Jump to content

PSA: Nov 2023 Texas Constitutional Amendments (14)

bernorange

By bernorange
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
Posted

Thanks for posting. It’s always interesting how the 1-2 sentence summary is written for each item since that is the only due diligence most voters will read. Then when you read the deeper dive, it’s always about giving money to special interests.

The power generation industry needs taxpayer funded loans at 3% from to build and improve natural gas power generation plants? Why don’t they use the profits they earn from us during freezes or heat waves? Now we get to effectively pay them more money out of our pockets because why not?

However I feel about most referendum items, voters should look to vote yes on raising retired teachers annuity payments. Some of retired teachers are living off the same exact retirement amount that started when they retired decades ago. There have been zero cost of living adjustments over the years to help them. And many of them do not receive social security which does have a cost of living increase.

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Since this topic has generated so much excitement, I'll throw in my 2 cents for what it is worth (not much, I know):

Proposition 1 - Yes.  Seems like a no brainer

Proposition 2 - No.  I don't like special exemptions.

Proposition 3 - Yes. Nip stupidity in the bud.

Proposition 4 - Yes?  This one seems complicated but appears to put safeguards and restrictions on the taxing power.

Proposition 5 - No? I don't understand the need for this one, but is sounds like a great way for insiders to funnel funny money around.  What is the National Research University Fund and how does it currently work?  I don't know (yet?).

Proposition 6 - Yes?  Seems like a good idea - as long as the board that oversees the fund is responsible.  What oversight or guardrails will exist?  Is the board elected or appointed?

Proposition 7 - No.  I don't care for this intersection of government and free enterprise.

Proposition 8 - No.  Let the market handle this.

Proposition 9 - Yes?  I'm don't know the history of this fund or if it's really justified, but I'm guessing it probably is.

Proposition 10 - No. I don't like special exemptions.

Proposition 11 - Yes.  Choice is good.

Proposition 12 - No.  Let's not make corruption/grift/graft easier.

Proposition 13 - No for a variety of reasons.

Proposition 14 - Yes?  What oversight or guardrails are there on how this money will be spent? Who is spending the money?  Some lawmakers going to get rich selling their land holdings to the State?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11777

Posted
Posted

So many of these are just obvious ways for the government to funnel money into the hands of donors and special interests.

They aren’t even trying (did they ever?) it anymore.
Letting pharma get a free pass on manufacturing equipment? Are you kidding? What’s so god damn special about them? If you’re going to do that might as well let Joe Blow construction not have to pay any property taxes on the value of all their yellow steel heavy equipment. It’s only fair. Or any other business. Why not just get rid of all taxes? Aren’t they all bad?

And the gas plants amendment is also so completely laughable and just a truly stupendous example of one party rot that we have here in Texas.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45499

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bernorange said:

Since this topic has generated so much excitement, I'll throw in my 2 cents for what it is worth (not much, I know):

Proposition 1 - Yes.  Seems like a no brainer

Proposition 2 - No.  I don't like special exemptions.

Proposition 3 - Yes. Nip stupidity in the bud.

Proposition 4 - Yes?  This one seems complicated but appears to put safeguards and restrictions on the taxing power.

Proposition 5 - No? I don't understand the need for this one, but is sounds like a great way for insiders to funnel funny money around.  What is the National Research University Fund and how does it currently work?  I don't know (yet?).

Proposition 6 - Yes?  Seems like a good idea - as long as the board that oversees the fund is responsible.  What oversight or guardrails will exist?  Is the board elected or appointed?

Proposition 7 - No.  I don't care for this intersection of government and free enterprise.

Proposition 8 - No.  Let the market handle this.

Proposition 9 - Yes?  I'm don't know the history of this fund or if it's really justified, but I'm guessing it probably is.

Proposition 10 - No. I don't like special exemptions.

Proposition 11 - Yes.  Choice is good.

Proposition 12 - No.  Let's not make corruption/grift/graft easier.

Proposition 13 - No for a variety of reasons.

