka, didn’t Texas used to have an education commissioner who was elected statewide before ?
I know California has the Supt. of Public Instruction as an elected statewide office, as in Indiana, Oklahoma, Arizona, etc.,
Reply »
Michael Barnes says:
Consider that by making draconian spending cuts we might drastically reduce state-supported employment, including a possible 100,000 teacher layoffs, and 240,000 total related education industry reductions.
This would consequently reduce Texans’ discretionary spending, and thus reduce sales tax revenue. You would also increase the number of people eligible for state services based on reduced income.
Additionally, the long-term effect on teacher recruitment and quality teacher retention may lead to a drain in high-impact educators, as those most qualified to move to other industries will be the first to leave.
The impact on our future workforce, with fewer students receiving support at all levels, especially in the first years of school, will further hamper Texas’ long term economic forecast.
But in the end, Texas Democrats should not concede that this is truly a fiscal crisis; in fact it is the enactment of an ideal Republican philosophy: Cut taxes and enrich the rich until the revenue base is starved, and then cut services for those in greatest need.
This is the ‘smaller government’ conservatives have been salivating over for decades, come to fruition. All the while the state’s revenue base is built on the backs of the impoverished. As Paul Krugman wrote, in Texas the lower 40% pay twice the effective tax rate of the highest 20%.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“As Paul Krugman wrote, in Texas the lower 40% pay twice the effective tax rate of the highest 20%”
Krugman is a con artist.
Reply »
Julie says:
Anonymous,
The Legislature doesn’t like vouchers. That’s why we don’t have them.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
But why do are YOU standing against school choice? This is what Democrats want because they want the government to have a monopoly on schools. They do not like competition even if it means keeping more children trapped in poor performing schools. Research shows that when parents of children in poor performing schools are offered an opportunity to choose a school, the requests far outweigh the spots available, but those who do not get a spot are trapped. Where is your comapssion as a Democrat for these kids who are trapped. You should be ashamed, except that people of the left like you have no shame.
Reply »