The Political Texan

Taxes in Texas (say that 5 times fast)

2007-08-10T22:07:00.000-05:00

For those who are unaware, Texas is one of the few states with no income tax. Consequently, Texas stays in continual debt each fiscal year. Of all the taxes imposed in Texas, the sales tax generates by far the most revenue. However, by its very nature the sales tax is regressive. The sales tax is a constant percentage of a product. A family with a high income spends the same amount of tax on a product than does a low income family, therefore the rich family pays less of their income on the tax than does the poor family. Not too surprising, most of the other taxes in Texas are also regressive. Texas is also rather pathetic in the area of K-12 education due to the lack of funding from the state government (plus the large number of poor families and poverty zones).

One significant way to better the education in Texas is to impose an income tax, as my colleague points out. As Collins quotes, 2/3 of any state income tax goes toward relief of property taxes, while the remaining 1/3 goes toward education. Education is tremendously expensive, especially in a state as large as Texas. An income tax could generate a very large amount of income, potentially greater than or equal to that which is currently generated by the sales tax, depending on how progressive the tax is. Almost every other large state in the United States currently imposes a progressive income tax that generates a significant amount of their revenue. We are not only a minority, but absolutely stubborn about a progressive income tax.

I agree with Collins that our state needs to impose an income tax. It will help out immensely in relieving our debt and increasing our poor levels of education. One addition I have to what Collins' proposes is that the income tax should be progressive. This would undoubtedly take a long time to happen in our conservative state, but I believe this can happen during the next party alignment (in roughly 10-15 years judging from typical trends in history). The progressive income tax would help relieve the burden on poor families of an additional tax. Furthermore, the richer families will be relieved of some of their property taxes, likewise relieving the burden of an additional tax. Taxes Fight!

Texas Constitution

2007-08-03T23:09:00.000-05:00

When I think of the problems in Texas government, the biggest one that comes to mind is the Texas Constitution. Here's a (very) brief history of the Constitutions of Texas. Texas was a part of Mexico, then declared independence, thus becoming the Republic of Texas. Shortly after, Texas joined the Union, and then seceded from the Union to join the Confederacy. After the Civil War, Texas was annexed and has been a State in the U.S. since. During each of these periods there was at least one Constitution written, and after the Civil War there were three Constitutions put out by Texas within 10 years, leading to our most current version, the 1876 Constitution of Texas. We have one of the longest and oldest Constitutions in the U.S. This 130-year old document has been amended over 430 times, making it highly disorganized and lengthy.

Even without the poor structure and organization of the document, there are many problems with the content. The governor has a crucial role, yet not enough power to govern effectively. The executive branch is broken up and horribly fragmented. There are way too many court levels, often overlapping. The "Counties" section (mostly Article 9) was written 130 years ago and is not nearly suitable for the overwhelming majority of urban areas in 21st-Century Texas. And all these problems are just the beginning of a long list of "things that need improvement."

But why don't we just improve it? Some people have been very passionate about that question and have written entirely new consitutions (comprehensive reform), but oftentimes the comprehensive reform becomes a piecemeal effort resulting in small changes and amendments or a complete rejection. Sometimes the governor has refused a reform (1917), sometimes the voters have refused (1919, 1975), and in some cases the Legislature has simply ignored a very hard effort (1999). Through all this rejection of reform, we can see that the Texas electorate is satisfied with subtle changes here and there, where a complete reform would seem unnecessary.

I stand on the side in favor of a complete reform of the Texas Constitution. Texas Representative Mowery in 1997 did a fantastic job modernizing and clarifying (eliminating dead wood) the Constitution, but an all-out new constitution seems like the best solution. It would take a lot or work (huge emphasis on "lot") to comprehensively rewrite the constitution, but that would certainly be in the job description of a lawmaker. Previously, commissions (roughly 30-40 members) have been put together to create a new constitution, but the commissions have lacked leadership and haven't finished on time. If the people are truly educated about the quality of our current constitution and the dire need of a new one, a proper commission could be assembled to propose a new constitution. The 1999 effort by Rep. Junell and Senator Ratliff looked great on paper, but the revision was not taken seriously and was never even considered by a committee specifically assigned to evaluate the proposal.

Some argue that we need more "open-minded" liberals in the electorate and Legislature before a comprehensive consitutional revision will go through, but I really believe that, despite the sociodemographics of the electorate and Legislature, if the electorate and Legislature were truly educated about the flaws of the Texas Constitution, something substantial would definitely be done.

"(Voters know) that any document that you have to amend 20 times every other year is broke. It's sort of a Texas tragedy, actually, that we can't seem to come to grips with the fact that we need a new basic document going into the next century and the next millenium."
-Senator Bill Ratliff

Church Slowly Seeping into State

2007-07-26T00:15:00.000-05:00

Separation of Church and State has been somewhat of a legal doctrine in our country since its introduction by Thomas Jefferson two centuries ago, but it has been a continual debate in the past 50 years. The Texas legislature has just approved new laws potentially making it easier for religion, "Church," to become a part of "State." There have been three new laws:

1) "Under God" has been added to the Texas pledge, which is recited right after the U.S. pledge.