Proposition 14 - Yes?  What oversight or guardrails are there on how this money will be spent? Who is spending the money?  Some lawmakers going to get rich selling their land holdings to the State?

The ones that stand out to me:

 

Proposition 6 – SJR 75 "The constitutional amendment creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state."

Yes.  This has to happen.  Water infrastructure in this state is abysmal (as we fucking saw in the last couple of years) and people keep moving here.

 

Proposition 7 – SJR 93 "The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities."

What it means: If approved, this resolution would create a state fund allowing officials to distribute loans and grants to companies with the aim of building new natural gas-fueled power plants.

No.  Get fucked.

 

Proposition 11 – SJR 32 "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities."

Yes.  Parks are good.  

 

Proposition 13 – HJR 107 "The constitutional amendment to increase the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges."

Um, fuck no.  

 

Proposition 14 – SJR 74 "The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used for the creation and improvement of state parks."

What it means: Texas ranks 35th in the nation for state park acreage per capita, according to a report by Environment Texas. This pressured lawmakers to propose investing more than $1 billion for state parks, which advocates said would create “a new golden age” for the park system. The funding would go to buying more land for the state parks system, which celebrates its 100th anniversary this year

ABSOLUTELY

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Proposition 6 – SJR 75 "The constitutional amendment creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state."

Yes.  This has to happen.  Water infrastructure in this state is abysmal (as we fucking saw in the last couple of years) and people keep moving here

"Water projects" feels very vague to me. What are the projects going to do? I see rivers running dry and business/residents/golf courses continuing to up their usage. Before we pump more water out of the ground, that is not naturally being replaced, we should land on priorities. 

I don't trust the state of Texas to plan for the future.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Evil Bill Obrien

Evil Bill Obrien 3193

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bernorange said:

Proposition 5 - No? I don't understand the need for this one, but is sounds like a great way for insiders to funnel funny money around.  What is the National Research University Fund and how does it currently work?  I don't know (yet?).

This is basically the table scraps the Lege is throwing to the public universities in the state that aren't named UT and A&M and don't have access to PUF monies. Tech, UH, Texas State, UNT, etc all get a chance to take part in this and get a little extra funding boost using interest and investment returns from the states rainy day fund. Seems like a decent enough idea. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

"Water projects" feels very vague to me. What are the projects going to do? I see rivers running dry and business/residents/golf courses continuing to up their usage. Before we pump more water out of the ground, that is not naturally being replaced, we should land on priorities. 

I don't trust the state of Texas to plan for the future.

It's not a groundwater pumping amendment.  It's for developing/improving water infrastructure (every drop of water not lost through leaky pipe is an extra drop in our supply), and about developing different sources of water:

Quote

It would also support the newly created New Water Supply for Texas Fund, which is designed to implement innovative water supply strategies such as marine and brackish water desalination; oil and gas produced water treatment projects; and aquifer storage and recovery projects. 

The last one isn't about producing water that originates from aquifers, it's about using aquifers as storage mechanisms (inject water when you have it up top, draw from what you injected when you need it).  This prop is the kind of thing the legislature SHOULD be doing - managing the business of the state, and husbanding and improving our resources.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluto

bluto 4894

Posted
Posted

Prop 4 is an absolute boondoggle of hastily drafted legislation with zero input from knowledgeable people. The part about adding 3 members to the appraisal district board of directors could result in a serious shit show as any measure/proposal as those 3 members are super power…. Anything needing their vote requires 2/3 of them to agree even if the other appointed members are unanimous. Get a couple burn it down fuck nuts on the board and it’s a total shit show. 
 

the appraisal caps on non homestead part was drafted past the 11th hour and is loaded with issues, every county will interpret it differently it’s so vague but has massive implications for small property owners. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
  • Author
Posted
36 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

"Water projects" feels very vague to me. What are the projects going to do? I see rivers running dry and business/residents/golf courses continuing to up their usage. Before we pump more water out of the ground, that is not naturally being replaced, we should land on priorities. 

I don't trust the state of Texas to plan for the future.

