Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Former Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina asks for end to property tax

Dallas Morning News: Conservatives urge state to abolish property taxes

CNBC/Associated Press: Texas lawmakers hold hearing on property taxes

Austin American Statesman: Texas Digest – Conservatives testify on state property tax system

NewsMax: Texas Considers Repealing Property Taxes

CBS (Dallas): Tea Party Calls Legislature To Abolish Property Taxes

Amarillo Globe-News: Tax Questions Worth Asking

After the hearing, thirty grassroots activists in attendance, walked the halls of the Capitol making 164 visits to 48 legislators asking them to work towards the elimination of the property tax in Texas. Those visits confirmed that no elected official nor other policy group in this state is as informed or as has put as much work into this issue as We Texans. There is much work still to be done to educate legislators on the feasibility of our plan, but our presence in Austin last week was just the spark we needed to ignite the fire at their feet to get to work on this issue. We have the plan. We have the will. Now let’s demand the change from our legislature.

Who will stand up against big government in Texas? We can. We will. We Texans.

Please save the date and make arrangements to be in Austin if possible. We will be available in The Capitol Grill  at 9:00am the morning of the hearing to share information about what will take place at the hearing, organize visits to legislators offices after the hearing and answer any questions you may have. The Capitol Grill is located in the Capitol Extension E1.002 (see map) Please make plans to join us if you can and make your voice heard in Austin.

If you are able to attend please RSVP here.

Many people don’t pay much attention to the position of the sheriff mistakenly thinking that his role is similar to the chief of police of a city.  But, the county sheriff is not just another cop.  He is not elected to “keep you safe”, round up the bad guys or be in charge of the deputies.  As important as those duties are, the sheriff’s job is much more important and noble. The chief purpose of a sheriff is to keep you and your county free.

Let’s start with some background. America was founded as a constitutional republic in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the federal government and the states. Our federal government has extremely limited powers set forth by the Constitution. In order to secure the principles of this Constitution, our Founders penned Article VI paragraph 3, which states very clearly:

“…all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution …”.  

The sheriff is part of the executive branch of government and thus is constitutionally required by way of solemn oath, to uphold, defend, support, and obey the United States Constitution.  So just like our President and Representatives, our sheriff’s supreme duty and responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution.

This “defense” should rightly take the form of securing the county from encroachment by the federal government. The sheriff is the supreme law enforcement authority in his county and it is for this reason that the office of sheriff is an elected position.  In fact, this is the most important aspect of the sheriff’s authority; he is elected by, for, and of the people. He is not appointed, he is not a bureaucrat, he does not report to the town manager or to the city council. He reports directly to the people and is answerable to them and them alone. The role of the sheriff is another checks and balance put in place by our founders to help secure a free nation. The office should serve as another level of protection between the government and the people.

For a real life example of a sheriff fulfilling his proper role in defending liberty, let’s go back to 1994. The Brady Bill was passed by Congress and signed in to law by President Clinton. This law, among other things, sought to force all sheriffs in the nation to promote gun control within their own jurisdictions with no funds being allocated for them to do this work. Additionally, The Brady Act even contained a provision to arrest the Sheriff should he fail to comply.  At this time, Richard Mack, Sheriff from Graham County, Arizona, along with six other sheriffs from around the country  (Sheriffs Koog from Texas, Frank from Vermont, Romero from Louisiana, McGee from Mississippi, Printz from Montana, and Anders from Wyoming) filed suit against the federal government with the assertion that the Brady Bill was an unconstitutional law.

On June 27, 1997 they won their suit when the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Bill was in fact unconstitutional stating that the federal government could not commandeer state or county officers for federal bidding. Justice Scalia asserted the following in the supreme court ruling:

“The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other, a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two forms of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it…

The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere…

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front…”

The power of the Federal Government would be augmented immeasurably if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States.”

[You can read the full text of the Supreme Court opinion online here]

The federal government must stay within its proper “sphere” and it is the sheriff’s job to ensure that they do just that. One of our “structural protections of liberty” is based on the notion and principle that “different governments” will keep each other in check and by so doing; provide a “double security” to the rights of the people. Justice Scalia makes it clear that the federal government does not have the power or authority to “impress” the police from the states into federal service. Therefore, the sheriff does not have a lawful obligation to go along with unconstitutional federal actions.

