Summary
Looks like the Austin American-Statesman only gets 12/22 right. The Houston Chronicle does better with 16/22.

Proposition	Rightward Reasonings	AAS	Chron
1	YES	YES	YES
2	YES	YES	YES
3	YES	NO	NO
4	YES	YES	YES
5	YES	YES	YES
6	YES	YES	YES
7	YES	YES	YES
8	YES	NO	NO
9	NO	YES	NO
10	YES	YES	YES
11	NO	YES	YES
12	YES	NO	NO
13	NO	NO	NO
14	NO	YES	YES
15	NO	YES	NO
16	YES	YES	YES
17	NO	YES	NO
18	YES	NO	NO
19	YES	YES	YES
20	YES	YES	YES
21	YES	YES	YES
22	YES	NO	YES

- posted by Doug @ 1:55 PM    3 comments

 
19 down, 3 to go
Prop 20 allows the state to lend money to communities near military bases for the purpose of increasing the value of those bases to the federal government. This is an attempt to prevent any Texas bases from being closed in the next round of defense reassessments, scheduled for 2005. Since this doesn't result in a permanent outlay for the state (unless the community defaults on the loan), I don't really have a problem with it. From a national defense perspective, I agree that we probably need to consolidate bases in order to spend our defense dollars more efficiently. However, I don't have a problem with Texas communities doing all they can to make sure that they are selected for those consolidated bases. I'm IN FAVOR of Prop 20.

Prop 21 is a very narrow amendment that would allow faculty at a public university or college to serve on a water district board and receive a salary for that service. (Currently a faculty member could serve on such board, but could not be paid for it.) Sure, why not. Go ahead and vote IN FAVOR of Prop 21.

Finally, Prop 22 would allow the appointment of a temporary replacement for any state or local governmental official who enters active duty in the military. Seems sensible enough. Sure, vote IN FAVOR of Prop 22.
- posted by Doug @ 12:51 PM    Comment

 
Quickies today..
.. since I've still got 9 amendments to get through..

Prop 13 would allow taxing authorities to freeze property taxes for those 65 and over, and the disabled. Unfortunately, I don't foresee a restraint in spending to go along with this reduction in revenues -- so the tax burden just shifts on to us young'uns. What I'd like to see is a proposal to freeze property taxes for everyone -- or at least limit the increase to inflation. I'm AGAINST Prop 13.

Prop 14 would allow TxDOT to issue bonds to finance highway construction. Currently, the state can only build roads with money it already has. I think this is a good system. Allowing debt financing would allow for a short-term burst of construction, but then would tail off again as highway funds start going to paying interest and paying back the principal on these bonds. I'm AGAINST Prop 14.

I'm apparently in a contrary mood today -- here's another amendment I don't like. Prop 15 would mandate that local governments guarantee retirement benefit levels to public employees (but not teachers). The amendment would not apply to state workers. This is fiscally unsound -- there is a certain amount of capital in these retirement systems that produces dividend and interest income, which is available to be paid out as benefits and also to reinvest in the capital account. In economic downturns, there may not be as much income produced, which would require either the reduction of benefits in the short term, or paying out part of the capital account -- which could mean long-term reductions of benefits or increased taxes to make up the shortfall. If the retirement system is not allowed to reduce benefits, taxes must be increased -- which is a bad thing. Vote AGAINST Prop 15.

Prop 16 would allow homeowners to open a line of credit against the equity in their home. It also makes offering home equity loans in Texas more attractive to lenders by allowing them to correct a mistake they make in servicing the loan (instead of automatically forfeiting the principal and all interest on the loan). Go for it. Vote IN FAVOR of Prop 16.

Hey hey. It's another amendment to benefit one set of taxpayers at the expense of another set. Prop 17 would freeze school district property taxes for the disabled. (They're already frozen for the elderly -- that's why this isn't lumped in with Prop 13.) See my argument above. I'm against Prop 13, so I'm AGAINST Prop 17.

Prop 18 was examined on Tuesday, below.

