Dewhurst Hits Bottom
I have already received a couple of calls from friends who wanted to be sure that I noticed the Dew’s op-ed piece in today’s Statesman about how Texas balanced its budget. His salient characteristic is on full display here: There is no depth of cravenness so low that he will not seek it out in pursuit of self-promotion.
First, I will offer the piece without comment. Dewhurst writes:
Given recent comments about our state’s budget, I feel it is time to separate fact from political fiction. The fact is, in stark contrast to the U. S. Congress, the Texas Constitution requires the Legislature to balance the state budget every two years, and that would have happened with or without any federal stimulus dollars.
In 2007, I led the effort to save $7 billion to balance the revenue shortfall we anticipated this year.
So it’s simply political fiction that stimulus dollars were necessary to balance our budget.
Although we tried to use the federal stimulus dollars on one-time expenditures, in some cases the federal government made us use the money on recurring costs that actually add to the cost of state government.
While other states struggle with overwhelming deficits, Texas has created a model for the rest of the nation to follow that is based on living within its available revenue. The state cut taxes a net $4 billion per year in 2007 while fostering a predictable regulatory environment that allows business to thrive and continue to make Texas the No. 1 job creator in the U.S. over the past two years.
Although this year’s session took place in the context of significant turmoil in the global marketplace and economic upheaval in Texas and across our country, the Legislature successfully shaped a balanced state budget that meets the needs of Texans and sufficiently funds essential programs and agencies through the next two years.
Working together, we crafted and Gov. Rick Perry signed a balanced budget that has left our state prepared to tackle the challenges that lie ahead. Not only did we balance our budget without raising taxes, we cut taxes for more than 40,000 small businesses and left our Rainy Day Fund untouched so we can once again balance our budget in 2011.
The fact remains that Texas is one of only six states whose budget isn’t in the red, even though our state is among the fastest growing in the nation. The state has an unemployment rate well below the national average, it continues to attract jobs from companies that have relocated or expanded in Texas, it has one of the healthiest housing markets in the nation, and Texas cities are consistently recognized for their healthy job markets, high quality of living and resistance to the recession. Here in Texas, we live within our means and create a climate that gives individuals and businesses the opportunity to succeed.
Texas has faced and overcome tough financial situations in the past by tightening our belt, just like Texas families are doing today. In 2003, Texas encountered a $10 billion budget shortfall. Instead of raising taxes, we cut discretionary spending and implemented sound fiscal policies that helped us generate a multi-billion dollar surplus over the next six years, before the national recession hit Texas.
Unlike Washington, we balance our budget every session, control spending, keep taxes low and ensure our children and grandchildren aren’t saddled with the kind of crippling debt that our federal government has irresponsibly created.
Now for some comments. I trust that readers had no trouble picking out the whopper in this epistle:
So it’s simply political fiction that stimulus dollars were necessary to balance our budget.
The truth is exactly the opposite. It is political fact that stimulus dollars were necessary to balance our budget.
So then, why does the Dew insist that the stimulus dollars weren’t necessary?
The fact is, in stark contrast to the U. S. Congress, the Texas Constitution requires the Legislature to balance the state budget every two years, and that would have happened with or without any federal stimulus dollars.
Yes, it would have happened anyway. But there are those little matters of how it would have happened, and of what would have happened. Without that $12B in stimulus money, the state would have had three choices:
1. Raise taxes
2. Cut spending
3. Spend the Rainy Day fund
And which of these courses would Dewhurst have advocated? Or Rick Perry? We would be like all those other states Perry and Dewhurst like to sneer at, facing special session after special session over adopting a budget. Does Dewhurst think that people are so stupid that they can’t figure out that without stimulus dollars, the money to balance the budget would have to come from somewhere? Those federal stimulus dollars bailed out Perry and Dewhurst one year before an election.
This observation by Dewhurst is patently false: “While other states struggle with overwhelming deficits, Texas has created a model for the rest of the nation to follow that is based on living within its available revenue.” Texas is not living within its available revenue. It has a structural budget deficit. The tax cut for 40,000 small businesses that Dewhurst boasted about was fiscally irresponsible and only dug the hole a little deeper.