The Supreme Court Ruling of the Mack/Printz case repeatedly states that “state legislatures are not subject to federal direction.” Consequently, when the federal government steps outside its constitutional role, our local law enforcement officers have not only a lawful duty but a moral obligation to refuse to acquiesce. It is up to our local and statewide elected officials to “erect barriers” against such encroachments and to stand on the side of the people to provide them with the protection. Doing so is both right and proper and in accordance with an officer’s oath to support our constitutional republic.

During this election season, as candidates make appeals to you based on their qualifications and resumes, it is of utmost importance that we as voters are engaging with candidates to make sure that they understands not only their oath of office but also have an intimate understanding of the Constitution that they will swear by oath to protect.  It is that understanding that means the difference between a free nation and one that is on a steady course to tyranny.

For help on how to better examine your local and statewide candidates, please refer to our How To Guide: Get to Know Your Candidate.

For a more in-depth discussion of the duties of a sheriff consider reading Sheriff Richard Mack’s book: “The County Sheriff: America’s Last Hope” This book served as both source and inspiration for this post. 

We have published this guide to help you cut through the pre-packaged campaign messaging and quickly get to the heart of any candidate’s true ideology. In our How to Guide: Get to Know Your Candidate, we have addressed elected offices you will find on your ballot in any given election year. For each office we have supplied questions designed to be asked directly to a candidate, perhaps at a town hall meeting, candidate forum, via e-mail or even over social media. Following each question, we have outlined a proper liberty-minded response. Certainly, candidate’s exact answers to these questions will vary greatly, but if they truly understand what makes and keeps men free, their answers to the questions in this guide will reflect those we have provided. The answers we have outlined are based on key constitutional principles that we believe candidates must have a firm grasp of in order to govern in a manner that protects freedom.

Private Property Ownership
The Founding Fathers reiterated the case for private property on many occasions. George Washington stated that “Liberty…is little else than a name, where the government is too feeble…to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.” John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689) describes our reasons for forming government in the first place: man “is willing to join in society with others . . . for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.”  Unalienable property is the basis for individual freedom and prosperity. The fall of great empires bears out the fallacy of Plato’s premise and argument for communal property. Indeed, we can even see in the wealth and productivity levels of countries today that those who protect private property are more productive and thus enjoy a higher standard of living.

State Sovereignty
The founders understood that the federal government would tend towards accruing more power unto itself and provided the 9^th and 10^th amendments to the Constitution to safeguard limited government.  It is the responsibility of the individual states to limit the federal government when it acts outside the powers delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson outlined, when the federal government steps outside its powers, the states have a duty to interpose and nullify federal actions in order to protect the citizens of their state from a tyrannical Washington DC. James Madison said the people can safely rely on the disposition of local legislators to erect barriers against the encroachments of the Federal Government. Therefore, it is the duty of all States to keep the Federal Government in check.

Right to Bear Arms
The right to bear arms is inseparable from the principle of individual liberty.  The government enforces laws with police and military forces.  If the laws become corrupt, individuals must have the means to protect themselves against police and military enforcing corrupt laws.  “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

Inherent Rights of the Individual
Rights are not granted by the government. The government exists to protect inherent rights.  The wording of the Constitution consistently acknowledges that the Constitution does not grant rights, but recognizes them.  An alternate view belongs to a school of political philosophy that identifies a social contract as the source of rights.  The social contract institutionalizes tyranny of the majority.  Relying on principle instead of a majority-rules system is what led activists to fight slavery and legal racism.

Free Market Economy
Texas Republicans have failed to recognize the difference between being pro-business and pro-free market.  Pro-business means being willing to use the force of government to remove barriers for businesses.  In one sense, this seems in line with the Constitution. In practice, however, it amounts to politicians picking groups of people to benefit at the expense of other groups of people. To be pro-free market, however, means that the government exists to enforce contracts, titles, etc, because clearly defined property rights are essential for a free market economy.  It is also essential that failed businesses be allowed to close up shop, because otherwise they would be a burden on the rest of the economy.