Prop 19 aims to remove a provision from the Constitution that the Legislature is no longer going to use. Article III, Section 48-d was added shortly after WWII to provide for the creation of rural fire districts through the imposition of up to a 0.03% property tax in those districts. In 1987, voters added Section 48-e, which provided for "emergency services districts" funded by up to a 0.10% property tax to provide fire, EMS, and other emergency services to rural areas. The Legislature has converted all fire service districts to emergency services districts and has repealed the enabling legislation for 48-d. As such, 48-d is now redundant. I'll vote IN FAVOR of Prop 19.
- posted by Doug @ 10:54 AM    Comment

 
I'll return to the props tomorrow.
Today just didn't feel right for posting political stuff. I wanted to just have the black 'IN MEMORIAM' page up all day.

For those that didn't see it, it's here.
- posted by Doug @ 10:40 PM    Comment

 
Two years on..
.. and it still feels like just yesterday.

.. And I'm still angry.
- posted by Doug @ 10:18 AM    Comment

 
Now for the big one..
Prop 12 is the one you've been hearing about on radio and TV ads, in direct mail, and in water-cooler conversations for the past couple of months. The purpose of Prop 12 is to place a limit on the amount of compensation that judges and juries can award plaintiffs for non-economic damages. Non-economic damages means stuff like "pain and suffering", "mental anguish", "loss of companionship", etc. Prop 12 does NOT authorize a cap on economic damages -- lost wages, medical bills, prescription drug costs. Economic damages are calculable, objective costs. Non-economic damages are completely subjective and in theory unbounded -- how can you put a price on the loss of a limb, for instance? The amount a plaintiff gets in non-economic damages is now mostly determined by how good the trial lawyer is and how much he can make the jury sympathize with his plight. Placing a cap on these damages injects sanity and fairness into this process. Once the sky is no longer the limit, reason can take over from emotion.

Prop 12 has two sections, the first dealing with medical malpractice cases and the second dealing with other types of lawsuits. The Legislature has already provided that if Prop 12 passes, non-economic damages will be capped in medical cases at $250,000 - $750,000 (depending on how many defendants there are). Prop 12 also provides for a future Legislature to provide for similar caps in other sorts of lawsuits. It requires a 3/5 supermajority to set these new limits, however.

Of course, the primary reason why Prop 12 was proposed in the first place was to try to reduce insurance premiums that doctors have to pay and thereby lower medical costs and increase medical availability in this state. While I agree with these motives, the fairness issue I outline above is the main reason I will be voting IN FAVOR of Prop 12.
- posted by Doug @ 11:20 PM    Comment

 
Prop 11 comes up dry
Another one to smack down.. Prop 11 would authorize the Legislature to allow wineries to manufacture, sell, or distribute wine even in "dry" counties/municipalities. Just as in general I am opposed to federal usurpation of state powers, I am likewise opposed to this attempt by the State to wrest decision-making power from local control. If a county or municipality has declared through an election that it wishes to be "dry", that is, to disallow the sale of alcoholic beverages, the State should NOT have the prerogative of overriding that decision. Therefore, I recommend a vote AGAINST Prop 11.
- posted by Doug @ 10:45 PM    Comment

 
On to prop 10..
Prop 10 would allow cities and towns to donate used firefighting equipment to rural volunteer fire departments through the Texas Forest Service without running afoul of the current Constitutional prohibitions on governments giving away anything of value to another entity. Sounds good; I'm IN FAVOR on 10.
- posted by Doug @ 11:35 AM    Comment

 
Now that's some breath control..
Getting away from the proposed amendments again, I had to take note of this story that combines two of my loves: astronomy and music.

A black hole is exciting gas molecules in the Perseus cluster into a gigantic standing wave. The black hole has been sounding a massive B-flat 57 octaves below middle C for the last 2.5 billion years!
- posted by Doug @ 11:11 AM    Comment

 
Back to the props..
Prop 7 would reduce the size of district court petit juries (as opposed to grand juries) from 12 to 6 in misdemeanor cases. This seems OK, as county court and JP juries are already composed of 6 people. This would make the court procedure more uniform across venues for the same crimes. Go ahead and vote IN FAVOR on 7.

