Posts Tagged ‘Taxes’

Sanchez Campaign Scrubs Mention of Tax Cuts From Their Website

Friday, October 14th, 2011

You may remember back in June, when I noticed that Ricardo Sanchez’s campaign website mentioned tax cuts as a means of creating jobs and improving the economy. Given that was so out of character for a Democrat, I thought I better get a screen shot to prove it was there:

It’s in the third paragraph. Click to embiggen.

It’s a good thing I did, as the Sanchez campaign has scrubbed the phrase “tax cuts” from the page. The old phrase was:

The best approach to creating jobs in Texas is for us to provide tax cuts, incentives and increase financing support for small businesses.

That same sentence today has excised the words “tax cuts”:

The best approach to creating jobs in Texas is for us to provide incentives and increase financing support for small businesses.

In fact, as far as I can tell, that’s the only change to that page.

I have written the Sanchez campaign for an explanation of the change. I’ll let you know what they have to say if I ever receive a reply.

Evidently tax cuts are so anathema to Democrats that even the hand-picked DNC candidate, running without serious primary opposition, running to be Senator from a very conservative state, and sure to be a heavy underdog in a general election in which Democratic control of the Senate will be up for grabs, is not allowed to mention them on his website.

Despite Claims to the Contrary, Statistics Show That The Texas Economy Does, In Fact, Kick Ass

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

Despite what you’ve heard from liberal pundits, Texas really is leading the nation in job growth, according to the Political math blog

As you can see, Texas isn’t just the fastest growing… it’s growing over twice as fast as the second fastest state and three times as fast as the third. Given that Texas is (to borrow a technical term) f***ing huge, this growth is incredible.

People are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. This is speculative, but it *seems* that people are moving to Texas looking for jobs rather than moving to Texas for a job they already have lined up. This would explain why Texas is adding jobs faster than any other state but still has a relatively high unemployment rate.

They’re also high paying jobs: “Since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation.” And, if you subtract people who moved to the state, Texas has the lowest unemployment rate in the country.

For more anecdotal evidence, look at this piece from entrepreneur Erica Douglass about why she’s moving from California to Austin. The “Amazon Tax” was the final straw.

Erica, on behalf of free-market bloggers in the Greater Austin area, howdy! I think you’re going to like it here…

(Hat tips: Texas Iconoclast and Instapundit.)

“When in the Course of human events…”

Friday, July 1st, 2011

…it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
  • He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
  • He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
  • For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
  • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
  • For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
  • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
  • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
  • He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
  • In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

    Happy Independence Day Weekend, everyone!

    Texas Taxpayers Defeat Liberal Interest Groups

    Saturday, May 7th, 2011

    Over on BurkaBlog I chanced across this framing of the debate over passing the state budget:

    Who has more clout: A fictional Texas Ranger and a former major corporate CEO or a cadre of right wing interest groups?

    Texas Senate Republicans gave an unabashed nod to the interest groups this week by passing a state budget that balances without tapping the rainy day fund. Instead, the Senate budget relies on accounting tricks and contingent spending. If an economic recovery fails to materialize, even deeper cuts to public education will occur.

    The battle was for the senators’ heads and hearts on one side and fear of political retribution on the other. The public school coalition Raise Your Hand Texas ran television commercials featuring Tommy Lee Jones, who starred in the classic mini-series Lonesome Dove, and former GM and AT&T executive Ed Whitacre urging Texans to press against cuts to education. However, when the smoke cleared from the Senate’s budget debate, it was Michael Quinn Sullivan of Empower Texans, Peggy Venable of Americans for Prosperity, and Brooke Rollins of the Texas Public Policy Foundation who had carried the day.

    The trio also ran commercials urging Republican senators to stick with state spending cuts proposed by the House. But lobbyists and lawmakers tell me the deciding factor was really the threat that the groups would find Republican primary opponents to run against incumbents and make sure the opponents were well financed. “It’s just intimidation,” said former Lieutenant Governor Bill Ratliff, one of the lobbyists for Raise Your Hand.

    Well, that’s one way to spin the story. Here’s another way: Liberal pressure groups defeated by actual Texas taxpayers. And the possibility that an incumbent might actually be challenged in their primary? That’s not intimidation, it’s called democracy.

    The underlying attitude of that piece seems to be: How dare elected representatives vote for limited government the way their constituents actually want rather than vote for big government the way liberal interest groups I agree with lobby for?

    For years Republicans could get away with breaking their pledges to control government spending, knowing that the MSM would fall all over themselves to praise them for their “courage.” What’s changed has been the Tea Party and similar groups actually paying attention and challenging Republicans who break their promises. That’s what’s changed, and that’s what’s helping hold down spending.