Opposition socialism
Conservatives have historically stood up against socialism, at home and abroad.  As Ronald Reagan explained in his 1964 address, “A Time for Choosing”, Americans must stand up for individual liberties in all situations. One thing we need to ask ourselves today is: Are we sacrificing individual liberty at home in order to fight socialism abroad? If the American people allow our freedoms to be abridged, then there will be no place in the world for oppressed people to flee oppression.

Limited Government
 “The aim, therefore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty.” - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. We must realize that in order to defend individual liberty, the government must be limited. We must defend each individual’s right to make his own decisions (whether to text while driving or allowing smoking at their place of business) and then take the responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.

If a candidate does not fully understand these principles, he will be ill-equipped to protect your freedom once elected. The powers of personality, charisma and electability will not save citizens from tyranny. Only principles can give men the strength our founding fathers had to fight for freedom at all costs.   We must have the courage to elect principled leadership and the willingness to work hard to find the candidate that will protect the values of individual liberty, morality, and the free market for ourselves and future generations.

Political parties have concentrated on building a majority so they can bring their brand of tyranny to the rest of the country.   But as principled people, we must work together to find the solutions to society’s problems that do not trample the rights of the few in favor of the many. This year many candidates and political parties will attempt to redefine themselves.  Will the result work to protect the values of individual liberty and free markets, or will it be a Leviathan, gobbling power with no concern for the citizens it tramples on the way to Washington?

Our sincere hope is that this guide will serve as a valuable resource to all liberty-minded voters for years to come. By focusing on principles rather than personalities, the process of choosing a candidate to support with your vote becomes rather simple. Please use this guide as a tool to make informed voting decisions that serve to secure the blessings of freedom for ourselves and our posterity.

Since our original posting the Public Utilities Commission has opened a project case on this issue entitled “PUC Proceeding to evaluate the feasibility of instituting a smart meter opt-out program.” This is the first step in the Commission considering implementing an opt-out program for smart metering technology in Texas.  It is through the work of organizations like our own, comments and complaints from Texas consumers like you and also letters from State Representatives that the Commission is responding to consumer demand.

One of the more powerful letters on the issue addressed to Chairman Nelson of the PUC came from Rep. Dennis Bonnen. (You can read the full text of his letter here.) Rep. Bonnen was the original author of the legislation that addressed smart meter implementation in Texas and he made it very clear that mandatory installation of the meters was never his intent. He states in his letter:

“I urge the commission to correct this oversight by providing a simple, customer-friendly process for opting-out of the advanced metering technology… I ask that any necessary rule changes be adopted expeditiously to effectuate my intent, so that additional legislative action is not required. I stand committed to ensuring that this issue is addressed.”

We applaud Rep. Bonnen for his strong stand on the issue and encourage other state legislators to do the same.

To  help obtain an opt-out provision for smart meters in Texas you can get involved by doing the following:

• Call your state representative and state senator about this issue and ask them to work to provide an opt out provision. Ask them to sign the letter to the PUC and mail that letter to the address below.
• Call the PUC at 888-782-8477 to let them know you’d like to see an opt out      provision. Mention that your comments are in regards to Docket#: 40190 and the PUC will make note of the fact that you called and requested an opt-out provision.
• Send your comments stating you believe there should be an opt out provision and encouraging the PUC to revise their rules to accommodate said provision in a letter to:

PUC Central Records
Attn: Filing Clerk
re: Docket #40190
P O Box 13326
Austin, Tx 78711-3326

The Public Utilities Commission is cataloging all comments and requests regarding this project online. You can track the progress of this issue by viewing digital copies of all comments and requests received by the PUC for Docket#40190 here.

—

ORIGINAL POST: (02/15/2012)

Over the past few months, we’ve heard varied and great concern about the installation of smart electricity meters across Texas. And, there’s been an uprising across the country as citizens voice numerous objections to the devices.  Concerns range from health and safety to privacy issues. In Texas, it is the Public Utility Commission (PUC) which regulates the electricity industry.  The PUC has written the rule requiring participating electric distributors to implement this new technology across their service area. As the rules currently stand, the PUC has not provided a mechanism that would allow consumers to opt out of smart meter installation on their property. We believe, however, from a review of the legislation from which the PUC rules are derived, that the legislature’s intent was permissive and not mandatory in nature.  We further believe therefore that an opt out measure should be made available to Texas consumers.

