TEXAS STATEWIDE ELECTION NOVEMBER 5, 2019

TEXAS STATEWIDE ELECTION

NOVEMBER 5, 2019

PROPOSITION 1

"The constitutional amendment permitting a person to hold more than one office as a municipal judge at the same time."

Explained:

   The Texas Constitution (Article 16, Section 40) already allows some people to hold more than one office at the same time, such as county commissioner, justice of the peace, notary public, postmaster, etc.  I don't think some of these should be allowed.  Right now, a municipal judge can hold more than one office at the same time if he is appointed.  Usually someone is appointed to fill out someone else's term.  This would allow municipal judges to hold more than one paid public office at the same time, meaning he could simultaneously preside over multiple municipalities, regardless of whether they were appointed or elected.  I believe each city or municipality should be allowed to elect their own municipal judge.
   Therefore, I vote against Prop. 1.

PROPOSITION 2

   "The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $200 million to provide financial assistance for the development of certain projects in economically distressed areas."

Explained:

   The money from the debt (bonds) would go to the Economically Distressed Areas Program (EDAP).  This is another dedicated fund which is not how any of this is supposed to work.While it would raise money to replenish funds to finance water and wastewater infrastructure in economically distressed areas, money in the general revenue fund will also be used...to the net amount of $3 million dollar through 2021.  Dedicated funds are to be avoided and infrastructure improvements should be funded using general revenue.
   Therefore, I vote against Prop. 2.

PROPOSITION 3

   "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of a portion of the appraised value of certain property damaged by a disaster."

   First of all, I am against property tax.  Also, I believe assessing tax on some random "value" is a ponzi scheme.  If we have a property tax, it should be on the amount paid for that property, not what someone in office feels it should be worth.   Secondly, the state should not impose a burden on local government (who determines property tax) by taking control away from local government to collect that tax.  Furthermore, this exemption applies to citizens who qualify before the tax rate is set.  Hurricane season does not end when tax rates are adopted by local governments. Finally, this only gives the local government the CHOICE to exempt the tax and imposes predetermined damage categories.  I believe the state should not take away local power.  Citizens are more aware of who, in local government, are responsible for outcomes of policies and are more likely to vote them out of office if they don't agree with their policies.
   Therefore, I am against Prop. 3.

PROPOSITION 4

  "The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax, including a tax on an individual's share of partnership and unincorporated association income."

Explained:
   This proposition prohibits the Texas Legislature from establishing a personal state income tax.

A personal income tax would grow government because someone has to administer it.  With government, it is never one person, but a large bureaucracy.  Besides, any net revenue from that tax must be used for the support of education rather than being added to the general fund.
Therefore, I am for Prop. 4.

PROPOSITION 5

   "The constitutional amendment dedicating the revenue received from the existing state sales and use taxes that are imposed on sporting goods to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission to protect Texas' natural areas, water quality, and history by acquiring, managing, and improving state and local parks and historic sites while not increasing the rate of the state sales and use taxes."

EXPLAINED:

   Again, there should not be a dedicated revenue fund.  In fact, there is a loophole in place now that prevents all the funds from going to the parks and historical sites.  In the current political climate, why would we use taxpayer funds to protect and promote historical sites when our government facilitates mob rule to tear them down?   If you don't like the way the legislature manages tax revenue, vote them out of office.
Therefore, I vote against Prop. 5.

PROPOSITION 6

   "The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase by $3 billion the maximum bond amount authorized for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas."

EXPLAINED:

   This proposed amendment would increase the maximum bond amount for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) from $3 billion to $6 billion.  CPRIT provides grants and supports programs that advance cancer research.  The organization, begun in 2007, is currently set up to receive $3 billion in funding until 2022.

  First of all, who knew that this program even existed?   Well, it does.  The money from the sale of bonds support a large administration.  Most of the rest of the money is handed out to various "research" programs.  Oh, except the mismanaging of the funds, which resulted in a ban on CPRIT grants in 2012.  The ban was lifted in October, 2013.  October is the 10th month of the year, so you could say it was a year or two later.  Mismanaging funds is another problem with these unaccountable agencies.   This one just wants to double the BILLIONS of dollars they are supposed to manage.   Tell me, has cancer been cured?    This is a huge waste of money.
  Therefore, I vote against Prop. 6.

