|
Here is a "frontline report" on what is turning out to be the "school
funding war" in Austin. This is from Rep Scott Hochberg. He is up there in
Austin fighting for us. CALL YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES!
One week into the special legislative session and it's been anything but a
"quiet week in Lake Wobegon".
We came to Austin knowing that Governor Perry's tax plan provided no money
for the schools right now. But its saving grace was supposed to be that it
would put our state's tax system more in line with the economy, so that as
the economy grew, there would be funds available so that schools could keep
up with growth, inflation, and higher expectations without relying on
increases in local property taxes.
That promise evaporated in the House this week, with the introduction of a
bill, fast-tracked by Speaker Craddick, that would dedicate all growth from
the new taxes forever to property tax reductions. In other words, no new
money for schools, now or later.
Meanwhile, a bill to increase taxes on tobacco products, long supported by
the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society among others, lost
the support of those groups when it was rewritten at the urging of the
tobacco industry. Health advocates have argued that substantial increases in
the cost of cigarettes are very effective in discouraging teenagers from
smoking.
The new tobacco tax bill, also on the fast track, would phase in the tax
increase so slowly that health advocates believe that any anti-smoking
benefits would be lost. Industry lobbyists argued much the same, saying
that by postponing the tax increases, their sales would not be hurt. To make
up the revenue lost from phasing the tax in, the state would borrow money by
selling bonds to be repaid by future tax revenues. So, in a time when there
are billions in the treasury, we will be voting on a proposal to borrow
additional money to provide tax reductions.
Tomorrow the House will see 5 bills, in the following order:
1.) A revised version of the Perry tax plan, with some changes for
particular industries since the Sharp Commission issued its recommendations;
2.) A bill dedicating all increased revenues from each of the new taxes
entirely to property tax relief, now and in the future, prohibiting any of
the new "school funding" from actually being used for funding the schools.
3.) A bill that spends some of the money in the treasury on property tax
reductions in the coming year, but which also gives taxpayers in rich school
districts an additional reduction in taxes now and in the future. The bill
also "unreserves" the $1.8 billion that the Legislature had previously voted
to put aside for teacher pay raises and other school improvements.
4.) A bill dealing with the sale of used cars that says that you will be
taxed on at least 80% of the "blue book" value of the car, even if you
actually paid less for the car, unless you can prove through an appraisal
that the car was worth what you paid for it. You pay for the appraisal. The
bill is estimated to raise about $50 million each year, which would go to
property tax reductions.
5.) The tobacco tax bill, discussed above.
Normally, we would discuss and debate these bills by offering amendments to
change various parts of the bills. But in a move that is unprecidented in
my years in the Legislature, the Speaker pushed through rules that prevent
significant amendments on the property tax reduction bills (the second and
third bills listed above) from being offered.
Our rules already prohibit offering amendments to a bill that are outside
the subject of the bill. Unlike Washington, we already are prohibited from
"tacking on" amendments that are unrelated to the bill before us. So that's
not the purpose of these new rules.
The rules mean, for example, that the House will not be allowed to debate
using some of the revenues from the Perry tax bill to increase teacher pay.
By approving a rule that that prohibits such amendments from being offered,
House members avoid the accountability of having to explain votes on such
amendments to their constituents. It also means there will be less debate on
the bills, since most debate occurs when amendments are offered.
Voting on rules instead of on actual amendments is how Congress in
Washington operates under the current Conregssional leadership, but, as I
said, is new to Texas. The vote on these rules was essentially along party
lines, with all but a few Democrats voting against the rules and most
Republicans voting as the Speaker wished.
The tax bill, however, is not subject to these new rules, as various
industries still want the chance to fight for their special exemptions. I
have been told unofficially that most of the roughly 125 amendments
submitted by yesterday's 5pm deadline pertain to the Perry tax bill since it
had no new rule restricting amendments that could be offered.
Tomorrow looks like a long day. More as I get a chance to write...
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
