Texas voters: Here's your constitutional amendment voting recommendation

To go out of order? The biggie is Proposition 4. Vote NO, NO, and NO. Any librul or alleged leftist organization telling you to vote yes is full of it. I covered this a month ago, and specifically called out Lone Star "Left" for saying vote yes. It's a boondoggle fiscally AND, even worse, for anybody truly to the left? It's horribly antienvironmental. Since then, I noted something worse: The state doesn't even know how much water these "data centers" will use, and it has basically no regulations to that end.

Lone Star "Left," per Cactus Ed Abbey, seems to believe in growth for growth's sake without admitting that's the theology of the cancer cell.

The Texas branch of League of Women Voters is also wrong. 

So is the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, clearly proving itself to still be Gang Green neoliberals in the environmental organization world, in an official support with no real analysis. 

I mean, that piece even admits voters are being offered a pig in a poke:

At least 50% of the annual allocations must go toward the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas (SWIFT). The New Water Supply for Texas Fund supports various projects - some of which are highly controversial - that add to the total volume of water available to Texans, such as reservoir construction, seawater desalination, reuse of oil and gas wastewater (“produced water”), a statewide water conveyance system, acquisition of water from out of state, water and wastewater reuse, and aquifer storage and recovery. 

The focus of the SWIFT is solely on water infrastructure projects identified in the State Water Plan. This is an important accountability measure because it means there must be some level of support for the project locally for it to appear in the State Water Plan. However, there is no requirement for how this part of the funding must be split between the New Water Supply for Texas Fund and SWIFT.

But still says vote yes. 

OK, now the rest. Some I'll have an "OK" with the yes. One or two may be absolute yeses. Many of the "no" votes have "Wingnut virtue signaling" as part of them. That's because these already not only don't exist but may be constitutionally barred, depending on who's interpreting Tex-ass' constitution and related legal issues at hand.

That said, per the graphic, most of the answer is "no." 

Prop 1, for dedicated funds for Texas State Technical College? Yes is OK. 

Prop 2 on barring capital gains tax? Wingnut virtue signaling. Vote no.

Prop 3, denying bail. Wingnut cruelty, and the moral equivalent of assuming guilt in advance. NO.

Prop 5, on property tax exemption for animal feed at a feed store? A quasi-private member bill carve-out. No.

Prop 6, barring securities taxes?  Wingnut virtue signaling. Vote no

Prop 7, for benefits for surviving spouses of certain veterans? Yes is OK. Reason I don't say a flat yes is, are domestic partners excluded? What happens if SCOTUS overturns Obergefell? 

Prop 8, banning estate taxes?  Wingnut virtue signaling. Vote no

Prop 9, exemption to tangible assets on personal property taxes? Vote no; not only is the loophole and possible abuse an issue, but this should be something addressed outside of amendment if possible. 

Prop 10, property tax exemption for a house totally destroyed by fire? Written poorly, as "temporary" is not defined. Vote no.

Prop 11, the jump in elderly / disabled extra homestead exemption from $10K to $60K? Too big a jump at one time. Vote no.

Prop 12, changes to State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Vote no if for no other reason that it removes the State Bar of Texas from naming two members. This is a squeeze on them and the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. Lone Star Left missed that.

Prop 13, upping the homestead exemption? Vote no. Lone Star Left notes it offers nothing to renters, then says "next time around." Wrong.

Prop 14, funding the Dementia Institute? Sounds noble, but vote no for this as a special carve-out.

Prop 15, parental rights? I'm torn. I can see where wingnut activist parents might weaponize this. I can also see how parents of kids with sexual dysphoria could use it to fight back against the likes of Kenny Boy Paxton. No recommendation, as I've not yet decided myself.

Prop 16, that only US citizens can vote? Wingnut virtue signaling. Vote no 

Prop 17, Strangeabbott's Operation Lone Star property tax handout in border counties? Vote no. 

==

Texas branch of League of Conservation Voters no longer has a website. (What links off Facebook ain't theirs.) Their Hucksterman hasn't been updated since 2022. Green Party of Texas, despite having a quarterly state executive meeting last week, has taken no public position on Prop 4 or the other amendments. 

"Poor me" in the oil patch: stop me if you've heard this

Texas Monthly has a long read about the details of the latest oil bust and why this one's going to be bad.

Yeah, it may be, but I've heard this stuff before.

First, I'm old enough to remember $10/bbl oil just before the turn of the century, and how that lasted a long time.

And, adjusted for inflation, per the chart below, WTI was below $40/bbl for SEVEN YEARS, setting aside that brief blip just above the $40 mark in 1995.

Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart

So, let's stop this nonsense, Texas Monthly. Surely somebody on your editorial staff is old enough to know better.

What's changed is that the fracking revolution led MANY companies like Pioneer Energy to be formed, or if on the books as small companies, to greedily expand. Hey, Scott Sheffield, Pioneer Energy CEO and Texas Monthly's fracking whisperer? Nobody forced you to make yourself into the Aubrey McClendon of the oil patch, including, just like him, Ponzi-scheming yourself on leases that you have to drill or lose.

Indeed, a year ago, DeSmog Blog caught Scott Sheffield in either huge self-delusion or else huge fibbing when he claimed fracking was profitable at $30/bbl.

You're right that there is no such thing as a free market, not just in the oil patch but elsewhere. BUT ... until Railroad Commission chairman and nutbar-in-chief Wayne Christian refused to bail you out with proration, I don't recall you saying that the lack of a free market was a problem.