    No wonder liberals hate it.

    Taxpayers can see the end results of the blue state model of big government, higher taxes, and caving in to unions and other liberal interest groups in California. Given the statements of some of the commentators here, California should be doing much better than Texas.

    It isn’t. California businesses and taxpayers are leaving in droves to settle in Texas, because our red state economy is weathering the current recession much better than bankrupt, free-spending California.

    The red state model is a success and the blue state model is a failure, and making an environment that is friendly to businesses and taxpayers is a far more effective strategy for states than making an environment that is friendly to big government, bureaucrat unions and liberal interest groups.

    This is why Republicans are so firmly entrenched in Texas, and why Democrats haven’t won a statewide race in nearly two decades: The red state model works, the blue state model doesn’t.

    LinkSwarm for Sunday, January 23, 2011

    Sunday, January 23rd, 2011

    A few links of potential interest for a lazy Sunday:

    New York vs. Texas

    Sunday, December 26th, 2010

    Guess which one is the better place to live?

    When the Internet economy allows an increasing number of people to live anywhere, low costs win. Texans spend 8.4% of income on state and local taxes compared with 11.7% for New Yorkers. Dollars that would rent a fifth-floor walk-up in New York City instead can buy a small ranch and maybe even acreage in Texas’ suburbs, where prairie begs to be paved for another Applebee’s.
    Texas creates jobs like a fiend, in part because businesses large and small have no worry of obstacles such as plaintiff-friendly courts, consumer-friendly regulators or oversight-friendly lawmakers. Pro-business isn’t just a mantra; they put it in the water.

    Oil and gas still play a huge role here, but are increasingly overshadowed by technology, medical and defense jobs. Texas has more Fortune 500 company headquarters than New York.

    Here Comes the Triangulation (or, Why You Can Tell Obama is Running for Reelection)

    Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

    There’s been much speculation as of late that Obama isn’t having much fun, that the midterms took all the wind out of his sails, and that he didn’t have the stomach to abandon his liberal supporters and embrace triangulation the way Bill Clinton did after Democrats got slaughtered in the 1994 midterm. Hence, all signs were pointing to the fact that Obama had resigned himself to being a one-term President and wasn’t going to run for re-election.

    Today I think we have pretty firm evidence that theory was wrong.

    The fact that Obama caved in on extending all the Bush tax cuts isn’t so surprising in and of itself. Just about every economist to the right of Paul Krugman agrees that raising taxes during a normal recession is a bad idea, much less the extended Great Recession/Job Loss Recovery we’re currently stuck in, and sentiment had been trending in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts even before the midterms sent scores of Democratic officeholders scurrying for moving boxes. The question wasn’t so much whether they would be extended, but how much Obama would get in return for them.

    The answer seems to be surprisingly little. Most expected Republicans to agree to extending unemployment benefits, and most of the rest of the agreement (like payroll tax cuts) are more than acceptable to Republicans. Further underscoring how well Republicans did are the negative reactions on either side of the aisle. Republican critics were saying things like “I’m not initially thrilled about it” while liberals reactions were things like “outrage” and (for socialist Bernie Sanders) threatening to filibuster.

    More interesting still is the Obama White House’s explanation for the switch: Instead of blaming Republicans, they blamed congressional Democrats for being hopeless wimps. “We wanted a fight, the House didn’t throw a punch.”

    I wonder if today Nancy Pelosi is walking around in a state of shock, thinking “This is the thanks I get for dragging ObamaCare over the finish line? A knife in my back with Obama’s name on it?”

    Obama seemed slow to perceive the growing mood against him (certainly much slower than Clinton, who declared “The era of big government is over” the day after the 1994 midterms (I was wrong; see below); say what you want about Clinton, but he had a an exceptionally keen nose for ferreting out parades to stand in front of), but he seems to have finally woken up. The way the Obama went about this, cutting a deal with Republicans and then blaming House Democrats, looks exactly like the triangulation strategy Dick Morris mapped out for Clinton.

    As for Morris himself, he wasn’t shy about saying Obama got taken to the cleaners:

    To characterize this as a deal is like that famous deal that Emperor Hirohito struck with MacArthur on the Battleship Missouri. This is a surrender. This is absolutely Obama caving in. And the Republicans had to extend unemployment benefits anyway because you’re not going to give the tax cut and at the same time cut off unemployment benefits.

    But this shows that Obama will blink. And it’s the first of the trifecta of confrontations. This one — the next will be state bankruptcies when we’re called on to bail out and then the enchilada which will be defunding Obamacare, a balanced budget plan and blocking the EPA from cap and trade.

