Let's take a hike to Tax Mountain

        In my recent search for a blog, I fell upon a site called "EmpowerTexans". I came across an article written by Dustin Matocha. I typically avoid Republican publications but I figured that I would expand my mind a bit and give the right wing writers a chance. What caught my eye was an article titled "Tax Hikes When You Least Expect Them." Clearly the author's target audience are the tax payers, conservatives, and voters. The question is, what tax hikes?

        The author is expressing concern on the Tax Ratification Elections. What in the world is that? That is exactly the problem he is addressing. Tax Ratification Elections, also know as TRE's, are elections held for school districts that are contemplating an increase on property tax. You think to yourself, well it's for education so it can't be that bad. I am all for max budgeting for education, but the problem is how they are purposing these taxes. According to the article, school boards are only required to hold elections 30 to 90 days after they adopt the new tax rate. So in turn, school districts take advantage of this legal window. School districts are selecting dates for elections on days that voters are least likely to expect them. I believe the author has a valid argument, if the evidence is accurate, because only 3 out of 42 school districts are holding TRE's on November 6th. This is a date that the majority of the voters are showing up. Texas has a 50 to 60% turnout for presidential elections, as for a 10% turnout for local elections. If the voters were more informed in the TRE's, I'm sure we would see a larger turnout next time TRE's are held.

        I believe the author made a good point. He also surprised me that I was actually interested in such a conservative article. In all, the purpose of this article is to reform Tax Ratification Elections to where it's fair for the voters who are going to paying these taxes. Also, to set up an official date for when these elections be held.

The Budget HoeDown

My recent search for an editorial had led me to the Dallas Daily Newspaper. There I came across an editorial named "Texas Budget Gimmickry", where you can view here http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20121002-editorial-texas-budget-gimmickry.ece. The underlying argument I believe is questioning the legitimacy of Governor Rick Perry's Budget Compact. Perry's budget plan has 5 main credentials which are: Truth in budgeting, constitutional limit spending, oppose any new taxes or increases in taxes, preserve a strong Rainy Day fund and cut unnecessary and duplicate government programs. All these are which strong believes in most conservative values.

          The author raises a fair question for his target audience which I believe to the more liberal and concerned tax payers. I can see why he would bring a question of legitimacy because budget specialists have testified that people with advanced degrees have trouble tracking funds in a budget, let alone the average tax payer or legislator. What does this say to me? Perry's plan could just be a shot in the dark and actually hurt us by being too conservative. Perry's plan is to restrict constitutional spending would push cost to local governments while not investing properly to set up a stable economic future. This in turn will force local governments to tax more to fill in the gaps. Texas Democratic Caucasus has called this plan "fiscally irresponsible".

          Another issue the author raised was where the cuts were going to be made. Two sectors that were pointed out are the public schooling system and highway funding. The integrity in the cut backs is being challenged because of the siphoning of taxes from the special purposes fund to the general fund. The general fund is the budget that pays for the expenses and payrolls of government officials. Officials are being paid with money that was intended to solve problems in certain specific sectors. For example, $1 billion of the highway fund was used for other services, forcing North Texas to build major highways with toll financing. Taxes and fees from fuel should be funding these projects. Constitutional limit of spending to the growth of population and inflation would under shoot necessary educational funding for new and unaccounted students. This in turn will force local government again to raise taxes to fill in the holes.

          This is an agreeable argument in my opinion. Perry believes he can fix the budget without raising taxes is a paradox to me. I understand that you can help by cutting spending but make sure they are the proper cuts. Some of the agencies he’s planning on cutting are already in a financial down slope. Perry praises that education is a priority when it comes to funding but continues to restrict funding; classic show of promise and dismiss. We continue to see bonuses and raises for law makers with a revolving system of failure to fix hardly any financial discrepancies. The author makes his argument acceptable but with further research I fully understood his stand point.