Dewhurst also touts “sound fiscal policies that helped us generate a multi-billion dollar surplus over the next six years [since the 2003 budget cuts], before the national recession hit Texas.” I don’t contest that Texas follows sound fiscal policies (the small business tax cut excepted). I do contest that current practice differs from previous practice. What generated the multi-billion dollar surplus had less to do with decisions made by politicians than with pure unadulterated luck: a natural gas boom that filled the coffers of the Rainy Day fund.
It’s pretty easy to break the code on why Dewhurst wrote this piece. The first line is very revealing:
Given recent comments about our state’s budget, I feel it is time to separate fact from political fiction.
And who has been making “recent comments?” Could it be Kay Bailey Hutchison? This is a not-so-veiled reference to reciprocal attacks in the governor’s race, in which the Perry campaign blasts Hutchison for supporting the TARP bailout, and the Hutchison campaign responds that Perry took $12 billion in stimulus funds. I firmly believe that they both did the right thing and should fight about something else. So Dewhurst, ever the lapdog, writes an op-ed piece that repeats Perry’s favorite talking points, without ever mentioning the actual amount of stimulus dollars in the budget, and — my favorite part — managing to blame the feds for giving us the money (”In some cases the federal government made us use the money on recurring costs that actually add to the cost of state government”).
As I said at the start, there is no depth of cravenness to which he will not sink in pursuit of that senatorial appointment from Perry.
Tagged: david dewhurst, kay bailey hutchison, rainy day fund, rick perry, stimulus funds.
Phillip Martin says:
Actually, it’s Republican Senate Finance Chair Steve Ogden:
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
Also instructional, in that FW Business Journal piece:
Reply »
JASON says:
Your article makes little if any sense. You think the state government (with Dewhurst and Perry) did the right thing by accepting the stimulus money; you don’t disagree that Texas is fiscally responsible. Seems the only thing you disagree with in Dewhurst’s op-ed is the line that stimulus funds were not “necessary” to balance the budget. Yet, by your own admission, they were not. They had, as you cited, 3 other options to balance the state budget: cut spending (as has been done many times before), raise taxes, or use the rainy day fund. They made the choice to use stimulus funds, a choice you admit you agree with. Dewhurst’s article doesn’t admonish KBH for TARP; if you think that is a hypocritical stance, that’s a fair point, but a point not made by Dewhurst. Texas does, in fact, have a model that requires it to live “within available revenue.” Just because stimulus funds were “available revenue” this year does not make this statement false. This article you have written is just bizarre.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 11:38 am
What would Perry, Dewhurst, & Strauss would have cut? What should they have cut?
Any Republicans want to answer that one? I’ve been asking all morning and no one — especially not Michael Sullivan — is giving any answers.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Funny thing Phil, Michael posted on this subject before 8.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
If your point is that stimulus funds weren’t necessary to balance the budget because they had three other options, well, that was my point. All of them were politically unpalatable, if not impossible, so using the stimulus funds became necessary.
I agree with using the stimulus funds. I disagree with the effort to conceal the truth from the public by saying that it wasn’t necessary to use them, when in the real world, there was no other option.
If you want to regard this straightforward argument as bizarre, that is your privilege.
Reply »
JASON Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
MY point is that the argument Dewhurst is countering is one that indicates (falsely) that, if it wasn’t for the stimulus the budget would be in deficit. That is quite simply false. Cutting spending is unpalatable, but its certainly not unprecedented in this state. It happens frequently to balance budgets (frequently relative to other states, fed govt). You write this article w/ an incredibly inflamatory title, some very tough language attacking Dewhurst, then you essentially agree with the nearly everything he said in the article. You don’t dispute any facts except to pick a rhetorical fight over the term “necessary.” I understand you disagree w/ using this as a political tool against KBH. I understand you believe Perry and Dewhurst to be hypocritical for that. But was that a part of this particular op-ed? Was anything he said in this op-ed false? THAT is what makes this bizarre.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
It would and is a deficit – to the tune of $3.2 billion per year – until the revenue source fully pays for the property tax cuts we are living off capital – I don’t know any good business person who advocted living off capital
Jamie says:
Wow. A little harsh, there, don’t you think? Dewhurst is obviously a self-centered guy and often clueless, but “depth of cravenness” is pretty over-the-top rhetoric, no?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
You know, I want to like Dewhurst, really I do, but it just drives me crazy that he will lower himself to write this kind of apologia to further his ambition. I don’t think “craven” is the right word, though. I didn’t intend to imply cowardice. I meant to imply a willingness to demean himself to get ahead. That’s I find so unappealing. He starts out with the best of motives, but he will sell out his own decency at the drop of a hat.