    I remain unconvinced that Obama will abandon his signature federal takeover of health care, but the rest seem entirely possible. Especially if he thinks its necessary to get reelected. He seems to fear a challenge from his party’s right flank (cough cough Hillary) more than his left. He probably believes (correctly) that no challenger to his left will be able to pry away enough black voters to prevent him from being renominated. Which means that he’s already positioning himself as a re-invented moderate for the 2012 general election.

    Can Obama run convincingly as a moderate after two years (or, to be technical about it, just shy of 23 months) of governing as a liberal? Maybe. Remember, he did it successfully in 2008. Also, he can make a fairly credible case that he has governed as a moderate when it comes to foreign policy (Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay are classic examples of how Obama’s campaign promises became null and void when he actually had deal with real world problems in the White House rather than on the campaign trail), the occasional warm handshake with Commie dictators notwithstanding.

    Can he take liberal votes for granted in the 2012 general election? Hell yes. Where else are they going to go? In fact, if Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee, Obama could probably personally execute a Gitmo detainee on the White House lawn every day at high noon and liberals would still vote for him.

    Finally, can he win reelection as a moderate? I wouldn’t count him out. Politics is a “what have you done for me lately” business, and it’s quite likely that the economy will doing well enough in two years for him to (justified or not) take credit for it. He may be crummy at governing, but Obama is an excellent campaigner. Even as a challenger he showed a taste for pomp and circumstance; can you imagine how much it will be cranked up when he runs as the sitting President?

    Remember, lots of pundits wrote Clinton off after the 1994 election. It’s taken him a while, but Obama finally seems to be using the same playbook. Whether he can still make it work for him (absent a Ross Perot) remains to be seen.

    Addendum: I misremembered when Clinton said that. It wasn’t the day after the midterms, it was his State of the Union Address the following January. He did move to the center some shortly after the election (see this transcript from his November 9, 1994 press conference for details), but I screwed up the date, which partially invalidates the point I was making in that paragraph. Mea Culpa.

    Sales Tax Holiday Coming August 20-22

    Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

    So get ready to buy some clothes and save a few cents in the process.

    And here’s the full list from the Comptroller.

    Because Democrats just weren’t unpopular enough in Texas…

    Thursday, August 12th, 2010

    …some of them are now pushing (again) for a state income tax.

    And they wonder why they’re out of power…

    (Hat tip: Larry Gonzales.)

    Candidate John Gordon Answers Questions About the House District 52 Race

    Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

    Yesterday I posted Texas House District 52 runoff candidate Larry Gonzales’ answers to questions about the race. Today we post answers from the other candidate, John Gordon. My questions are in italics below, followed by his answers.

    1. Do you think you’re a more conservative candidate than Larry Gonzales, and if so how?

    Yes, I (John Gordon) am the person with a true record of conservative actions in Williamson County.

    Larry is just talk – like Obama.

    When the RRISD was putting forth a wasteful $350,000,000 bond election in 2005, I led the opposition against the “city and school district elite” who wanted the excessive spending and defeated the bond proposal by 62% to 38%. Larry supported the excessive spending.

    When Round Rock city leaders tried to extend late night drinking on school nights to 2:00 AM, I organized and led the petition drive that forced reconsideration and repeal. San Marcos did not have my leadership and they extended the hours resulting in a doubling of DUI’s and a tripling of PI. Larry did nothing but support city leaders on extending late night drinking.

    When TxDOT tried to ram SH 130 through central Round Rock, supported by big developers on the north side of Round Rock, I led the four year effort of 6 neighborhoods that forced TX DOT to reroute SH 130 east between Round Rock and Hutto creating a better economic engine for the area and stopping the damage to neighborhoods that would have been caused by a badly designed highway. Larry did nothing.

    As Republican County Chairman, I directed placement of the Right to Life plank in the Williamson County Republican Platform for the first time. I help fund the Hope Pregnancy Crisis Center in Williamson County.

    I helped lead the public effort in 1996 that voted down by 68% to 32% a $0.06 property tax increase to fund a baseball stadium in Round Rock. Larry supports public subsidizes of sports facilities.

    2. On which three issues you think do you think the policies differences between yourself and Gonzales are most clear? How?

    See the numerous examples above – my conservative philosophy and commitment to benefitting people is proven by my deeds and actions. Larry just goes along with the insiders.

    3. Who are some of the thinkers and books that have influenced your political philosophy?

    Bible, US Constitution, my grandfather and father – good conservative common sense – a good engineering background.

    4. What tax and budget policies would you pursue going forward in the Texas legislature?

    No increase in taxes.

    Get rid of the corporate income tax (franchise tax) which is a productivity tax. It makes Texas businesses less competitive nationally and internationally.