At this point, you're probably wondering if I'm against any of the proposals. Well, let's look at Prop 9. In Texas, there is a Permanent School Fund (PSF) which contains real estate, stocks, bonds, etc. The income (interest and dividends, etc.) from the PSF is deposited in the Available School Fund (ASF) which is distributed each year to the school districts in Texas. This distribution is currently about $700 million per year. Prop 9 would allow the administrators of these funds to distribute a portion of the capital gains on the assets in PSF to the ASF. While this would provide a short term boost to the ASF (an additional $200-250 million distribution in each of the next two years), that extra money will not be reinvested. As the years go by, the delta between what the ASF would get if Prop 9 passes and what it would get if Prop 9 is defeated will get smaller and smaller and eventually go negative. In addition, capital gains are more difficult to predict (witness the stock market in the last 3 years) than interest or dividend income, making the budgeting process more difficult.

To me, this appears to be political candy masquerading as fiscal management. We get a short-term benefit to schools that we'll end up paying for in the long run. I recommend a vote AGAINST Prop 9.
- posted by Doug @ 9:34 AM    Comment

 
Breaking News..
Special Session #3 will start on Monday.

I think I win my bet on the over/under, since Gov. Perry called the session prior to 9/13, even though it won't start until the 15th.
- posted by Doug @ 4:59 PM    Comment

 
Props 6, 8 & 18 - slam dunks
Prop 6 would allow seniors to refinance home equity loans as reverse mortgages. (Currently, only those over the age of 62 are eligible for reverse mortgages.) These are similar types of loans in that both use your homestead as collateral and allow you to borrow against the equity in your home. Home equity loans must be repaid on a monthly schedule, however, while reverse mortgages need not be repaid until you die or sell the house. Under current law, home equity loans can only be refinanced with another home equity loan.

I think you should be able to get whatever sort of loan lenders are willing to give you, and government should butt out as much as possible (look out for basic consumer protections, but that's about it). This one's a slam dunk -- I'm IN FAVOR of Prop 6.

Prop 8 is another no-brainer, along with its sister proposal, Prop 18. These amendments would allow the State to install in office candidates running unopposed for an elected position without having to actually hold the election for that position (Prop 8 refers to statewide and county offices; Prop 18 deals with other political subdivisions). This will save the state money and will save time for those of us at the polls, especailly in the large cities -- we will no longer have to wade through numerous ballot pages with only one candidate for each office. Vote IN FAVOR on Props 8 & 18.
- posted by Doug @ 10:04 AM    Comment

 
Prop 5 -- oopsie.
Prop 5: This amendment corrects an oversight in a Constitutional amendment approved in 2001. I'll quote from the Texas Legislative Council's analysis:

As authorized by Subsection (j) [of Art. VIII, Sect. 1], the 77th Legislature in 2001 amended the Tax Code by adding Section 11.142, which authorized the governing body of any taxing unit, other than a school district, to exempt travel trailers from ad valorem taxation by the taxing unit regardless of whether the travel trailers are real or personal property.

Although Section 1(j), Article VIII, Texas Constitution, and Section 11.142, Tax Code, authorized most taxing units to exempt travel trailers from ad valorem taxation, those provisions also had the effect of requiring school districts to tax those travel trailers regardless of whether they are real or personal property. [Emphasis added.]

Oops. You'd think with all the lawyers around Austin, this sort of thing wouldn't happen, but it does. I've only been paying attention to Texas politics for a few years and this is the second time this has happened that I'm aware of. A couple of years ago we had to revote on reverse mortgages because there was an 'and' in the amendment text instead of an 'or'. (Or maybe vice versa.)

Anyway, cut the legislators (not to mention the newly-taxed trailer owners) a break and vote IN FAVOR of Prop 5.
- posted by Doug @ 5:27 PM    Comment

 
Props 3 & 4
Continuing in our look at the proposals on this Saturday's ballot..

Prop 3: This amendment would permit (but not require) the Legislature to exempt religious organizations from property taxes on land owned for future expansion or that is leased to others for use as a non-profit school. Religious organizations are already exempt from property taxes on land used for actual places of worship and attendant structures (parking lots, minister's housing, etc.), as well as on buildings under construction (for up to three years) and schools which they run themselves. Prop 3 would authorize a six-year exemption (on contiguous land -- 3 years for non-contiguous) for property to be used for expansion but on which construction has not yet begun, as long as no income is derived from that property. There is a provision for back taxes to be levied if the property is sold or not used for expansion/replacement of the actual place of worship. Prop 3 would also extend the exemption on schools to property which is leased to another entity for a non-profit school.

