#TXLEGE: Abbott facing first Sustained Revolt Re: "Contact Tracing" Boondoggle

"David said furthermore, 'As the Lord lives, the Lord shall strike him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall go out to battle and perish.' "
1 Samuel 26:10

Tony Tinderholt:

I would like to make one final point which concerns contract tracing. The MTX contract must end promptly. It is a gross invasion of personal liberty and privacy. I also have serious concerns it violates HIPPA and other medical privacy laws. Why is Texas spending nearly $300 million of taxpayer money on tracking Texans for two years over this? Though it may be federally funded, every dollar spent by local, state, or the federal government either comes from current taxpayers or the children or grandchildren of taxpayers through debt service. Therefore, we could have forgone the federal funds, saved taxpayer dollars, and not conducted privacy-infringing tracing.

[Note: While the scope of this blog post is limited to the so-called "contact tracing" boondoggle, Tinderholt's full letter is brutal.]

Bob Hall:

“Contact tracing is technically wrong, as it may be an effective tool to trace slow moving deadly viruses such as Ebola or Tuberculosis, but not for a fast-moving virus with a low death rate that is primarily spread by asymptomatic people.

“Contact tracing, for COVID-19, is a colossal waste of money which could be better spent on resources to protect the elderly and immune-compromised populations that are the most affected. Contact tracing will shred our constitutional rights to privacy.

“Texas must stop contact tracing and change course by adopting new policies consistent with the facts as we now know them...."

Matt Krause: 

James White:

State Reps @RepMattKrause and @James_E_White have called for termination of @MTX_Inc’s $295m contract for contact tracing. Anyone else out there doing same? My DMs are open https://t.co/K1mzSZto2r

— Jay Root (@byjayroot) June 1, 2020

It's not a full statement, but this retweet from Donna Howard's certainly suggests discomfort with the contract.

All of which is really, really, interesting.

Obviously, we've been around the block several times.  We know that the legislature often talks a big game during the interim, then fails to follow through once they get the chance.  Still, this is not a good place for a Governor to be heading into the most difficult session in awhile.

If Abbott's smart, he'll cancel the contract (and fire Mike Toomey).  Whether or not he is smart remains to be seen.  That being said, it wouldn't surprise us to see that announcement as a Friday afternoon document dump this week or next.

Bottom Line: The long term fallout remains to be seen, but the bloom is certainly off the rose in a way it hasn't been previously.

How can we, REALISTICALLY, eliminate property taxes?!?

"But the former governors who were before me laid burdens on the people, and took from them bread and wine, besides forty shekels of silver. Yes, even their servants bore rule over the people, but I did not do so, because of the fear of God."
Nehemiah 5:15

Final TPPF Policy Orientation panel of the afternoon: "Should Texas Eliminate Property Taxes?!?"; it's not easy, but it's worth doing.

The most important takeaways is that, for eliminating property taxes to become viable, you need binding restraints on local spending...FIRST.  That's because bonds currently issued by local governments are obligations against property tax revenues.  Thus, you need to bind future spending and debt before you can wind down current obligations.

Furthermore, if you don't curtail spending at the local level, you're likely to (realistically speaking) end up in a situation where property taxes survive but we have higher state sales taxes as well.

Otherwise, some notes:

• Property taxes are a really inefficient mechanism for government to raise money.

• Businesses pay half of property taxes.

• Property tax elimination raises complicated legal questions re: debt obligations of local governments.
• Note: This is probably a surmountable obstacles, but it's potentially fraught with unintended consequences.

• Swapping school district M&O taxes for sales taxes is the most realistic achievable step in the short to medium term.

• Taxing "professional services" could help modernize the sales tax system...but good luck getting the legislature to raise taxes on lawyers.

• Nobody discussed our previous questions about online sales.

Bottom Line: It can be done, but it needs to be done carefully, and nobody should underestimate the potential for unintended consequences.

#TXLEGE: Bonnen holds productive hearing on alternatives to property taxes....

"But the former governors who were before me laid burdens on the people, and took from them bread and wine, besides forty shekels of silver. Yes, even their servants bore rule over the people, but I did not do so, because of the fear of God."
Nehemiah 5:15

"replace the property tax system with an alternative other than the income tax and require voter approval to increase the overall tax burden."
Republican Party of Texas, Legislative priority #5

[Note: The hearing can be viewed here; our first testimony can be viewed very early, the second is about two and a half hours in.]