Clicking through from the Tribune's explanation, I found the text of the Amendment here:

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SJ00075F.htm

Quote

...
b)  The administrator of the Texas water fund may use the
      fund only to transfer money to other funds or accounts administered
      by the Texas Water Development Board or that board's successor in
      function. Money transferred from the Texas water fund to a fund or
      account may be spent without further legislative appropriation in
      the manner provided by general law governing the use of money in the
      fund or account to which the money was transferred.  The
      administrator may restore to the fund money transferred from the
      fund and deposited to the credit of another fund or account.  
      Legislative appropriation is not required for the administrator to
      transfer money from or restore money to the fund, including the
      transfer of money from the fund to or the restoration of the money
      from:
                   (1)  the Water Assistance Fund No. 480;
                   (2)  the New Water Supply for Texas Fund;
                   (3)  the Rural Water Assistance Fund No. 301; or
                   (4)  the Statewide Water Public Awareness Account.
...

After reading more about it, it seems like a no brainer Yes for me.

 

21 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

This is basically the table scraps the Lege is throwing to the public universities in the state that aren't named UT and A&M and don't have access to PUF monies. Tech, UH, Texas State, UNT, etc all get a chance to take part in this and get a little extra funding boost using interest and investment returns from the states rainy day fund. Seems like a decent enough idea. 

I guess what confused me was the renaming of a Fund that seemingly already exists for the stated purpose.  So the only real difference would be that the renamed fund gets to siphon off funds from the rainy day fund?  I clicked through and found the text of the amendment here:

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HJ00003F.htm

I don't know enough about the economic stabilization fund to determine if this is wise or not.  My instinct is that while a noble goal, funding a fund like this should be done directly/straightforward, not backdoored by siphoning from a different fund that has a different purpose.

 

11 minutes ago, bluto said:

Prop 4 is an absolute boondoggle of hastily drafted legislation ...

It does seem like a convoluted Frankenstein mish-mash of different ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11777

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

"Water projects" feels very vague to me. What are the projects going to do? I see rivers running dry and business/residents/golf courses continuing to up their usage. Before we pump more water out of the ground, that is not naturally being replaced, we should land on priorities. 

I don't trust the state of Texas to plan for the future.


I think you may be over thinking this one / you’re jaded AF. 

 

IMO anything to fund water projects is good. Considering that climate change and the population boom we are going to need a crazy amount of water and we can’t just keep pumping groundwater.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

I think you may be over thinking this one / you’re jaded AF. 

He is, but I don't begrudge him the "jaded AF" element.  That's why I wanted to provide some actual explanation.  Water is absolutely a priority, and it is the kind of bread-and-butter stuff our state gov't SHOULD be paying lots of attention to.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17449

Posted
Posted

I read them. My gut instinct is no to all of them because 80% of them sound like ways to give money to special interests, and I assume the remaining ones are bad too because Texas. Also, requiring constitutional amendments to do basic governance is stupid. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Post Oak

Post Oak 20187

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:


I think you may be over thinking this one / you’re jaded AF. 

 

IMO anything to fund water projects is good. Considering that climate change and the population boom we are going to need a crazy amount of water and we can’t just keep pumping groundwater.

 

I don't have the link but this bill would help to improve just basic water transmission lines.  I read that Texas loses 12% of its yearly water average just from breaks in lines. 1B is a good start but it's not near enough. I doubt 20B would be enough.

Edited by Post Oak
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 minutes ago, YChang said:

And please add thoughtful pro/con articles talking about the props here as well!

FWIW:  The Tribune article I linked in the OP breaks down each amendment and includes links to the gov website where you can find the text of the actual amendment. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11777

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He is, but I don't begrudge him the "jaded AF" element.  That's why I wanted to provide some actual explanation.  Water is absolutely a priority, and it is the kind of bread-and-butter stuff our state gov't SHOULD be paying lots of attention to.

 

47 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

I don't have the link but this bill would help to improve just basic water transmission lines.  I read that Texas loses 12% of its yearly water average just from breaks in lines. 1B is a good start but it's not near enough. I doubt 20B would be enough.

