Texas Deficit Balloons

From jobsanger.blogspot
by Ted McLaughlin

We have known for several months now that there will be a deficit in the next biennium for the state of Texas. I say biennium because the Texas legislature only meets once every two years, so they do budgets for two years instead of one. For quite a while now, Texas government has operated with a surplus -- so much so that they have been able to put a little over $8 billion into a "rainy day" fund. But those good economic times are over and its starting to rain -- really hard.

A few months ago it was believed that Texas would have an $8-$10 billion dollar deficit in the next biennium. It didn't take long for that estimate to rise to between $12 and $15 billion dollars. Now the politicians are telling us that the deficit will probably be up above $21.5 billion dollars.

The state's Republican leadership has ordered state agencies to cut their budgets by 5%-10% several times, and those agencies are currently under a new order to cut their budgets one more time. One politician has even said the legislature will have to take a "meat cleaver" approach to the budget next year. Both parties are trying to fool the voters into thinking this huge deficit problem can be solved by simply cutting state services. Unfortunately, that is a lie.

Most state agencies are already operating on a bare bones budget. If much more is cut from their budgets they will not be able to deliver the services to the people that they are mandated to give. And what good is an agency that is incapable of delivering services? The answer to that is no good at all.

In addition, there are some agencies for which if more is cut serious problems will arise. Two of these that instantly come to mind are the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). There is a point beyond which these agencies cannot cut more and still deliver a level of service that protects both the public and state inmates. It would be unacceptable to all of us if the agencies can no longer protect the public, and if the inmates can't be protected from abuse then we are looking at court cases that could cost the state far more than proper budgets for the agencies would cost.

Do we want the state to stop funding the repair and renovation of our roads and bridges? Do we want the state to stop covering children with health insurance, or providing services for mental health and mental retardation? Do we want the state to adequately fund our schools? Do we want enough highway patrolmen and Texas Rangers on the job to protect the public from criminals not in TYC or TDCJ? Do we want the oil & gas industry, the chemical industry, and energy providers to be policed to make sure they are not poisoning our air and water?

As you can see, most (if not all) state agencies provide vital services that the state simply cannot do without. And only a moron could believe a deficit of over $21.5 billion could be eliminated by cutting the money these agencies get. Since the state constitution mandates that the state must balance its budget in each biennium, something else must be done.

Like it or not, taxes are going to have to be raised somehow. And it doesn't matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats win in November, there will be more tax revenue raised. There is simply no other option.

Even though you won't hear it from the politicians new tax revenues and income sources are already being considered. Texas already has one of the highest sales taxes in the nation (Texas loves regressive taxes that hit the poor harder than the rich), but there are many things that have been exempted from that sales tax. That is probably going to end for many of those things.

State leaders will probably not raise the sales tax rate, but they will almost certainly increase the number of things that will be covered by the tax. They'll do it that way so they can say they didn't raise the tax (even though paying a tax on new things is definitely a rise in taxation).

There is also talk of allowing casino gambling which could be heavily taxed, and a new state property tax which would be dedicated to education. About the only new tax that won't be considered is a state income tax (because that would affect the rich, and we can't have that).

So don't be fooled. There are going to be more taxes. It's just a question of what kind and how much.

Back To Basics Ad: "Rick Perry Thinks You're a Sucker"

Houston Chronicle: The Back to Basics political committee is hitting Gov. Rick Perry again in a new television commercial. Spokesman Cliff Walker would not say where the ad is running, but said it is a "six-figure" television buy.
Perry spokesman Mark Miner responds: With his failing campaign quickly running out of money, liberal trial lawyer Bill White has pulled his advertising from 22 television stations in seven different Texas markets: Abilene, Amarillo, Beaumont, Harlingen, Midland-Odessa, Shreveport, and Waco.

Bill White spokeswoman Katy Bacon said Perry's campaign is wrong about the television buys. Bacon said White is on the air in all the markets mentioned in Miner's release. "They're making things up again," Bacon said.

Titled "Rick Perry Thinks You're a Sucker," the ad juxtaposes Perry encouraging viewers to send a letter to Washington saying what they think about "all this stimulus, all this runaway spending" with a letter Perry sent President Barack Obama in February 2009 saying Texas would welcome Federal stimulus funds. Perry's Feb. 18, 2009 letter, posted on the governor's state website, certified that Texas would accept federal funds.

The Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News has previously published news articles stating Perry accepted more than $12 billion in stimulus money to balance the state budget.

Perry has not welcomed all federal funds. Last year, Perry opposed about $550 million to fund the state's unemployment trust benefits. The governor said businesses would have had to pay higher unemployment taxes after the federal dollars ran out. An effort by some legislators to overrule Perry died in the state House. And this year, Perry did not to apply for federal education funding in the competitive federal grant program known as Race to the Top.