We have been working to address this concern administratively. We are leading an effort to have the PUC revise rules which mandate the installation of an advanced (smart) meter electric grid in Texas. We have spent countless hours researching the original legislation, reviewing archived committee hearings’ video, calling legislators and meeting with them in person in Austin to discuss this issue. We have identified several legislators who may be willing to facilitate a rule review with the PUC. Last week, we sent a letter to several members of the state legislature outlining for them our research into original legislative intent and asking them to sign a letter to the PUC requesting that the commission revisit their mandatory rules for compliance and create an opt out provision.

Our goal is to have an opt out measure incorporated into the rules without requiring any change in the current law. If it is determined that a legislative change is necessary, Texans will have to wait until 2013 to seek a solution.

If you would like to help with this effort, you can:

• Call your state representative and state senator about this issue and ask them to work to provide an opt out provision
• Print and fax or email a copy of the letter to your legislator.  Ask them to sign the letter to the PUC and forward that signed letter to us at contact@WeTexans.com or via fax to 979-532-5481.
• Call the PUC at 888-782-8477 to let them know you’d like to see an opt out provision.

Rep. Simpson shared his views on its demise, “Politics has a lot in common with fairy tales, in both arenas you have to suspend rational faculties in order to comprehend what is going on. Rarely in the history of this Legislature has, to my knowledge, the state’s leadership so masterly worked against the will of its members and the people they represent. Leadership arranged it so that every member could cast a vote in support of a bill they would ensure would not pass.”

You can see Rep. Simpson’s most recent interview on this issue here.

And so it ends. Few in state leadership have yet to grasp the concepts of nullification and interposition and fewer still display any courage in the face of the federal Goliath. Where are our David’s? Perhaps they are living among us? Perhaps they will enter the battle in 2013? But, for now, it appears there are heroes in other states fighting the exact same fight we lost here in Texas. The following is an article about the TSA and States’ Rights from our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center.

The TSA Won’t Stop Itself. So The States Will
by Mike Maharrey

On Monday, TSA agents escorted Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) from the security checkpoint at the Nashville airport when he refused to submit to an invasive pat-down, once again focusing attention on this out of control federal agency. But even as the TSA continues its heavy handed treatment of Americans,  a number of states around the country are currently considering legislation to put a stop to such actions.

Paul says he missed his flight, but later rebooked and passed through security without further incident.

The confrontation started after the Kentucky senator walked through a scanner and it alerted to an irregularity. Paul says he offered to walk back through the scanner again, but TSA agents insisted he must undergo a pat-down.

Paul refused. He says he showed them his leg, the area supposedly causing the problem, but that wasn’t good enough. When he tried to use his cell phone to call TSA headquarters in Washington D.C. to get clarification on the rules, he says agents told him that he would have to endure a full body pat-down.

“For an hour and a half, they said ‘absolutely, I would have to [accept a pat-down],’” Paul said in a phone interview with the Daily Caller. “And, because I used my cell phone, they told me I would have to do a full body pat down because you’re not allowed to use your cell phone when you’re being detained.”

Paul says agents detained him in a cubical area, actions TSA officials deny. They say local law enforcement officers simply escorted him away from the secure area and did not detain him.

“I tried to leave the cubicle to speak to one of the TSA people and I was barked at: ‘Do not leave the cubicle!’ So, that, to me sounds like I’m being asked not to leave the cubicle. It sounds a little bit like I’m being detained,” Paul told the Daily Caller.

Paul’s father, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul reacted strongly to the incident.

“The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors, and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe,” he said.

The White House defended the TSA’s actions.

“I think it is absolutely essential that we take necessary actions to ensure that air travel is safe,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

Rand Paul is not the first public official to endure harsh treatment at the hands of the TSA. One Alaska legislator’s experience led her to take up James Madison’s admonition and interpose for the people she represents.

In February 2011, Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna (D-Anchorage) was heading back to Juneau.