2) The State Board of Education is to create a curriculum for elective Bible courses studying the history and literature of the Bible.

3) Interestingly named "The Religious Viewpoints Anti-Discrimination Act," this law requires public school districts to "adopt policies specifically allowing spontaneous religious expression by students."

In my opinion, the first law is acceptable, the second law could be borderline, and the third law is straight-up confusing.

About the first law, as long as the pledge to the U.S. flag contains the phrase "Under God," there is little argument for the inappropriateness of this inclusion. It certainly doesn't seem necessary to include that phrase, but it is constitutionally acceptable. About the second law, the State Board of Education must make sure these courses focus simply on the history and literature of the Bible and that all state-wide courses are structured similarly. If this were a required course instead of an elective, there would be a big fuss, but as an elective and as a bible-education based class, this law seems perfectly constitutional.

However, the third law may arouse more problems than solutions. First off, what does that even mean? This law would create a "limited open forum" in which students can openly discuss religious issues. The law also contains a model policy suggests that older student leaders should be the speakers of these forums. Essentially, the law now allows a student to bring in a religious viewpoint into a formal discussion, and the teacher or officials must treat this as equal to a secular viewpoint. The school district can choose the student leaders with this "ability" to speak a religious viewpoint.

The third law is already under attack, most notably by Doug Laycock, a professor of law, claiming that the law attempts to "create school prayer with plausible deniability," and will lead to lawsuits across the state. In my opinion, there is a major problem with this third law. What exactly constitutes as a "limited open forum"? In a religious discussion, where will the line be drawn? How will this ensure that no single religious viewpoint (or viewpoints) dominate over minority religious viewpoints? The law is intended to give students the right to express their faith, but the law instead, if implemented poorly, would create discrimination, confusion, and many lawsuits.

What happened to separation of church and state? These laws are indeed intended to eliminate the possibility of religious discrimination within the school district, but will instead create more opportunities for religious discrimination, potentially leading to a dominant religious viewpoint in a particular school district and partial disregard for separation of church and state.

We'll see how things play out when these laws jump into the scene next month.

Obama's Other Side

2007-07-25T23:05:00.000-05:00

I recently read a post in the Lone Star Times blog -- a criticism of Barack Obama's claims in a recent presidential campaign trail, regarding Obama's position on Iraq. Unfortunately for Obama, he has made himself out to be a flip flopper on the Iraq war; he was against a quick withdrawal of US troops in Iraq, but then voted against any funding toward those very troops. Also, Obama claims we are in Iraq for humanitarian purposes, which "bigjolly" from Lone Star Times quickly criticizes and corrects. We invaded Iraq because it posed a direct threat to our nation, not solely from a humanitarian motive. We are still there in order to stabilize Iraq, even though the cost is great, still not simply out of a humanitarian purpose (otherwise we would send troops to several other genocide regions around the world).

The post continues on to reveal another distaste for Obama. I don't have anything against Obama; I have seen/heard some of his speeches and he is a very well-presented man, which makes him widely appealing, especially here in Austin to my college friends. Therefore, I enjoyed reading this post from someone opposed to Obama in order to get another perspective on the potential president.

Lesson to be learned?

Politics are nasty. Often campaigning has little to do about the content of the speeches, but in how it is presented and how much money is spent. Be aware of these things and look deeper into what candidates are actually saying. If they are not wise with their words during campaigning, one cannot expect them to be wise in their decisions as a leader.

Who needs politics? Texas does.

2007-07-19T20:02:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my first attempt at a political blog. I have refused to affiliate myself with politics for the first 20 years of my life - there is obvious corruption in the field, which I previously viewed as a barrier for my political interest. However, as crude and nasty as they are, politics and government are necessary to run a far-from-perfect world. I am currently residing in the great state of Texas, so I will focus my attention in this blog to Texas State & Local government.

Lance Armstrong, world cycling champion from Austin, is now becoming significantly involved in politics by holding presidential candidate forums on cancer for the 2008 presidential election. You can read more about it here. It often takes some drastic personal experience to become a political activist, an event in one's life that awakens an unquenchable fire. For Armstrong, his battle over testicular cancer has led him to a continual support for cancer research.

For me, I am still fresh in the process of all-things-political and am still searching for something worthy for which to stand firm. I have a particular interest in legislation on the issue of abortion. One particular article in the Houston Chronicle discusses how State Senator Dan Patrick is willing to pay women $500 to adopt rather than abort. This "solution" did not and cannot work, but it is at least an attempt in the anti-abortion direction. A more practical and reasonable anti-abortion effort by Senator Patrick can be found here - a law banning abortion in the case that Roe v. Wade is overturned.

Feel free to post a comment about these articles, provided you do so in a polite and reasonable manner.
Have a good day!