I agree with both of these.

I can’t begrudge someone for just voting no to everything our legislature puts in front of us bc the people on it are mostly assholes looking to fuck us all to enrich themselves, their family, and their buddies using the cover of Christianity.

 

In regards to water infrastructure, we are grossly lacking. The last big push was in the 1950’s. Hell, we still have clay sewer pipes, brick manholes, and asbestos drinking water pipes older than our parents / grandparents still in use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, tokamak said:

Why the fuck am I voting on parks in El Paso or the county treasurer in Galveston?

Because long ago, we wrote a VERY detailed constitution, that so micromanages shit that to FIX such micromanaging, we have to enact constitutional amendments.

We should chuck the whole thing and have a new constitutional convention.   

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  I crack myself up.  Can you imagine a constitution drafted under this regime?  It would say shit like "voting in the Republican primary entitles a citizen to a $500 payment from the state treasury.  Voting in the Democratic primary is a criminal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tokamak said:

Why the fuck am I voting on parks in El Paso or the county treasurer in Galveston?

For whatever reason, the current county treasurer in Galveston win by running on a platform last year to abolish the job. Surprisingly he has said that he wouldn't take the $120K salary that he's entitled to earn.  I guess he found some state reps to agree with him and they placed it on the statewide referendum.

The claim is that other departments can absorb the role without a loss to the county. 

Part of me feels like that if Galveston doesn't want a county treasurer, then I'm ok with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17449

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

For whatever reason, the current county treasurer in Galveston win by running on a platform last year to abolish the job. Surprisingly he has said that he wouldn't take the $120K salary that he's entitled to earn.  I guess he found some state reps to agree with him and they placed it on the statewide referendum.

The claim is that other departments can absorb the role without a loss to the county. 

Part of me feels like that if Galveston doesn't want a county treasurer, then I'm ok with it.

Seems like it would be easier to just abolish Galveston. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Can you imagine a constitution drafted under this regime?  It would say shit like "voting in the Republican primary entitles a citizen to a $500 payment from the state treasury.  Voting in the Democratic primary is a criminal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

Except that would actually fix the major problem in this state. The Republican candidates would move center if we all voted in the Republican primary.

Speaking of, if you're in a district where your Republican state rep voted for impeachment, voting in the primary would be a good move even if you ain't R. The primary challenges are coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15492

Posted
Posted
On 10/9/2023 at 9:28 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

"Water projects" feels very vague to me. What are the projects going to do? I see rivers running dry and business/residents/golf courses continuing to up their usage. Before we pump more water out of the ground, that is not naturally being replaced, we should land on priorities. 

I don't trust the state of Texas to plan for the future.

The water projects being developed are the ones set out in the State Water Plan.  And that is compiled by engineers and staff from various water suppliers and utilities.  So we're talking about new reservoirs, desalination, direct reuse (i.e., taking water that is discharged from wastewater treatment facilities and directly reusing it), etc.  With climate change and the continued growth of this state's population, it's desperately needed.

The funds would be managed by the Water Development Board, which is probably the single most competent/least corrupt of the various statewide governmental agencies.

My default is to vote against constitutional amendments.  But this is a good one.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted
On 10/9/2023 at 9:47 AM, Biff Tannen said:

Proposition 7 – SJR 93 "The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities."

What it means: If approved, this resolution would create a state fund allowing officials to distribute loans and grants to companies with the aim of building new natural gas-fueled power plants.

 

I was told that oil and gas doesn’t need subsidies. Interesting 

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2259

Posted
Posted

I'm not a fan of letting folks play by different rules, with the one exception being the Galveston County treasurer removal. The joint resolution is written so that it only passes if the statewide AND Galveston County vote is a yes. I'm willing to let the county voters have the say in their government. If they want to save on tax dollars/have their finances fucked up, that's their choice. Just don't expect a bailout. This is my ballot

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. Yes
  4. Yes
  5. No
  6. No
  7. No
  8. Yes
  9. Yes
  10. No
  11. Yes
  12. Yes
  13. No
  14. Yes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

League of Women Voters Guide: 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ClubExpressClubFiles/334869/documents/LWV-AA-VG-2023-11-ENG_fn_998529781.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIA6MYUE6DNNNCCDT4J&Expires=1698077308&response-content-disposition=inline%3B filename%3DLWV-AA-VG-2023-11-ENG_fn.pdf&Signature=yL7Y7V73A4JY9%2BgR9mI%2B6TmgiTQ%3D

May take:

1. Right to engage in farming/ranching/timber production/etc.
No. Seems like a ploy to strip power of cities/counties of power to regulate and we've gone this long without this amendment. 