“The evening of the 20th of February 2011 started with relief, as I was anxious to get back to the important work of the Alaskan Legislature. Heading into security after time with the line of passengers, I felt upbeat.”

Her upbeat demeanor quickly turned into apprehension when TSA agents directed her into a full body scanner. She knew from experience what was coming.

“The horror began again. A female agent placed herself blocking my passage. Scan results would again display that my breast cancer and the resulting scars pointed a TSA finger of irregularity at my chest. I would require invasive, probing hands of a stranger over my body. Memories of violation would consume my thoughts again,” she wrote, chronicling her experience on her blog.

This time around, Cissna refused to comply.

“Being a public servant and elected representative momentarily disappeared. Facing the agent I began to remember what my husband and I’d decided after the previous intensive physical search. That I never had to submit to that horror again! It would be difficult, we agreed, but I had the choice to say no, this twisted policy did not have to be the price of flying to Juneau!” she wrote. “So last night, as more and more TSA, airline, airport and police gathered, I became stronger in remembering to fight the submission to a physical hand exam. I repeatedly said that I would not allow the feeling-up and I would not use the transportation mode that required it.”

Instead of undergoing the invasive pat-down, Cissna rented a car and then took a small private plane to Prince Rupert, B.C. From there, it was a two-day ferry trip up to Juneau.

“For nearly fifty years I’ve fought for the rights of assault victims, population in which my wonderful Alaska sadly ranks number one, both for men and women who have been abused. The very last thing an assault victim or molested person can deal with is yet more trauma and the groping of strangers, the hands of government ‘safety’ policy,” she said. “For these people, as well as myself, I refused to submit.”

Recognizing that the TSA wasn’t going to rein in itself, on Jan. 17, 2012, Cissna introduced HB 262 in the Alaska House, “An Act relating to the offense of interference with access to public buildings or transportation facilities.”

The bill would make it a class A misdemeanor for any agent to require a person seeking access to a public building or transportation facility to “consent or otherwise submit to (1) physical contact by any person touching directly or through clothing the genitals, buttocks, or female breast of the person seeking access; or (2) any electronic process that produces an electronic image of the genitals, anus, or female breast or otherwise creates an electronic image of the person seeking access that exposes or reveals a physical characteristic that is normally hidden by clothing and is not normally visible to the public.”

After her experience, Cissna explained why stopping overreaching TSA searches means so much to Alaskans.

“The TSA threat of ‘Do you want to fly?’ means something very different to Alaskans, she said. “Flying in Alaska is not a choice, but a necessity. The freedom to travel should never come at the price of basic human dignity and pride.”

Alaska joins four other states considering legislation to halt invasive TSA searches within their borders. Lawmakers in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan will also consider bills designed to rein in unwarranted TSA searches without probable cause.

The New Hampshire House passed a bill earlier this month that would require state and local law enforcement officials to document complaints from citizens who feel TSA searches cross the line and then place the report in a public data base. It would also allow citizens to videotape encounters with the TSA and require police officers to take the citizens’ side against any TSA officer trying to stop them. The legislation includes TSA searches conducted at bus stations or along the state’s roadways. The state Senate will now take up the bill.

The Tenth Amendment Center expects as many as 12 states to introduce legislation aimed at the TSA in 2012, and with recent events once again putting the agency in the spotlight, even more could follow suit.

To track freedom to travel legislation across the U.S., click HERE.

For model freedom to travel legislation you can encourage your legislators to file in your home state, click HERE.

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of ’98 – Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

First, some background. When attempting to acquire a person’s land, there are two ways to do it.  You can negotiate with the landowner to buy it from them directly or the power of eminent domain (government force) can be exercised to take ownership and evict the property owner. Texas bestows the power of eminent domain to pipelines [Texas Natural Resources Code - §111.019] if the pipeline meets the prescribed common carrier definitions.  In filing an “Application for Permit to Operate a Pipeline in Texas” with the Texas Railroad Commission, companies indicate, by checking a box, whether they intend to operate a private pipeline or whether they are a common carrier.