Reply »
Tim says:
It’s hard to take him seriously when he also said we’re a model for other states to follow.
If you’re barely balancing the budget while trailing the rest of the states in health and education that’s kind of a pyrrhic victory, and Texas might be one of the more inefficient governments. Since for all the money we spend we have very little to show.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Yup.
And there is no willingness to invest in infrastructure.
Look at our highways and roads. The state’s population grows by more than 1,000 people each and every day. The gas tax has not gone up in 18 years. What do you think has happened to the cost of R.O.W. during that time, or the cost of construction?
No investment in future water supplies, either…and our public education funding system is on the verge of another lawsuit.
One cerebal GOP senator (privately) observed a couple of years ago that state leaders know Steve Murdock’s projections will turn this state into a grim place – unless the trend line changes. But GOP leaders don’t give a rats azz about Texas in 25 years from now because their only focus is on winning the next election for themselves.
Reply »
RT says:
Burka – the stimulus dollars were not NEEDED to balance the budget. They were ACCEPTED to balance the budget.
Of course you already know that and want to play games. The budget would be balanced whether there were stimulus dollars or not. But then you would be upset that we didn’t raise any new taxes to do it.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I don’t want to play games. I want to see the state run responsibly. Here’s what I would do: raise the state gasoline tax, tie it to inflation, and issue bonds on the revenue; slice 1/2 cent off the penny for mass transit tax and redirect it to general revenue because mass transit has access to federal funding; raise the general sales tax by 1 cent and sunset it before the next legislative session; reduce the property tax cut from 50 cents to 25 cents and sunset it before the next legislative session. I would delay Tier One higher ed funding until the next legislative session. I wouldn’t have spent a dime on the Dallas Law School. And your plan is?
Reply »
hooah! Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Yea, Paul, like any of THAT was going to come from THIS legislature! Indeed, that’s the kind of tough medicine this state needs, but the will is simply not there.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 12:37 pm
More response to RT:
If there are four alternatives — accept the stimulus funds, raise taxes, cut spending, or raid the rainy day fund — and three of them are off the table, then the stimulus funds are NEEDED to balance the budget.
Reply »
RT Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Did I miss where DHD said he wouldn’t touch the Rainy Day fund no matter what?
You twisted the situation to fit your narrative of “we NEEDED the stimulus money.”
We didn’t. It just eased us from having to make some tough decisions.
Reply »
JASON Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
In fact, I’m not so sure that this type of economic collapse isn’t EXACTLY what the rainy day fund is in place for. Couldn’t you make that argument?
Anonymous Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Actually
Reply »
JASON says:
What would have been cut is a fair question Phillip. And one that can be discussed but requires more information than either one of us has at hand. But just because you don’t know what would have been cut does not mean that David Dewhurst or Rick Perry are liars. Your ad hominem attacks diminish your argument and the discourse surrounding very important issues.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“Bizarre,” “playing games” — that would be Jason and RT, along with Perry and Dewhurst. Did you read your own GOP Senator/Finance Chair’s words!? Guess he’s playing games, too?! Or maybe he’s just telling the truth since he doesn’t have an office to lie his way into this time.
Reply »
JASON says:
So, “Anonymous,” since you don’t want to address the facts that I laid out, I’ll assume you don’t dispute them. Thanks for agreeing.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Just not interested in playing your game, Jason, or that of Dewhurst, Perry, KBH and anyone else who chooses to spin “facts” for the purpose of deceiving. Those who call you on it are not “bizarre.” You are. And the fact that you’re actually blind to it makes it true all the more.