2. Optional tax break for child care.
Yes. Would possibly help lower costs for something that I think it's a public and economic good, and it's still an optional tax break for the districts.

3. Outlaw a wealth tax.
Yes. Seems like a can of worms we don't want to open. 

4. Property tax break
Yes. Puts in place a 20% cap on non-homestead property under $5 million in value. Bumps homestead from $40,000 to $100,000. 

5. Texas University Fund
Yes. Provides research grants to Texas State, Texas Tech, UH, and UNT. We need to do anything to boost universities in the state.

6. Texas Water Fund
Yes. We needz water. This helps.

7. Texas Energy Fund
No. Conflicted -- we need to "fix the grid" but this does it by diving into natural gas. Solar/wind are not eligible for funds. Seems like a handout to the people that fucked us over in the freeze.

8. Broadband Infrastructure Fund
Yes. Texans all over the state should be able to quickly access dank memes.

9. Cost of Living Adjustments for retired teachers
Yes. Wish I knew more about the logistics of how TRS works but I'm good with retired teachers seeing a bump.

10. Exempt tax on medical inventory
No. Uh, what? This sounds like some sweetheart lobby deal that weasled its way through.

11. El Paso to issue park bonds
Yes. This should not be the sort of thing that's in a state constitution.

12. Abolition of Galveston treasurer
Yes. Feels like a weird Republican ploy for something I don't understand, but if the county wants it, then sure.

13. Increase mandatory retirement age for judges.
No. 

14. Parks conservation fund.
Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted

Prop 1: NO.   It’s too broad, and could even limit the power of the state to limit harmful activities (that CAFO next door, letting rivers of pig shit flow onto your land?  Good luck using a statute to enforce against that, that activity is now arguably constitutionally protected – they’ll sure take that position).

Prop 2: YES.  This creates something of a back-door subsidy for child care facilities, which we desperately need.

Prop 3:  NO.  This is just a stunt to say “no more taxes.”  Texas already has shitty taxing options available, no need to put an amendment in place to make them even shittier.

Prop 4:  MAYBE?  It’s a lot of silliness and trade-offs, and is temporary.  I dunno.  Vote how you want.  I’ll probably vote No, just because anything this Lege does that isn’t plain as day is actually fuckery (and much of their fuckery is plain as day as well).

Prop 5: probably YES.  Better funding of our other public universities (not Texas or aggy) is needed.  Still seems overly complex, but I’m a tentative yes.

Prop 6: STRONG YES.  This is actually the bread-and-butter of what our legislature should be handling.  The TWDB is a good agency all in all, and the projects it will fund are quite needed.  Water is our looming crisis (actually, it’s a crisis already).

Prop 7: NO.  We privatize profits, we socialize costs?  Fuck that.  We built a privatized electric grid, this is their John Galt dream.  Let it rise and fall on John Galt principles.  It’s a shitty model, they don’t need our taxpayer funds to fix it and insulate profit-takers from risk.

Prop 8: YES, but I hear the arguments against it.  I think broadband is a public utility and should be funded as such.  But our lege wants to make it a hybrid, and will probably fuck this up.  That said….we need the infrastructure.

Prop 9: YES.  We need to have reasonable funding of our teacher retirement system, including being able to make COLA adjustments.

Prop 10:  MAYBE.  I see why it’s proposed (make stockpiled medical equipment, like masks, tax-exempt), but I doubt it will really work that way.