Gov. Perry Approved $4.5 Million For Donor's Start-Up Firm Without Oversight Board's OK

From the Dallas Morning News, "Gov. Rick Perry approved $4.5 million for donor's start-up firm without regional board's OK":

Gov. Rick Perry approved a $4.5 million award from the state's technology fund to a company founded by a major campaign donor despite the company's failure to win the endorsement of a regional screening board, The Dallas Morning News has learned.

The money was awarded in August to Convergen Lifesciences Inc., founded by Perry contributor David G. Nance. Convergen was allowed to bypass a key part of the Texas Emerging Technology Fund's extensive process for vetting applications, and to proceed for approval to a statewide advisory board appointed by Perry.

A spokeswoman for Perry said Tuesday that the money was properly awarded to Convergen because the law establishing the tech fund allows applicants to appeal decisions by regional reviewers.

However, the law makes no mention of such appeals.

The chairman of the regional board in Houston, one of the state's largest, told The News he had never heard of an appeals process. Walter Ulrich, also a former member of the tech fund's statewide advisory committee, said approval by regional boards is mandatory.

"It cannot go to the state without our board's approval," he said. "I've never seen that happen."

Walt Trybula, a nanotechnology expert at Texas State University who reviews tech fund applications for the Austin regional board, said the ability to appeal would undermine the process.

"If you've got a way to go around a review committee," he said, "why do you have a review committee?"

And the chairman of the state House committee that oversees the tech fund said the "extraordinary" process that awarded the money to Nance's firm shows that reforms are needed. "This is the most troubling case that I've seen come through" on the fund, said Rep.

Bill White has released this statement:

"Rick Perry uses the governor's office to benefit his friends, his contributors and himself. The only way to end Perry's abuses is to elect a new governor. In the meantime the appropriate authorities need to investigate the corruption in the governor's office right away," said Bill White.

"I demanded last week that Perry disclose all personal and state financial ties with Mr. Nance and Perry refused. Now we see why. This is a bombshell," said White

White's campaign released the following video supplement to the press release:

What Do Americans Really Want ?

Sometimes it is hard to figure out just what the American people really want?

ARE THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS IMPORTANT? MEDICARE Important....................96% Not very important...............4% SOCIAL SECURITY Important....................95% Not very important...............5% DEFENSE SPENDING Important....................90% Not very important...............9% FOOD STAMPS Important....................82% Not very important...............17% FOREIGN AID Important....................62% Not very important...............36% FEDERAL AID TO SCHOOLS Important....................91% Not very important...............9% UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Important....................91% Not very important...............9% ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Important....................89% Not very important...............10%

From jobsanger.blogspot

Unfortunately, a new Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University poll contains some puzzling information and may well create as many questions as it answers. The poll surveyed 2,054 adults between September 22nd and October 3rd, and has a margin of error of 2.5%.

I don't think there's any doubt that if asked whether they support a smaller federal government, a clear majority of Americans would probably say yes. And a couple of the polls answers would tend to support that.

About 55% of respondents think the federal government is focused on the wrong things and another 52% believe the governments impact on their daily lives is mainly a negative one, while only 7% believe they get more value from the government than they pay in taxes (and 55% say they get less value).

Those beliefs would make someone think the majority of Americans would be in favor of drastic cuts to the federal government.

However, when they are asked about individual government programs, the poll responses shows that Americans think those programs are important and don't want to see cuts in them. Consider the response results in the table right:

Those are all the programs that cost the government the most money. It would be impossible to think of cutting the size of the federal government without also drastically cutting most or all of these programs, and yet a clear majority in each case doesn't think these programs should be cut.

It's no wonder that the Republicans, while preaching cutting government, can't name a single thing they would cut. It's one thing to talk about cutting government in general, but quite another when it comes to cutting specific (and popular) programs. Americans may say they want a smaller government, but they only want it in theory -- not reality.

In fact, reality may not enter into people's view of the federal government very much. About 50% of the people said they believed that the federal government budget could be balanced just by eliminating wasteful spending.

But where is that wasteful spending? And could there possibly be trillions of dollars in wasteful spending? Frankly, it is amazing that half of the population could believe that.

While there is undoubtedly some wasteful spending, it is extremely unrealistic to believe it could even come near the federal deficit. [With defense spending nearly 60% of the total discretionary budget that is the best category of spending to trim back, but even that seems to be off the table.]

Another question also pointed out this schizophrenic nature of Americans. About 77% of the people believe that the United States has the best system of government in the world.

But then when asked if the government is run for the big special interests or the benefit of all citizens, a full 65% said it was run for the big special interests. How can those two statements be reconciled? Are all other governments in the world even worse than a government run for big special interests?

I'm amazed. Evidently we need a smaller government, but this must be accomplished without cutting programs. Where is reality?

The Republicans like to talk a lot about how horrible our national debt is, but when they are in power they are the worst contributors to increasing that debt. Isn't it time to stop listening to what they say and pay attention to what they do?


And, by the way, under the leadership of Republican Gov. Rick Perry and a Republican controlled legislature the Texas budget deficit is now $21 billion in the hole!