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. 

Enthusiasm gap should favor #Greens and #Libertarians

Seasoned politics-watchers know all about how Democrats have problems with getting people to the polls in midterm elections. The problem seems particularly acute here in Texas, especially given the state's large, theoretically Democratic-leaning, minority population, but it's not unique to the Pointy Abandoned Object State™; the issue occurs elsewhere, too.

Gallup has a very interesting piece on all of this. 

First, the Democrats' "enthusiasm gap" is more in the tank than in 2010. It was at 0 in 2010, Gallup's poll finds, but is -23 this year.

The GOP is at -8 this year, so even with lack of enthusiasm there, they're still ahead of Democrats. (And, by percentages, they have a 37-24 edge on paying attention to the midterms.)

However, the GOP had a +34 in 2010, likely motivated by Obamacare.

So, the Dems have dropped 23 percentage points since last midterm in 2010, while the Republicans have dropped a whopping 42 points. Even with allowances for the "attention gap" as well, this should be precautionary to inside-the-Beltway pundits predicting Democratic problems.

But, that's the minor point.

This enthusiasm gap should favor Greens, above all. Socialists, with less geographic spread, second, though not mentioned in the header, then Libertarians.

It "should," but it won't. Read on.

It should favor Libertarians less than third parties of the left for the same reason that the enthusiasm gap saw a bigger drop among Republicans than Democrats. People are disgusted with wingnuts in Congress. And, yes, some of the wingnuttery in Congress is over social conservative issues. But, a lot of it is over economic issues, like sequestration, cutting unemployment benefits, cutting food stamps in the new farm bill, etc. All issues in which your typical Libertarian Congresscritter candidate is just as wingnut, if not more so, than your typical GOP person currently serving as a Congresscritter.

Unfortunately, definitely here in Texas, but also in less reddish states, Libertarians have a lot more candidates in the field than Greens.

True liberalism, or the American version of left-liberalism, even, has a very, very hard time getting itself sold, even as on financial issues, more and more Democrats act like Nice Polite Republicans. (That's NPR; take notes.)

Organization and professionalism seem to be hallmarks of Libertarian ballot access, as part of this. Greens? To take Will Rogers' old jest about not belonging to organized parties because he was a Democrat, that probably applies in spades to Greens.

How this will actually play out in this election, I don't know.

Gallup doesn't explain the "why" on the GOP enthusiasm gap. Is it more that "establishment" Republicans are tired of the Tea Party types (somewhat a false division, but somewhat true), or more that TP true believers think half of GOP Congresscritters are RINOs? If it's the latter, maybe a Libertarian will actually be seated under the Capitol dome, either the one in Washington, D.C., or the one in Austin, in January. (That is, if he's not a Libertarian true believer, driving without a license!)

Otherwise, as we talk about America being in a new Gilded Age, etc., this is a good parallel to the era that saw various third parties, like the Greenback Labor and the Populists in the late 19th century, win a governorship or two, get a couple of Members of Congress elected, and eventually start forcing major party change, although William Jennings Bryan was 50 percent a sellout.

While Republicans and Democrats of that era differed on tariff protections, the GOP came out firmly for the gold standard as its other "solution" for poverty and income inequality, while "gold Democrats" led by President Grover Cleveland did exactly the same.

To riff on Virginia Slims, for today's Greens: "You've got a long way to go, baby." And, yet another reason why Texas Greens should not ask Brandon Parmer to suspend his gubernatorial campaign.

Bob Deuell wants statewide inspector general

Problems with the Texas Education Agency’s IG office, pretty much since the start of the office two years ago, have convinced state Sen. Bob Deuell a statewide inspector general’s office, independent from individual state agencies, is needed.

Deuell got a similar measure through the Texas Senate in 2007, but it died in committee in the House. He promised Friday he’ll push for similar legislation next year.

“The inspector general needs to be independent to be effective.”

Proof that it’s needed, and that TEA’s IG office isn’t independent?

“We’ve never been allowed to launch an independent investigation, at all, ever,” said Jim Lyde, one of two TEA investigators being fired.

Amen to that. Be ready to prod any baulky House members who try a repeat of 2007.