A few weeks ago I read an editorial by Molly Ivins about Texas coming short this year with their budget. Due mostly to deep tax cuts pushed through when Bush was governor. Now this morning I catch a little blub about the same thing on NPR. However I didn’t get to hear the full report. I don’t see anything in the internet news today on the subject. Is this true? Is Texas in the red due to tax cuts? I know here in VA there has been a big debate about the personal property tax and our own budget short fall.
If Texas has gone from being flush to negative numbers this won’t look very good for Mr. Bush and his current federal budget will it?
When Molly Ivins claims that there’s a budget shortfall, what she means is that there isn’t enough revenue to fund all the state spending she would like. And Molly Ivins likes a lot of state spending. The woman is all kinds of funny, but she’s never seen a social services program that couldn’t stand to have a lot more money thrown at it.
Besides, the Texas Legislature is required by law to balance the budget, so by definition, there’s no such thing as red ink down here.
Why would this be worrying for the nation? Was there an expectation that Bush would balance the federal budget? Let me guess. If that surplus Clinton promised never shows up, Bush will get blamed, won’t he?
I actually first heard of this from a article in The New Republic back in March. Texas is looking down the pipe of a possible $700 million budget deficit. They were considering (according to TNR) rolling back some of W.'s Property Tax Cut measures.
Also, Bush was busy doing some of his famous “fuzzy math” to come up with those tax cuts and make it look like he was keeping the state in the black. Of course, he probably assumed that the economy wouldn’t slow down until he was out of office. (True, the effects of the slowing economy didn’t start making themselves felt until after Bush moved to my back-yard.) But he was less than honest with his budget.
Somone on another site asked for an example of MI’s dishonesty. Here’s one. Texas isn’t in the red, and it constitutionally can’t be.
Note her spin when a Democrat does something she disapproves of. "Texas Secretary of State Henry Cuellar, who is* supposed to be** a Democrat but was appointed to his job by Republican Gov. Rick “Good-hair” Perry."* **(I.e., Cuellar is a Democrat.{/B]
Note her clever smearing of charter schools and academic standards, *"According to an interim study, 163 of the 192 schools chartered so far have severe problems. One-fourth of the charter schools are rated “unacceptable” by the state education agency, and only 59 percent of the charter students passed their Texas Assessment of Academic Skills tests in '99, compared with 78.4 percent statewide.
Bush, you recall, was fond of touting charter schools and “ending social promotion” as the keys to educational success. The House education committee voted to delay Bush’s plan to “end social promotion.” The new bill would allow factors other than test scores to be considered in promotion decisions – a position advocated by many educators."*
In fact, charter schools and promotion standards are supported by most edcational reformers today. They are opposed mainly by reactionary teachers’ unions, who oppose any requirement that teachers and public schools must educate their students. Note that her statistics on charter schools ignore any comparison with inner city public schools, where recent NAEP tests showed that a majority of 4th graders can’t read.
Hmm, so charter schools and strict promotion standards are supported by most “education reformers,” i.e., people who, by definition, want to change the current school system. And this disproves Molly Ivins’ statistics that say charter schools in Texas, on the whole, are doing a piss-poor job compared to regular public schools.
The point was meant to be that MI didn’t compare charter schools to regular public schools. She provided a statistic about charter schools without any comparison.
Clear now?
That looks like a comparison between charter schools and regular schools to me, although I suppose the TAAS numbers could include private schools. I just don’t know whether private schools are required to administer the TAAS test.
As for Ivins’ point that 25% of charter schools received an “unacceptable” (or "low-performing, in state bureaucract-speak) rating, that appears to be a rate many, many times higher than for schools at large:
Actually, I tend to like charter schools too, december. My impression is that Texas law has made it too easy for anybody with a half-baked educational idea to start one up. Fortunately, the TEA ratings jump all over them when they screw things up. But when charter schools work well, my sense is that they work very well.
Now back to your regularly-scheduled Texas budget thread.
If the assertion is that TExas is drowning in red ink and about to go under because former Governor Bush cut taxes for his rich cronies, the assertion is idiocy.
On the other hand, Texas, like MOST Sun Belt states, has experienced tremendous growth, and is constatntly having to play catch-up. Like many Southern states, Texas USED to have very low taxes (we still have no income tax) and commensurately low expenditures and services. When a state has the kind of growth Texas has experienced, there’s enormously increased demand from newcomers for services… along with tremendous pressure from older residents to keep taxes low. Now, in the 1960s and 1970s, coirporate taxes on the oil business were enough to cover most state expenses, and Texas was spared the necessity to make a lot of tough choices.
Is Texas on the verge of bankruptcy? Hardly. But at SOME point, something has to give. Never mind the massive, socialistic, welfare state Molly Ivins wants- just paying for the basic, routine, boring services that a state is expected to provide is EXPENSIVE, and the oil business alone can’t bail us out as it once did.
So, no, Texas is not insolvent. But in the long run, the state is almost certainly going to have to increase its revenues… and like it or not, that means taxes (very likely, a state income tax) at some point. IF a state income tax could be combined with a lowering of the stiff sales tax, and some local property tax relief, there’s some likelihood of that.
Look I never said that I took Molly Ivins word as God! However it does look as though Mr. Bush did do a little “rosey math” in Texas and now they are paying for it.
What’s interesting here is that unless you are really paying attention to these issues the average citizen doesn’t even realize that Mr. Bush has already been just a little short-sigthed with one important budget. Even I, the budget challenged, realize that you need to figure in inflationary rates and unforesable problems when working with money. Looks like he blew the fudge factor on this one. Just wish everyone realized we need to be a little cautious with our federal budget too. Too bad the media hasn’t been all over this one so it would at least make people stop and think.
The Texas state government SHOULD BE scratching to make ends meet. This is a healthy situation for any governmental body or business. It forces the organization to spend their money wisely.
Needs2know (and others) seem to think there’s a free pool of tax money available, and that a resoponsible politician should simply take as much as he thinks might be needed. The citizens of Texas have their own finances to think about. Most of them need the money more than the state does.
I totally disagree with the quote above. The media have been four square against the Bush tax cut (except for Bill O’Reilly.) They’ve gone out of their way to provide forums for tax cut opponents and for people bashing the rich.