However, the Railroad Commission claims no authority to verify or certify that the pipeline operator is in fact a common carrier. So who does?  The short answer is: no one.  As it stands now in Texas, when pipeline companies come with eminent domain power in hand to claim your land, your only option is to lawyer up and fight them in the courts at your own expense.  This is how tenuous your property rights are in this state!

Recently, the Texas Supreme Court ruled on a case (Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. And Mike Latta V. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC) addressing this exact issue.

In the opinion, Justice Willett writes:

The Texas Constitution safeguards private property by declaring that eminent domain can only be exercised for “public use.” Even when the Legislature grants certain private entities “the right and power of eminent domain,” the overarching constitutional rule controls: no taking of property for private use.  Accordingly, the Natural Resources Code requires so-called “common carrier” pipeline companies to transport carbon dioxide “to or for the public for hire.”  In other words, a CO2 pipeline company cannot wield eminent domain to build a private pipeline. [Emphasis Added]

Now, the opinion in this case specifies a CO2 carrier because the respondent, in this case was specifically claiming common carrier status as a CO2  pipeline but, the ruling affects all pipelines in the State of Texas.  But had Texas Rice Land Partners and Mike Latta not pursued this issue all the way to the Texas Supreme Court, they would have lost their property (or an easement on their property) to the pipeline.  Is it not the duty of government to insure that the law is followed?  But in this case, enforcement of law and justice fell on the shoulders of the victim.

Yet, there is still more to consider.  If the company that claims the awesome power of eminent domain is, in fact, just a private line, one that does not meet the criteria of “common carrier” are they guilty of both fraud and theft?  In other words, hasn’t there been a concerted effort on the part of the company to defraud landowners?  What if the company has already taken people’s land?  Are they not guilty of theft by fraud? Aren’t we all aware of cases where individuals have been charged with impersonating an government official and have been punished by fine and/or imprisonment?  Have these companies not done the same thing? Have they not impersonated a common carrier in an attempt to defraud an individual out of their land by coercion and force?  These are questions that demand an answer if Texans are to be secure in their property.

Consider whether an individual victim of theft by fraud is expected to go out and hire a private investigator to track down the perpetrator, garner enough evidence to then hire an attorney to prosecute the offender?  Of course not, they simply report the issue to the police and the state takes over.  Law enforcement is the state’s job.  The Denbury Green case demonstrates that the state of Texas has failed to enforce our own law.

The question that should be surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline is whether the company is a common carrier under Texas law or whether it is merely a private company building a pipeline for their own private use.  We can not compromise freedom for security, not job security or economic security or energy independence. Many are saying, “Well, this pipeline means jobs!”  Yes it does.  Or “This pipeline means energy independence.” and that it might.  But, is that a comforting thought when any company can come and take your property for its own profit?

As Texas steps up to meet the call for energy independence, let’s make sure we remember the importance of fair and just law – law that applies equally to everyone.  We must demand state and local governments that enforce those laws rather than turn a blind eye to abuse.

“Rather than providing solutions to the water needs facing Texas, the additional debt imposed on Texans by Prop 2 compounds the problem,” warned Debra Medina, Founder, We Texans. “InfrastructureTexas.org put out information playing on voters’ fears about the drought and wildfires. Many Texans believed this money was going to fund needed water projects with no cost to them. H204Texas PAC put out an email saying Prop 2 would cost the taxpayers NOTHING. But we know better and we’ll be watching TWDB’s every move to ensure taxpayers and Texans’ water rights are protected.”

Politifact.com concluded H2O4Texas’ claim was a half truth.

It states: “The group’s claim sidesteps the fact that taxpayers of jurisdictions benefiting from the bonds will face bond-related costs. And while the additional bond authority sought in the proposition would not cost state taxpayers–up front–state lawmakers could still exploit their standing authority, as before, to spend state revenue on related debt.”

“We’re encouraged by the near defeat of Prop 2 — a big giveaway to Rick Perry’s water boys on the Texas Water Development Board.  Citizens are wising up to the fix between large-scale developer friends of the Governor,  and Republican and Democratic politicians who are in on these deals,” notes Linda Curtis, Founder of Independent Texans. “Democratic State Senator Kirk Watson got a taste of what is to come last week, when he faced suspicions of otherwise supportive citizens in Bastrop when he was pushing Prop 2 at a water forum.  When politicians on both sides come together, so must we citizens.  The Texas water war — a transpartisan phenomenon like the fight to stop the TTC –  is now officially on.”

