Jump to content

PSA: Nov 2023 Texas Constitutional Amendments (14)

bernorange

By bernorange
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4809

Posted
Posted

Been getting those and a lot of campaigning for 4 by realtors.  I've gotten 3 of the same mailer in my little red town from them.  Maybe someone can tell me why prop 4 is so important to realtors?  Because they figure people will start looking for more expensive homes with this additional tax break?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
On 10/25/2023 at 10:11 AM, pyrohornIII said:

Or buying goodwill with the voters by using it to cover the gaping holes in things we've defunded, like parks and education.   

And woefully underfunded universities not in the UT and aggy systems.

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

MrBig 5289

Posted
Posted
On 10/25/2023 at 5:37 AM, bernorange said:

As discussed earlier in the thread, the fund proposed in Prop 5 already exists.  Prop 5 is proposing to rename the existing fund and then allow it to siphon off money from Texas rainy day fund.  Are funds purpose built or or all they all slush funds that can be raided and redirected on a whim?  If an idea is worthy (ie. increasing funding for the existing fund), why can't the legislature appropriate funds for it directly?  What happens when Texas needs that rainy day fund for its intended purpose?

I read the text of the bill that changed it from the National Research University Fund to the Texas University Fund and one thing stuck out to me. Changing from NRUF to TUF drops the requirement for academic institutions to be “a member of the Association of Research Libraries or has a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.”

I know there are requirements from the THECB to be a designated member of the TUF. An institution has to spend $20M in federal and private research funds over the past 3 fiscal years and award 45 research doctoral degrees over the past 3 fiscal years.

My concern is that dropping the ARL or PBK requirements means that any institution can be eligible for these funds if they pump private money into it. For example, if the right leaning University of Austin somehow starts a doctoral program approved by the THECB and is able to give 45 doctoral degrees annually plus get $20M of funding for research from private sources annually for 3 years, this makes them eligible for TUF funding in perpetuity. 
 

The bill changing from NRUF to TUF also drops the requirement that “faculty of the institution needs to be of high quality” as well. 
 

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01595I.htm

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, MrBig said:

I read the text of the bill that changed it from the National Research University Fund to the Texas University Fund and one thing stuck out to me. Changing from NRUF to TUF drops the requirement for academic institutions to be “a member of the Association of Research Libraries or has a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.”

I know there are requirements from the THECB to be a designated member of the TUF. An institution has to spend $20M in federal and private research funds over the past 3 fiscal years and award 45 research doctoral degrees over the past 3 fiscal years.

My concern is that dropping the ARL or PBK requirements means that any institution can be eligible for these funds if they pump private money into it. For example, if the right leaning University of Austin somehow starts a doctoral program approved by the THECB and is able to give 45 doctoral degrees annually plus get $20M of funding for research from private sources annually for 3 years, this makes them eligible for TUF funding in perpetuity. 
 

The bill changing from NRUF to TUF also drops the requirement that “faculty of the institution needs to be of high quality” as well. 
 

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01595I.htm

Is this an acknowledgment that the state has been derelict in its duty to adequately fund higher Ed and has put the majority of its schools in non competitive situations when it comes to hiring high quality faculty? I would love to hear our legislators explain the motivations for change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 76403

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Is this an acknowledgment that the state has been derelict in its duty to adequately fund higher Ed and has put the majority of its schools in non competitive situations when it comes to hiring high quality faculty? I would love to hear our legislators explain the motivations for change.


hbcu’s 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrBig

MrBig 5289

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Is this an acknowledgment that the state has been derelict in its duty to adequately fund higher Ed and has put the majority of its schools in non competitive situations when it comes to hiring high quality faculty? I would love to hear our legislators explain the motivations for change.

It seems redundant that we already have a fund dedicated to this, but now we want to rename it and change how the comptroller controls it. The change adds a trust company (Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust) to administer the fund. 

The trust company is able to “determine the amount available for distribution in accordance with a distribution policy that (1) preserves the purchasing power of the fund’s assets and (2) provides a stable and predictable stream of annual distributions.”

It also allows the fund to include gifts and grants from outside sources instead of solely being from money appropriated by the legislature. I’m sure this will have an impact on how the comptroller and trust determine how these funds get distributed to “preserve its purchasing power.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14252

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/23/2023 at 11:27 AM, Brisketexan said:

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.

I'm on board for all of these takes except 5.  Unless I'm misunderstanding it, this is applying rainy day funds for research university use.  I'd much rather see that go to, say, funding public schools and teacher salaries. 