Prop 11: YES.  It just adds El Paso County to the list of counties with reclamation districts that can develop parks.  We need this because our Constitution is overly specific about that shit.

Prop 12: NO.  Don’t eliminate county treasurer.  Separation of powers matters.

Prop 13: NO.  For fuck’s sake, 70 or 75 is plenty old enough for a judge.  GTFO after that age.  We don’t need to raise it to 79.

Prop 14: YES.  State parks is a core function, something the lege should pay attention to.  So, I support this one.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2259

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bernorange said:

* bump *

Early voting starts today.

~~~

Very similar to my initial thoughts.  Would you mind sharing your reasoning on 6 (discussed a good bit in this thread), 8 and 12?

6 - No. There's a large portion of Texas that doesn't process their water directly through a city. Lots of "water supply corporations" that charge their customers a ton of money for basic water needs. My sister lives under one of them and routinely pays $600-800 a month for minimal usage of water. I'm talking like washing clothes, showers, bath, cooking, etc. It's hard to believe that giving them more funding will result in normal water rates. This one I'm actually open to changing if I get the right information but for now I'm voting no.

8 - Yes. It's hard to believe that some places considered developing countries have high speed wifi on every corner of land yet my parents are still on dial up internet. Our broadband infrastructure is a disgrace.

12 - Yes. This one was tough for me because I voted no on other propositions due to it allowing certain people to play by different rules from everyone else. I despise that stuff. Treat me well or treat me poorly, just as long as you treat me the way you treat everyone else. But this one is written so the final vote depends on the outcome in Galveston County. 99% of Texans could vote yes but if Galveston County votes no then the prop fails. So I say fuck it, let Galveston County decide for themselves. If they save money by doing this then good for them. If they set themselves up for financial ruin then too bad so sad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8348

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

6 - No. ... This one I'm actually open to changing if I get the right information but for now I'm voting no.

See post #13 for a more thorough look at proposal 6. 

With respect to #8,  I understand your position, I just don't believe that government should be subsidizing private enterprise in this manner.  For #12 - I'm in Galveston County and I'm voting no (reasoning explained above in post #3).  Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  I didn't ask you to challenge you, more to stimulate some conversation and make sure the thread stays visible for Surly peeps that had not seen it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UrbanAchiever

UrbanAchiever 276

Posted
Posted

Yes to Prop 2 for sure. We need to pull every lever possible to keep child care facilities operational and in business. They're doing critically important work on shoe-string budgets so any source of relief is desperately needed. There are bogus exemptions out there (hello ag exemption). This isn't one of them. Not even close.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
Posted

@FirstTimeCaller

Quote

3. Outlaw a wealth tax.
Yes. Seems like a can of worms we don't want to open. 

Hard no for me. 100% No one in Texas is calling for a wealth tax. Definitely no one that has any power. 

And voting No doesn't mean that you support a wealth tax. Voting No just means that you don't want all of the foolishness of adding more unnecessary amendments to the Texas constitution. Our politicians need to deal with real problems not giving us solutions for problems that don't exist. 

It's also safe to assume that a wealthy donor(s) is behind this amendment. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, UrbanAchiever said:

There are bogus exemptions out there (hello ag exemption). This isn't one of them. Not even close.

Jesus don't get me started here. Family member on a piece of property worth about 3x mine but has taxes about considerably less than what I pay thanks to the ag exemption. Meanwhile, my AISD taxes are being funneled to their districts while my kid goes to a school with portable buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

@FirstTimeCaller

Hard no for me. 100% No one in Texas is calling for a wealth tax. Definitely no one that has any power. 

And voting No doesn't mean that you support a wealth tax. Voting No just means that you don't want all of the foolishness of adding more unnecessary amendments to the Texas constitution. Our politicians need to deal with real problems not giving us solutions for problems that don't exist. 

It's also safe to assume that a wealthy donor(s) is behind this amendment. 

This is the one I think I waffled the most on. I could be argued either way. I mean, hell, property taxes are a wealth tax. It's essentially the same thing just applied to different property.

Edited by FirstTimeCaller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...