Texas voters said a resounding ‘NO’ to expanding Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Transportation Reinvestment Zone (or TRZ) authority to counties by defeating Prop 4 November 8. The Constitutional Amendment HJR 63 authored by Rep. Joe Pickett (D – El Paso) would have allowed counties to use property taxes and sales taxes collected in a TRZ to build toll roads. So the defeat of Prop 4 is also a defeat of Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature’s plan to slap tolls on virtually all new lanes to Texas roads.

“Using gas taxes to build toll roads is bad enough, but trying to nab property taxes to build toll roads is beyond the pale,” says Terri Hall, TURF Founder. “It’s refreshing to see the voters reject this anti-taxpayer and anti-property rights amendment. Let’s see if lawmakers in Austin listen — Texans don’t want their tax money used to build roads and then have to pay again, through tolls, to drive on them.”

The defeat of Prop 4 also signals a rejection of government abuse of property rights for Kelo-style economic development. Prop 4 would have given the government more power to decide whose private property it wishes to “redevelop.” The ballot wording was vague and misleading. It failed to even mention tax increment financing, transportation reinvestment zone, or even the word ‘transportation.’ TURF launched a statewide campaign to educate voters about the amendment. We Texans, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, and Independent Texans also opposed the measure.

Cities already have TIF and TRZ authority. TRZs are as much about “economic development” as it is financing transportation projects, and means those who live in a zone will have their property taxes go up due to higher property values from the government-encouraged development. Property taxes aren’t going to go down once a county sells bonds dependent on ever increasing property tax appraisals.

The amendment was also linked to HB 563, authored by Pickett, which would have granted counties broad new authority, even to grant tax breaks to special interests in the zone and to use surpluses as a slush fund for virtually anything.

STATE OUTSOURCING TAX INCREASES
TRZs are a way for STATE legislators to punt on their responsibility to build and maintain STATE highways and their responsibility to end diversions of the gas tax to non-road uses. It allows them to outsource tax increases for roads by passing it down to the LOCAL level. By using appraisal increases to pay for transportation projects, it takes that revenue away from what cities and counties usually use that money to fund. So it would likely necessitate further property tax increases in order to make up for the shortfall in city and county services that will be diverted to transportation.
TURF is a non-partisan, grassroots, all-volunteer group defending citizens’ concerns with Agenda 21, toll road policy, public private partnerships, and eminent domain abuse. TURF promotes pro-taxpayer, pro-freedom, & non-toll transportation solutions. For more information or to support the work of TURF, please visit www.TexasTURF.org

To give you a taste of what the magazine wants people to know of the man and the cronyism he has thrived on here in Texas, here are a few highlights:

• “On the human level he is a nonpersonality, an almost perfect cipher – a man whose only discernible passion is his extreme willingness to be whatever someone will pay him to be, or vote for him to be.”
•  “Rick Perry brings shallow to a new level. He is very gifted in that regard. He could be the Adolf Hitler of shallow.”
• “Rick Perry has managed to set a scary new low in the annals of opportunism, turning Texas into a swamp of political incest and backroom dealing on a scale not often seen this side of the Congo or Sierra Leone.”
• “Favors are the one consistent thread running through Perry’s political career. Throughout his time as governor, whenever his ideology or his religion comes into conflict with the need to give a handout to a major campaign donor, ideology and religion lose every single time.”

With fair warning the graphic language of this article may be offensive, however, it remains an accurate and an educational read.

We Texans wants voters to have this insider’s look at the man and the office he has controlled for the past decade. However, more importantly, as you read, we remind you that the Governor cannot be crooked all on his own. We have only been able to arrive at this level of corruption in our state government this past decade at the complicit hands of our state legislature. The Governor cannot sign any legislation that hasn’t passed the house and senate first.

We will continue to turn the spotlight on crony capitalism in Texas not only in the office of the Governor but also in the halls the Capitol. And we will continue to work for the return to a just rule of law because “All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges…”

Read “Rick Perry: The Best Little Whore in Texas”