Isn't 4 the one that's just spending our surplus and at the same time giving a tax break to commercial/investment properties?  While it raises homestead exemption from $40K to $100K it also caps appraised values of property other than homestead.  No thanks.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I'm on board for all of these takes except 5.  Unless I'm misunderstanding it, this is applying rainy day funds for research university use.  I'd much rather see that go to, say, funding public schools and teacher salaries. 

Isn't 4 the one that's just spending our surplus and at the same time giving a tax break to commercial/investment properties?  While it raises homestead exemption from $40K to $100K it also caps appraised values of property other than homestead.  No thanks.

Can't argue with you.  On 5, I'm a "both-and" on your issue.  But make no mistake -- public education in this state is uber fucked, will only get worse, and that's just how they want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14252

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Can't argue with you.  On 5, I'm a "both-and" on your issue.  But make no mistake -- public education in this state is uber fucked, will only get worse, and that's just how they want it.

I guess my thought is that the lower and secondary school need is far greater than at the postgraduate/research level.  Neither is probably appropriate for diversion of rainy day funds, but if we're gonna spend them, they should go to the place where needed more.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85114

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, royiv said:

And not questioning whether or not these propositions are actually addressing a problem.

You mean like making sure we never have a wealth tax despite the fact it’s never been brought up?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16517

Posted
Posted

Fucking Idiocracy.

This. A few of them are solid, long overdue no brainiers. But the gas power subsidy, wealth tax solution in search of a problem, swipe at local control in the ag amendment, and property tax kickbacks are such blatant handouts that it is just one step forward, two steps back

Also why do I even get to vote on what Galveston City does with its Treasurer’s office?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89450

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

The ballot language vs what the amendment does pisses me off.

The natural gas power plant hand out never once mentioned that it was only for natural gas is well... yeah.

And some of the other amendments may have been placed solely on the ballot in order to drive turnout of groups that would support other amendments on the ballot while they were voting. That's the worrisome thing about some of these amendments. None of us are researching what groups got these placed on the ballot, or the money behind those groups/politicians.

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

Bookman 4611

Posted
Posted

Justice Hecht is 74. He said something in some opinion 15+ years ago that I strongly disagreed with and I haven't like him since. I don't even remember what it was.

Anyway, Texans gave him a "fuck you" yesterday and I am slightly pleased with that. Get off the bench old man.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104628

Posted
Posted
Just now, Bookman said:

Justice Hecht is 74. He said something in some opinion 15+ years ago that I strongly disagreed with and I haven't like him since. I don't even remember what it was.

Anyway, Texans gave him a "fuck you" yesterday and I am slightly pleased with that. Get off the bench old man.

Hecht long ago crossed the "totally into sniffing his own farts" rubicon.  Adios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrBig

MrBig 5289

Posted
Posted
On 11/4/2023 at 3:59 PM, MrBig said:

I read the text of the bill that changed it from the National Research University Fund to the Texas University Fund and one thing stuck out to me. Changing from NRUF to TUF drops the requirement for academic institutions to be “a member of the Association of Research Libraries or has a Phi Beta Kappa chapter.”

I know there are requirements from the THECB to be a designated member of the TUF. An institution has to spend $20M in federal and private research funds over the past 3 fiscal years and award 45 research doctoral degrees over the past 3 fiscal years.

My concern is that dropping the ARL or PBK requirements means that any institution can be eligible for these funds if they pump private money into it. For example, if the right leaning University of Austin somehow starts a doctoral program approved by the THECB and is able to give 45 doctoral degrees annually plus get $20M of funding for research from private sources annually for 3 years, this makes them eligible for TUF funding in perpetuity. 
 

The bill changing from NRUF to TUF also drops the requirement that “faculty of the institution needs to be of high quality” as well. 
 

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01595I.htm

I hate to quote myself, but I saw this release about how the University of Austin is now approved to grant bachelor degrees by the THECB. It was released just one day after the approval of the vote in favor of TUF. What a coincidence. Once UATX can grant a certain number of doctoral degrees over the course of a few years, they can have access to TUF funding in perpetuity.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/university-austin-uatx-launch-2024/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, MrBig said:

I hate to quote myself, but I saw this release about how the University of Austin is now approved to grant bachelor degrees by the THECB. It was released just one day after the approval of the vote in favor of TUF. What a coincidence. Once UATX can grant a certain number of doctoral degrees over the course of a few years, they can have access to TUF funding in perpetuity.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/university-austin-uatx-launch-2024/

 

Easier said than done. The free market ph.d I’d flooded. 

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...