Taxing a religious organization doesn't sit right with me. I know about rendering unto Caesar and all that, but in this society we the people are Caesar. I don't think we should be taxing faith communities. Anything to reduce the tax burden that these organizations pay so they can put more of their resources to good use is OK by me. The main arguments against Prop 3 seem to be: A) it will increase the tax burden on other taxpayers, and B) that it is unfair that religious organizations get an exemption to lease property for school use but no one else does. I acknowledge the first argument, but propose it would be better to reduce expenditures than to raise property taxes on others. As to the second argument, all entities are eligible for a tax exemption on non-profit schools that they run themselves. Extending this exemption to property leased to others for the same function makes sense. I believe that this extra exemption should be extended to all entities. The fact that this proposal only extends it to religious organizations is no reason to oppose it. I am IN FAVOR of Prop 3.


Prop 4: I must admit: I'm ambivalent about this one. This amendment allows municipal utility districts (MUDs) in 11 urban and suburban counties (Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Montgomery, Tarrant, Bastrop, Bexar, Waller, Travis or Williamson) to issue bonds backed by taxes for the construction of parks and recreational areas in those districts. MUDs (anywhere in the state) already have the power to use excess monies to build parks, but cannot issue bonds or go into debt for this purpose. I would certainly be against this proposal if it did not specifically require that all such bond issues must be approved by the voters in that district. Folks will thus be able to decide whether to raise their own taxes for a new park. I will probably vote IN FAVOR of Prop 4, but if you want to vote AGAINST it, that's OK by me.

- posted by Doug @ 4:33 PM    Comment

 
Election time!
How many of you knew that we're voting on Constitutional amendments here in Texas this Saturday? Very good, you, go to the head of the class.

So I figure if the editorial boards at the major dailies can make recommendations on how you should vote (here's the Chron's and the AAS's), so can the editorial board of Rightward Reasonings (that would be, ummm.. me).

So don't take the word of those silly newspapers. This week, as my work schedule permits, I'll be going through the 22 proposed amendments and let you know how you SHOULD be voting. :)

First up: Prop 1. This amendment deals with the Veterans' Land Board and what it can do with the money allocated to it. The Board makes low-interest loans to veterans to build, buy, or improve homes. It also builds and maintains veterans cemeteries, but cannot currently build or maintain nursing/retirement homes for veterans. Prop 1 would allow retirement homes to be built and maintained by the VLB. It would also allow the VLB to pay interest on bonds from any fund it controls, rather than having to pay it from the fund related to the bond. The VLB already has the power to shift money between its various funds, so this just streamlines operations. This all seems entirely reasonable. The main argument against seems to be that the amendment would shift funding from housing assistance programs to the building of veterans homes. While certainly true (unless the appropriation to VLB increases), I think buildsing veterans retirement homes is a worthwhile thing for the VLB to do. Therefore, I am IN FAVOR of Prop 1.

Prop 2: This proposition would restore a 2-year redemption period for mineral rights sold at a tax sale to recover delinquent taxes. From 1876 to 1993, the Texas Constitution allowed a former property owner whose real estate assets were sold in a tax sale two years to regain his property. This was done by paying to the purchaser the purchase price, plus fees, interest and a 25% (in the first year) or 50% (in the second) penalty. In 1993, the Constitution was amended to shorten this period from two years to six months for all types of property (and property interests, such as mineral rights) except homesteads and agricultural land. Prop 2 would place mineral rights among the exceptions and restore the two-year redemption window. This seems reasonable, as mineral rights are often split among several owners and records of ownership are not kept by counties. This can result in part owners not being aware that the taxes are not getting paid until the property or mineral interest therein is sold. A two-year timeframe is more amenable to these owners being able to reclaim their property. I will vote IN FAVOR of Prop 2.
- posted by Doug @ 3:11 PM    4 comments