Reply »
JASON Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Again, you seem to be unable to address any facts and simply here for name-calling.
There were 4 options for bringing the budget into deficit; all were on the table, all were available. A choice was made to use stimulus funds. A choice you may not agree with, but a choice nonetheless. These facts make the premise that stimulus funds were “necessary” a flawed premise.
The 3 options not chosen are all things that no one wants to do. But had there not been stimulus funds, 1 of the 3 options would have been employed. If stimulus funds were necessary, then without them, we would be in deficit. We are not. Burka’s structural deficit is a bit misleading (but not false) in that if you remove the stimulus funds from the current budget, there would be a gap. That is not an accurate picture however, because state law requires the budget to be balanced, thus, in lieu of stimulus funds, the budget would be balanced through other means. Those facts are inescapable and you refuse to address them.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Jason –
Why do you persist in parsing words? We know that the stimulus funds were “necessary” because they didn’t choose another option. If cutting $12 billion in spending would have been palatable, they would have done it. It wasn’t, and they didn’t. That’s what made the stimulus funds necessary. All the rest is just verbal gamesmanship.
Anonymous2 says:
Jason, in response to your “facts”:
Here’s how Perry/Dewhurst are liars: Texas has not created a model for the rest of the country, we in fact have a structural deficit. Burka lays that out pretty clearly
Reply »
JASON Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
We have a structural deficit because spending exceeds state government revenues. This problem was not fixed because it did not have to be. Stimulus money was available and made it unnecessary. The so-called structural deficit was caused largely by revenues falling by $9.1 billion dollars, due to? You guessed it: a recession the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Great Depression. Tough choices would have been made (because the law requires them to be) had the stimulus not existed. To criticize Dewhurst or Perry for a “structural deficit” shows a misunderstanding of the term and the events that led to it.
Reply »
David Siegel Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
The structural deficit that is commonly discussed is the gap between the property tax revenue lost to the tax cuts of 06 and the amount of new revenue raised from changing the franchise tax and raising the cigarette tax. The new revenue is short by about $9.5 billion a biennium. We filled the gap this time with stimulus money. We can probably fill it next time with the Rainy Day Fund (altho natural gas prices are below forecast). Then we will finally have to fact the real structural deficit — Texas doesn’t have a revenue system anywhere close to what it needs to maintain schools, colleges, roads, prisons, parks or anything else.
Reply »
Anonymous2 says:
Taking the money was a tacit acceptance that we needed it. Because it was the choice made, and we *know* Perry was acting as a rational agent, it was shown to be the best choice available. Sounds like necessity was the political fact to me.
Reply »
JASON Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I disagree w/ that assessment. If something is necessary, according to Webster’s, it is “unavoidable.” When you are presented w/ choices, none of those choices are unavoidable. Each is avoidable by selecting one of the other choices. I believe Perry/Dewhurst/the state of Texas made the correct choice. Whether it was the right choice or not is an arguable point. But to make the best choice available, to have choice at all, negates the necessity of any one of them.
Reply »
mark says:
Paul, I believe the word you are looking for is whore: A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I’m already regretting having used “craven.” I don’t think this is the way to go.
Reply »
Harry Doghiney (D-TX) Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Whore is a good word. It’s synonymous with Texas Republican.
Reply »
Rog says:
Back to the main point: the hypocrisy of Perry and Dewhurst who blasted KBH for voting for the stimulus funds, and then used the money to bail themselves out.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
except she didn’t vote for the stimulus funds. the real hypocrisy is hers, voting against the money but attacking state leaders for not spending every nickel, even those dollars with negative long-term strings attached to them.
keep up, rog.
Reply »
Anonymous2 says:
Jason, what you refer to is a normal deficit. The “structural deficit” refers to the 2006 Perry-backed $14 billion in property tax cuts every biennium. That money was supposed to be replaced through the revised business tax & cigarette taxes, but that revenue hasn’t quite come through as expected. This is a problem that is not going away anytime soon, recession or not.