PROPOSITION 7

   "The constitutional amendment allowing increased distributions to the available school fund."

Explained:

   The School Land Board, an independent entity of the General Land Office, oversees the management, sale, and leasing of more than 13 million acres of land for the Permanent School Fund.  The State Board of Education can then make distributions from this fund to the Available School Fund.  The revenue generated from the land is used to purchase real estate and make investments to help fund public education through the Available School Fund.

   This proposition would increase from $300 million to $600 million the amount the General Land Office could distribute to the Available School Fund each year.

   This appears, first of all, to be a power struggle between the School Land Board and The State Board of Education, as the School Land Board wants to bypass The State Board of Education and deposit distributions directly into the Available School Fund rather than into the Permanent School Fund.  That affects the amount of funds the State Board of Education is required to distribute from the Permanent School Fund to the Available School Fund.

   But The State Board of Education is required to make a percentage-based biennial distribution to the Available School Fund from the Permanent School Fund.  With the School Land Board depositing distributions directly into the Available School Fund, the Permanent School Fund has less for The State Board of Education to transfer to the Available School Fund.  This could possibly result in less funding for schools.

   The School Land Board has a history of making questionable investments at the expense of public education funding, so why would we bypass the checks and balances that are in place to maximize their accountability?  Doubling the distribution just sounds ridiculous to me.  If there is excess funds available from the management of the School Land Board, they should re-invest it to grow future funds available.
Therefore, I vote against Prop. 7.

PROPOSITION 8

"The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the flood infrastructure fund to assist in the financing of drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects."

Explained:

   Proposition 8 would create the Flood Infrastructure Fund (FIF) as a special fund outside of general revenue.  A one-time distribution from the Economic Stabilization Fund, also known as the "rainy day fund" would establish the FIF.  The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) would distribute the FIF funds to local governments through loans or, in some cases, as grants.  The money would be used to establish and maintain flood control structures and drainage infrastructure throughout the state, especially in economically distressed areas.

  If passed, Prop 8 would require cooperation among all impacted parties.  A local government would receive money from the FIF only if it worked with other governments in the region and listened to stakeholder concerns in public meetings.  The local government would also have to submit a technical analysis of the plan (to the state?), comparing it to other possible projects in the region, and a proposal to repay the loan.

   The last time I can find that the Trinity River was dredged was prior to 1977.   Flood control is the responsibility of both local and federal governments, not the state government.  That is why we have a county flood control and a city drainage fee.  If the state wants to get involved in the flooding issue, the state attorney general should file a class action suit against the federal government on behalf of Texans for damages which were a direct result of their  neglect.
Therefore, I vote against Prop 8.

PROPOSITION 9

"The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation precious metal held in a precious metal depository located in this state."

Explained:

   Texas opened a precious metals depository in 2018, run by a private company but overseen by the state government.  The Constitution requires all real and tangible personal property to be taxed on its value unless exempted.  These ad valorem (property) taxes are imposed at the time of purchase or exchange of precious metals.  Prop 9 would exempt from taxation precious metals held in a precious metal depository in the state.

   Texas counties do not enforce the property tax on precious metals, so a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.  Besides, it would give preference through a tax break for precious metals over other investment choices.  The argument is that the exemption "would increase chances that the Texas depository could join COMEX, the leading marketplace for precious metals exchange.  My argument is that if they want to join COMEX, they will find a way.
Therefore, I vote against Prop. 9.

PROPOSITION 10

"The constitutional amendment to allow the transfer of a law enforcement animal to a qualified caretaker in certain circumstances."

Explained:

Proposition 10 would allow change the status of retired law enforcement animals from "surplus property" to a more humane status.  This proposition would allow the animals to retire and be transferred to their original handler or another qualified caretaker with no adoption fee.  Currently, they can only be auctioned, donated, or destroyed.
I have a heart, therefore, I vote for Prop. 10.

I will let you do your own research on the local issues.

If  you appreciate this post, please leave us a comment.  We would love to hear from you.

You are also invited to our Holy Bible study blog, 'https://omaswisdom.blogspot.com/