Something happened this afternoon that, in a few years, we might look back on as a significant turning point in the discussion of taxes in this state: For the first time ever, the House offered attractive alternatives to the Senate's property tax proposals.

The House ways and means committee heard seven bills this afternoon, of particular note are these five:

• HB 82         Darby | et al.
  Relating to the abolition of school district maintenance and operations ad valorem taxes.
• HB 285        Murr                 
  Relating to elimination of certain property taxes for school district maintenance and operations and providing public education funding through an increase in the state sales and use tax rate.
• HB 301        Krause               
  Relating to the substitution of a local sales and use tax for property taxes imposed by certain local governments; authorizing the imposition of a tax.
• HB 358        White                
  Relating to supporting public education funding through an increase in the state sales and use tax rate and requiring a reduction in school district maintenance and operation ad valorem taxes; making an appropriation; increasing the rate of a tax.
• HJR 21        Darby | et al.       
  Proposing a constitutional amendment abolishing school district maintenance and operations ad valorem taxes.

All of the bills would, in some form, substitute sales taxes for some portion of property taxes.

We testified "ON" two of the bills (we also signed up in favor of the Darby constitutional amendment/bill, but didn't stick around to testify).  We LOVE this concept, we just haven't had a chance to read any of these bills.  And that's our only hesitation in the context of the current special session.

Any bill that would authorize this sort of tax swap would, by definition, be big and complicated.  And any bill that would be this big, and this complicated, would need to be thoroughly vetted for unintended consequences by a team of lawyers.  Also, anything this big and complicated would produce a lot of opinions over how it could be most effectively implemented.  Thus, an open process is necessary for widespread buy-in.  Therefore, we feel that it's a better idea to do an interim charge on this topic before taking action in 2019.

Furthermore, as just one example of the type of thorny political debates this sort of tax swap would create: Broadening the base on the sales tax means you're going to be paying sales taxes on your grocery bill.

But assuming both the substantive and the political issues could be resolved in a way that produces a reasonable amount of buy in from the general public, we could absolutely get behind this sort of effort.

[Note: None of this is to suggest that anything short of automatic rollback elections is sufficient for the current special session.  That still needs to happen.  While we commend the House for finally offering an attractive alternative, the Senate are the ones who've been working on this issue for months and it's their plan that needs to pass for the current special session to be judged a success on this issue.]

Bottom Line: The road to making this sort of tax swap work will be long and winding.  Any journey down a long and winding road needs to be taken very carefully.  But all journeys, now matter how long and winding, begin with a first step and we commend Dennis Bonnen for taking it today.

#TXLEGE: Notes on the Mark Jones Index....

"Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
Matthew 7:20

Mark Jones is a political science professor at Rice University.  Every odd numbered year, he produces a non partisan index that ranks the members of the Texas Legislature from left to right.  Jones' index is worth investing some time into because, while the methodology is more complicated than some other groups, it's the most comprehensive analysis of individual members of the Texas Legislature.

Texas House Results:

Note: Click on the image to enlarge.

Texas Senate Results:

In no particular order, some personal observations:

• Freedom caucus (predictably) solidify their position as the 12 most conservative House members.

• Kel Seliger is the most liberal Republican in the Texas Senate; over half of the Republican caucus in the House is more liberal than Seliger.

• In the House, we would give every member from Rodney Anderson up a passing grade on voting record; that's 31 members out of a 95 member Republican caucus.

• However, even among those 31 members with passing grades on their voting record, there are three (Drew Springer, Dennis Bonnen, and Larry Phillips) who receive automatic F's based on other shady actions; so 28 members out of a 95 member House Republican caucus ultimately receive passing grades.

• 26 Republican House members have more liberal voting records than Byron Cook; chew on that one for a second.

• Jason Isaac moves significantly to the right from 2015 to 2017; this is consistent with a number of observations we made during the session.

• In the other direction, Jodie Laubenberg, James White, Giovanni Capriglione, Tan Parker, and Phil King continued their multi-session leftward drift.

• Speaking of leftward drift, Dan Flynn is now in the bottom half of House Republicans.

• On Monday, we discussed how the leftward march of the pro-status quo crowd was playing with fire; on that note, we find the fact that in both chambers Democrats from the Valley (which has been trending Republican for a decade) voted to the right of their counterparts in the big urban counties to be fascinating.

• Rafael Anchia and Chris Turner both rank significantly to the left of the average Democrat in the House...are they sure those are the two guys they want to make spokespeople for their entire party?!?