    The “Fair Tax” plan nationally is a direct example of what Texas should do versus income (productivity) taxes. Larry was helping the Legislature when they went the wrong direction in tax policy.

    Spend only what we take in.

    5. How should Texas build and maintain its road infrastructure going forward? Do you approve of building new toll roads? If so, should they be built the state, or by private entities under some sort of toll-sharing agreement?

    Better “cost” engineering to take out the extravagance in highway design.

    Capture all the highway funding instead of allowing funds to be diverted to non-road building purposes.

    Streamline the design/licensing/EIS process and challenge wasteful Endangered Species regulations.

    Promote early purchase of right-of-ways with minimized EIS licensing requirements.

    Private construction/maintenance contracts but with state ownership to reduce costs.

    Tolls used to pay off the projects which generate the tolls, then reduce the tolls to low nominal level just to support maintenance activities.

    6. Do you believe that Proposition 2, Proposition 3 and Proposition 11, passed as part of the 2009 Constitutional Amendments, provide adequate protections against post-Kelo eminent domain abuses? If not, what more should the legislature do to address this issue?

    Give the new propositions time to take effect and then observe the results.

    7. Do you consider yourself a member of the Tea Party movement, and/or do you seek their support?

    I was a Tea Party force all by myself before anyone started going around saying Taxed Enough Already. Look at my answer to question #1. I have organized and led voter revolts over the last 30 years that have probably reduced or saved property owners up to $0.35/ hundred in property taxes.

    a. Blocked Cap Metro sales tax in 1983 which allowed Round Rock and Georgetown to use 0.5% sales tax to reduce property taxes.

    b. Fought off Austin Community College taxes of $0.10/ hundred for 25 years.

    c. Blocked the $0.06/ hundred property tax to fund a baseball stadium.

    d. Defeated a wasteful $350,000,000 bond election in 2005 and then showed the ISD how to cut out $83,000,000 and get an extra elementary school out of the reduced spending – effect = $0.05/ hundred property tax savings. (The second wasteful RRISD bond election I helped defeat)

    8. Your recent mailings have made much of the Gonzalez campaign receiving the majority of contributions from Houston-area developer Bob Perry. Why do you think this is a significant issue?

    — and you don’t think one “special interest” individual giving Larry Gonzales $90,000 which funded his entire $81,000 of primary spending isn’t a big deal? How about the appearance of being “bought and paid for”. I am sure that the average citizen in Taylor or Hutto might question where Larry’s loyalties lie. How about common sense – is being funded by one guy out of Houston using common sense?

    Go talk to the farmer in Thrall and ask if the funding smells fishy.

    9. The Williamson County Sun has evidently reported that you failed to turn in your campaign finance report on time, and have refused to pay the associated late fine. Is this true, and if so, why are your refusing to pay the fine?

    I have a problem with regulatory/administrative agencies not doing a good job or not using common sense – TxDot, PUC, Ethics Commission.

    To prove a point, last January 16, 2009, at the end of the previous (2008) campaign season, I filed a zero-income, zero-expenditure candidate statement 8 hours after the deadline. They want to fine me $500.00

    Yet, their campaign computer report form is so defective that they have no totals or accumulation nor do they check to see if candidates are showing properly accounted report totals. One campaign that I manually computed the totals on was off by nearly $250,000 in accounting for income and loans minus expenditures equaling cash on hand. The Ethics Commission campaign reporting form needs to be seriously upgraded.

    So if they want to press me to get the $500, they are going to have to answer quite a few questions. What I hope they do is realize the defects in their computerized campaign I & E reporting software and fix it and set up standard levels for their fines.

    Oh by the way, the Ethics Commission has the ability any time they desire to waive the fine as trivial – I just have to say that I fell asleep or submit some other lame excuse that I made a mistake.

    How about the Ethics Commission, in a burst of common sense, going ahead and deciding on their own that a zero-income, zero-expenditure report filed 8 hours late is a trivial matter and not damaging the public interest in any way?

    10. Any other thoughts on the race or politics in general you’d care to share with readers?

    For thirty years I have stood firm for conservative values over insider relationships and special interest deals. My conservative stances have generated insiders who do not want me to be elected because they know that I can use the word “NO” when conservative values and the public interest are being threatened. Larry Gonzales is the consummate insider. The Republican Party has lost favor with conservatives because the “insiders” have talked a great line but have worked to support each others’ special interests.

    The April 13 question is – who will Republican voters from District 52 select as their nominee, the experienced, tough, conservative warhorse John Gordon or the young, slick-talking, back-slapping insider Larry Gonzales?

    Thanks to John Gordon for taking the time to answer my questions. I expect to post more information on the Texas House District 52 race early next week.

    Previous posts on the Texas House District 52 Race can be found here and here.