Reply »
JASON Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
You are citing a source of the structural deficit not a definition of it. Either way, a structural deficit is one in which govt revenues are exceeded by expenditures.
Reply »
leave the gun, take the canoli Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:09 pm
JASON
A structural deficit is unrelated to the performance of the economy – what you describe is a cyclical deficit. How do you define it?
The issue with our structural deficit is that regardless of declining sales tax revenue you’ve got a hole driven by the property tax cuts. You are trying really hard to dance around all of this, but there is a difference between the two. Why don’t you just say so? Will you be holding to the same argument in five years when cyclical revenue comes back, yet there is sill a budget hole because of the property tax cuts? What kind of a deficit will it be then?
Reply »
Elsie says:
Guys, Guys, Guys
Put it up and zip it up.
Even I can figure out what financial flakes Dewhurst and the Republicans are. They won’t raise taxes and run on it. And since the cost of everything goes up, they slash funding, usually to the most vulnerable, under represented folks in Texas, starting with poor children and education. Or they sell off something that belongs to the People of Texas, like roads.
Dew runs for Lt. Gov. because he has the personal wealth to do it, without calling on the state Republicans for $$, and they like that. From people who’ve worked for him, he’s a know-nothing, show-off. Got married for the election and puts his picture out with his “daughter” in a pumpkin patch. When did Teel Bivins die? Too creepy for me, even if it is Halloween
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Dewhurst’s marriage ought to be off-limits for this discussion. Let’s stick to the merits.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Riddle me this bat man – why do you post your family pictures, quote your wife, show yourself with a “loving” family in TV adds – but somehow you don’t want your family involved (unless it’s positive)?
- I thought all these politician met with the family before hand and the family understood there would be tough questions?
Reply »
Anonymous2 says:
The point is, who was it caused by? Perry was saved from this thing of his creation by stimulus dollars. It enabled him, and Dewhurst, to avoid facing the music and making the hard choices, ie spending cuts, tax hikes, rainy day fund, til the next budget. Conveniently post-election.
Reply »
JASON Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Who was it caused by is debatable. If you are going back to the 2006 tax bill, I recall that it was made necessary by a court ruling. Either way, of a $12b budget shortfall, $9.1 was from lower than expected govt revenues, which is not the fault of Perry or Dewhurst OR the 2006 tax bill. But, I agree with you that the stimulus prevented them from having to make some tough decisions.
Reply »
hooah! says:
God almighty in the morning……Obama saves Perry!
Pardon me while I go ram my head into the side of a generic state office building.
Reply »
back up a minute says:
Paul, you really believe raising the gas tax and indexing to inflation will provide any additional funding?
It would need to be raised to about $1.50 per gallon immediately to fund current transportation projects and then raised very frequently. With the current TX population boom, projects will increase, and so will the need for funds. Eventually (soon), folks would stop paying $4 or $5 per gallon (carpool, public transit, etc.), and then the tax would be raised even more to account for lost revenue.
This is not to mention the additional dollars per gallon the gas tax would need to be raised to deal with more fuel-efficient vehicles that offset revenue (and they’re getting more MPG all the time).
Relying on the gas tax is not an option. It would very quickly be raised so high that goods will stop moving across Texas, businesses will relocate to cheaper gas tax states, and our economy would quickly collapse.
Reply »
Robert says:
Obviously you don’t care for Dewhurst but his comments about the budget being balanced either way is exactly right. To not understand this is to not understand Texas budgeting.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Oh, no, another parser.
Yes, the budget would have been balanced either way. But without the stimulus funds, state services would have suffered a $12B hit. To not understand this is to not understand Texas budgeting.
Reply »
paulburka says:
Of course I believe it. The number came from the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M. It was developed for Senator Carona’s committee during the last interim BY THE GOVERNOR’S OWN BUSINESS COUNCIL. I heard the testimony.
It is true, as you say, that the gasoline tax has been somewhat eroded by greater fuel efficiency. That does not change the basic fact that the gasoline tax still raises a lot of revenue. We should make use of it. If we had started doing so ten years ago, when the Trans-Texas Corridor idea was hatched, we would have a lot more roads today than we have now.