As for the whys of Wayno fighting proration? I'll take him at his word, discounted the 50 percent he normally should be. North Dakota, New Mexico and other states that have also had fracking-related oil booms may have found it difficult to adopt proration in their states. They may also, to the degree their state budgets have become more oil-dependent than Texas', decided they didn't want to, or didn't think they could afford to, prorate. In any case, whether or not Wayno tried that hard, he couldn't get a proration deal. And, within the US, the oil production world has changed since 1970.

In addition, Texas Monthly should be asking how big of a polluter whining Pioneer is. Hell, even the New York Times can ask that of frackers in general, along with other questions.

Yes, Texas is still the biggie. But states 2-10, combined, produce as much oil as it does. Just five years ago, though, New Mexico was way lower, and Colorado and Oklahoma a fair amount lower. Seven years ago, North Dakota was way lower.

Long long ago? In the 1980s, in a situation like this, per graph at this site, Texas only had to worry about Alaska. In the 1990s and 2000-oughts, then offshore production was an issue. And, though it's declined again, especially after the Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling has two other issues. One, it's federally controlled, so Wayno has no control over it, nor do 49 other states. Second, offshore wells? You won't shut them down, period.

LONG long ago? The misty mythic 1930s? Contra Sheffield, and contra the Texas Monthly reporter who didn't call him out on it, everybody who knows anything about Texas crude knows that the RRC largely failed to control production then. People pumped and sold hot oil and laughed at the state. It took the feds and force to accomplish anything.

If this DOES change everything? It won't be by itself. Per Sheffield, it will be the rise of cars, plus, we hope to doorknob, real climate change legislation that includes a carbon tax and carbon tariff at the federal level, plus, we hope to doorknob, states and third parties winning lawsuits against Big Oil.

Did the Texas GOP knowingly cause the budget shortfall?

The answer is quite arguably, yes, a majority of the current $27 billion Texas budget shortfall has a deliberate cause.

It all stems from the revisions of the business/franchise tax that came in "under estimates." Frankly, I think when the tax was being revised, the Texas GOP knew it was going to lower revenues, and that's what it wanted.

In any case, it was warned.

To understand how this happened, you have to go back to 2006, when Texas lawmakers passed a massive tax reform plan. The goal was to cut property taxes without costing the state any money. Perry designed a “tax swap” that would reduce property taxes and replace the lost revenue with a new business tax.

There was one major flaw with this plan — it didn’t balance. Property taxes were cut by $14 billion annually. But the new business tax brought in only $9 billion a year in new money. As a result, the tax-swap plan has burned a $5 billion hole in the budget every year since. (In 2007, a booming economy helped mask the problem, and in the 2009 session, lawmakers used $12 billion in federal stimulus money to fill the gap.)
The imbalance was well known. The Texas comptroller’s office warned Perry in 2006 that his plan didn’t pay for itself. The comptroller’s office estimated the plan would result in a five-year deficit of $23 billion. Perry and other legislative leaders ignored those warnings. Some Democrats in Austin suspect that G.O.P. leaders intentionally created this structural deficit as a way tamp down state spending. And some Republican leaders and conservative activist groups have made statements in recent weeks that expressed downright giddiness at the prospect of deep cuts in state spending. Lieut. Gov. David Dewhurst referred to the budget gap in his inaugural speech on Jan. 18 as an “opportunity.”

Whatever the reason for the structural deficit, the bill is now coming due. The 2006 tax swap has resulted in a shortfall of at least $20.9 billion the past two budget cycles, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a left-leaning Austin think tank.

Dewhurst's statement (shock me, really) is a bit of proof in the pudding.

An "opportunity" for WHAT? Budget antics like we have now? You're damn skippy.

As CNN puts it, even budget deficits are bigger in Texas. So are the budget lies.

Hey, buddy, can you spare $15B in fees?

Yep, the Texas Lege is going to pass a balanced budget that will close a $27 billion gap (NOT $15 billion, you have to allow for natural growth in programs) without raising taxes or touching the rainy day fund.

Well, the GOP's backdoor taxes, otherwise known as fees, won't do it, no matter how laughably transparent they are.

Here's the one I love:

State employees and retirees who smoke would pay a $30-a-month "tobacco user monthly premium surcharge," raising an estimated $42 million for the budget.

Yep, that's from the same Rick Perry and GOP legislative wingnuts who want to "get government off the people's back."

I guess that doesn't include spying on state employees, let alone retirees, to see if they're smoking or not.

An "electronic filing of documents fee"? The state already charges you to renew a car registration online. So, are we going to get fee double-dipped?

Short answer? Of course we will.

You know what's coming?

You know how colleges, starting a couple of decades ago, started charging more and more activity and user fees?

Well, if you're sending a kid to public school ... don't be surprised if you get stuck with some fees. But, what about kids already on free lunches? Ahh, well, social Darwinism says they probably shouldn't be in school anyway.

Oh, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, are you really sure you want to get rid of your state's income tax and lean on sales taxes? (And double-dipping fees?)

And, do you want to base your optimism on such a revenue structure on nutbars such as former Texas Rep. Talmadge Heflin?

Those who had claimed a massive Texas budget shortfall made assumptions about future spending that do not square with the realities of the legislative budget process. Agencies present legislators with optimistic or inflated requests, and legislators almost always pare those back to fit within the available revenue. The paring is much more aggressive during revenue difficulties.

Texas. The Ponzi State.™