• On the Senate side, all Republicans elected in the past 7 years are significantly to the right of the person they replaced.
• Update: We suppose that technically Paul Bettencourt is about even with the guy he replaced in SD-7.

• Charles Perry and Larry Taylor both have voting records to the left of Bob Nichols; while people shouldn't overreact, this is a trend worth monitoring.

• Joan Huffman as the second most liberal Senate Republican might be flying a little too close to the sun for her own good in her re-elect cycle.

Read the full report (including a detailed discussion of methodology) for the House here and the Senate here.

#TXLEGE: Attorney General's office contradicts Phil King over Constitutional Carry

"Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me."
Nehemiah 4:18

Phil King seems intent upon being the guy who kills constitutional carry this session.  As part of that effort, he attempted to pass the buck to Ken Paxton.  During his committee hearing last week, a representative from the A.G's office wasn't having it:



Highlights:

• Receiving at least 100 calls per day, up to 300 some day.

• Claims "Senior staff member" from A.G.'s told his chief of staff office would lose ability to use LTC system to enforce child support.

• Staff "deleted over 400 voicemails" the other day.

• AG office rep testimony begins at 8:50 mark.

• AG rep: "While it is the default setting of the agency to raise concerns any time a bill draft is in conflict with current law, or current practice...in the case of HB 375 [Stickland's bill] the agency is prepared to forego those concerns and continue to be the nation's #1 child support enforcement agency without that tool in our toolbox."

Lone Star Gun rights has more here.

#TXLEGE: Constitutional Carry gets GUTTED in committee

"Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built. And the one who sounded the trumpet was beside me."
Nehemiah 4:18

Oh good grief:

A Texas House committee Tuesday approved legislation to allow handguns to be carried without a license, with two Democrats voting against and five Republicans voting in favor even though they believed the measure doesn’t go far enough.

The version of House Bill 1911 approved by the House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee contained several substantial changes from the version that drew extensive public testimony three weeks ago, including:

• To carry without a permit, gun owners would have to meet the restrictions to obtain a license to carry, which is generally available to those who are 21 or older, have no felony convictions and are eligible to purchase a weapon under federal and state laws. The earlier version allowed guns to be carried by those 18 and older.

• Churches and places of worship would be removed as prohibited places to carry a gun, although signs banning guns would be allowed.

• Openly carried handguns would still be required to be kept in a holster, but HB 1911 would omit the requirement that it be a belt or shoulder holster.

The revised bill by Rep. James White, R-Hillister, would not change any laws related to campus carry, a statute passed in 2015 that allows licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons into most areas of public universities, said Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford.

In addition the bill, as it currently stands, prohibits anyone who's been CHARGED (note: not convicted, charged) with a class A or B misdemeanor over the past five years from carrying.

LoneStarVoice has behind the scenes details:

Chairman Phil King had been working with Reps. White and Stickland for the last couple weeks, discussing changes he wanted to see to both bills before he would allow them out of his committee.

According to activists, a deal had been reached last week between White, Stickland, King, and group leaders, but they say the deal was breached with Tuesday's vote.

They say White had agreed to strengthen his bill. They say that all parties had agreed to accept these changes and support White's bill. But in the days before the vote, King decided he would only allow White's bill to pass if White agreed to undo the agreed-upon changes.

Lone Star Gun Rights has even more:

There's a small chance the bill can be strengthened via floor amendment, but there's a long history of the lawless house leadership making up excuses to refuse to consider amendments.

Bottom Line: As it currently stands, HB 1911 is not a constitutional carry bill.  It's a fee reduction bill.  Don't get us wrong, a fee reduction bill would be an improvement on the status quo. It might be worth passing.  But it's not constitutional carry.  And you shouldn't believe anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise.

-----

Update: Open Carry Texas has more....

Straus supporting Reps who had bills killed last session

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves."
Matthew 7:15

Perusing Joe Straus' record, we were struck by the number of Reps who had bills killed last session who nonetheless (inexplicably) support returning Straus to the speakership:

Gio:

• HB 524

Craig Goldman:

• HB 1250

Jodie Laubenberg:

• HB 872
• HB 2364

Drew Springer:

 

• HB 1568
• HB 2416

James White:

• HJR 48

Which begs the next question: What kind of Stockholm Syndrome does it take to return the leadership that killed your bills last session to the same position this coming session?!?