I do NOT believe the $1.50 number. Nor do I believe the worst case scenario that our economy would quickly collapse if the gasoline tax were doubled. It’s just rhetoric to avoid doing what ought to be done. This is all about preserving a political climate in which nobody has to vote for a tax increase.
Reply »
Stevie F. says:
Maybe Burka overstates his case. “Craven” is pretty strong. However, I don’t see how anyone considers Dewhurst as any more than a huge disappointment. His chest-thumping over the budget rings hollow. The federal dollars got him off the hook for tough decisions and too many problems in education and transportation have been neglected or swept under the rug.
The problem is that Dewhurst’s rhetoric is as bold as his leadership is timid. Someone needed to call him on that.
Reply »
MonkeyMan Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Done.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
Back in my days in Bullock’s Comptroller’s Office we covered many shortages with smoke and mirrors…
The greatest was the “one minute before midnight PM” on the last night of the biennium transfer of $1 billion from constitutionally dedicated funds to the General Revenue Fund. This allowed us to say there would be enough money in the GR account during the next biennum to pay all the expenses in the next state budget—”a balanced budget”.
Of course, the $1 billion was transferred back to the constitutionally dedicated fund at “one minute after midnight AM” of the first day of the new biennium.
You can play a lot of games like that when you are on a “cash” rather than an “accrual” accounting system.
Anyone who really thinks we have a “balanced budget” in Texas should take a look at the GAAP accounting report the Comptroller issues (or at least did in the past). It uses accrued accounting and makes clear how we actually accrue hundreds of millions of unpaid expenses during each biennium by pushing their due dates off until the next budget.
The problem for the next Legislature is that–barring some sort of an economic miracle–the gap is going to be too big to cover that no mirror the current Comptroller can create and no amount of smoke she can generate will cover it.
We had just such a miracle back in the early 70s when everyone projected a massive deficit would be facing the Legislature when it met in 1975. We skipped that one with the help of the Egyptian Army which attacked Israel in October of 1973. This produced the first oil crisis and pushed our oil tax revenues thru the roof. However, I do not think we can count on any help from the Egyptians this time. Even if they did, our oil production is down so low that it would still not produce enough.
Reply »
Freddy Farkle Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
I don’t mean to appear ungrateful about that, but when exactly when has Egypt won a war? I know they fought the Nubians to a draw in 2100 BC, but I mean, since gunpowder?
Reply »
David Siegel says:
Every state has to write a balanced budget (note for wonks – not VT). They all ran into trouble when their revenues collapsed.
TX lucked out by having a biennium budget. 2009 revenue was in fact about $1 billion short of the Jan 09 revenue estimate (I think the final number is due in a week or two). If we had a full-time legislature, they would be in session right now trying to deal with it. But instead we get to wait 18 months for the economy to come back before we have to face the music.
Texas doesn’t budget better than other states. It just doesn’t have to balance as often.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Perhaps federal stimulus dollars weren’t absolutely “necessary” to balance the Texas budget. But they were very convenient.
I think the point here is that waging a anti-Washington war in the gubernatorial campaign, and particularly criticizing the stimulus package, while having relied on it to balance the Texas budget, is akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Its disingenuous at best.
Reply »
where_supply_meets_demand says:
We can always create a state income tax and solve all our problems regarding funding and keeping our services (ed, high ed, children’s health and protective services, protection from and punishment of criminal activities, highway constuction and maintenance, etc) up to snuff before law suits or the federal government takes them over from the Republic of Texas.
Income TAX?!(similar in tone to Jim Mora’s “Playoffs?!” press conference)
Ensuing LOUD “BOO” from crowd….BUT wait Dewy issued an OP-ED! All our problems are solved!
This state’s way of budgeting and funding agencies and services are arcane…the take a little here and add a little there to patch up this tire has left the tire neither safe or a smooth ride.
Dewy should have written about the tooth fairy not needing teeth or Santa not needing reindeer.
Reply »