• One senator held up the checks because it was...

    THE RULE!!!!! Pay go. What Dems where complianing about Bush and Reps for, not paying for things.
    Rule Made by Democrats. But what do promises, rules and laws mean to a progressive, be broken.

    I know the law is not used much by progressives who took control of Congress and the President but it is what makes our country different from Red China.

    Justify the out right crazy growth of guvmint now. Defend your break the bank, going down hill side.

    Small government is what the founders set this country up about. It WAS what made this country better than ALL the rest. But I know progressives believe that is not right, all should be the same. Break the big guy down.

    Small history lesson might be good.

    March 5, 2010 at 7:36 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 5, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.

  • Mike, I don't think it was a waste of bandwidth at all to show that Medina did actually present a document to make her case. You claimed she didn't.

    Once again, you said: "She never produced any documents to say how she came to that conclusion."

    So, you skipped right over admitting your mistake and dove into discrediting the source of the document. I'm sure we can see eye-to-eye on that.

    March 5, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.

  • BSspotter
    We've had this conversation many, many times, I stand by my statement and you stand by yours.
    Let's leave it at that, we will never see eye to eye on anything so, why waste the bandwidth.

    March 5, 2010 at 4:50 p.m.

  • BSspotter

    Thanks for the link but as I suspected it was a waste of 47 minutes… All Debra Medina did was make a reference to the right-wing think tank “Texas Public Policy Foundation” and that same article written by Heflin…. That’s not a Ross Perot charts and graphs explanation,I was looking for…. Probably why she only got 19%, even Republicans want more substance.

    March 5, 2010 at 4:48 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    March 5, 2010 at 4:25 p.m.

  • Matt, this is what I posted yesterday.

    I received several emails saying that it might not be so strange; probably coming from the same computer(s) but three times in a row made me think....The first time I thought it was my imagination(delete),the second time ,made me think twice(delete) but the third time made me save it for future reference. Is was my second posting on the matter

    Matt then posted.

    You really are some piece of work. So now I am exresident? You have played this game before, and it is far past being old. Do you remember the whole "word documents" shellacking I gave you? It is pretty odd that you did not respond to the Heflin column I linked. Your argument carries no weight, so you come back with ridiculous innuendo? Face it, you made a misinformed remark, you got called on it, and now you find yourself unable to perform damage control.That might be one of those "throw rock over the fence,hit dog hollers)

    (1) That event actually happed yesterday, awhile ago I received an alarm or my Blackberry informing me that someone had written on my blog… In my inbox, the message stated it was from Sugar Magnolia so I went to my blog but her comment was not there…. I went back to my inbox but this time the message correctly said “Writein” left a message on your blog…It may be GMAIL or the Advocate…Look at my reply I said it made me think and I also stated that I received three emails suggesting you were linked with exresident.
    (2) You have a vivid imagination, I still have the e-mails, and I don't recall a shellacking.You are a legend in your mind.
    (3) As you well know, I'd usually ignore you, but since you asked; the Heflin column was a carbon copy of the reference BSspotter produced.Go back look up Bsspotters link & Heflin’s column…I was hoping you would just go away.
    (4) Damage control, lol, how vain, it is as if you really matter.
    (5) I do just fine ignoring you, as I have told you many times, my Avatar is not hard to ignore, it’s not like I am honored with your response.

    March 5, 2010 at 4:20 p.m.

  • exresident.

    For once I agree with you.


    I love you man. I am so sick and tired of people whining while refusing to put on the next man's shoes.

    March 5, 2010 at 3:17 p.m.

  • victorianbybirth,
    I don't give a rats backside what you think of me. I could care less what anyone thinks. I'll type whatever I danged well feel like.
    You look quite ignorant always pointing out other peoples faults. Why don't you worry about your own?
    Oh, oh, I know, I bet you think you don't have any.

    March 5, 2010 at 12:05 a.m.

  • No they aren't feeding a whole family on those high priced items...they are being irresponsible/selfish buying those things & depriving their family at our expense. The whole point of "the card" is to feed the children they selfishly brought into this world & now refuse to step up & take proper care of.

    Born2bme, if you don't have a clue about what is & is not taxed, you really need to put a lid on it & start doing some research, you are really coming off as clueless & therefore not at all credible.

    March 4, 2010 at 10:39 p.m.

  • holly, I guess I never buy junk, so I didn't know and I seldom look at my receipt unless I think something is wrong.
    I agree with you on the tax you mentioned. We all have a choice in what we buy, but some people don't. They are lucky to just get by with the most basic, needed, items.
    I think we have all looked in the carts of people using "the card". There is no way they are feeding a family with the few, high-priced, items that they buy.

    March 4, 2010 at 10:24 p.m.

  • born2bme
    all those food items are taxed already. look at your slip the next time you buy any of those items. even deli and bakery items are taxable. There should be only 2 things not taxed and that is food and clothing. (not furs or high end designer cloths as these should be taxed) every thing else should be taxed based on necessity. the items needed to live our daily lives should be taxed at a cheaper rate than luxery items or those things not really needed but nice to have. These items should be taxed at a higher rate allowing the people to choose if they really need that item or it's just something they want. Do we really need all those fancy things or would a cheaper version at a lower tax rate be good enough. If you ask me to buy a pair of $20.00 walmart shoes at 8.25% sales tax or that same shoe with a designer label on it for $100.00 and a 10% tax rate I get to choose which tax rate i'm willing to pay instead of having a power hungery petty official drive by and say my house is worth 10% more this year than last just because they want to fund some other bleeding heart reward the freeloader program that comes along. Don't get me wrong I am all for helping out the needy but they should be required to at least work for it in some manner. I have to work to pay taxes to support them at least they could make some kind of effort to pay their own way.

    March 4, 2010 at 10:16 p.m.

  • Mike says: "I don't believe in micromanaging elected officials. Redundant levels of scrutiny sometimes lead well intended amateurs into making unsubstantiated, uninformed remarks. Worst yet it gives those with an agenda enough knowledge to make them dangerous."

    Are you happy with the level of scrutiny our govt receives now? And those "well intended amateurs" are who I see as people attempting to be their government. I loathe the attitude that we should leave govt up to the govt. WE ARE THE GOVT!!

    Mike says: "I would rather have a pragmatic elected official that uses the word growth in their vocabulary along with fiscal responsibility."

    So, micromanaging govt is bad, but micromanaging our economy for "growth" is good? Growth happens despite govt intervention, not because of it.

    Mike says: "I would prefer to have an elected official that wants to improve government; rather than one despises it."

    Is this a lesson in talking points? Anyone who is unhappy with the way govt is run and wants to improve it now "despises it"? Not much unlike how we're told that those who don't approve of the Patriot Act or the Iraq War "hate America".

    Mike says: "Do we need officials that believe in fiscal restraint, absolutely, but we don't need ideologues. We need one that will compromise without giving up their principals."

    "Compromise without giving up principles", huh. Wow. And Congress should just keep meeting in the middle to get things done. WRONG! That's the mantra of the incremental statist. That's what has brought us to this juncture. "Compromise" has become the new principle, and it does not serve the people or preserve their personal & economic liberties. We have to unwind this mess in the same incremental manner that lead us here, and each little correction must be made with uncompromising principle.

    March 4, 2010 at 9:56 p.m.

  • Some help here please! am i right about property taxes not to exceed either $250 or $500 by law as penned in the texas constitution to support education in this state and these expenditures are not to exceed 25% of the states budget????? If this is correct how could they by-pass this without the texas supreme court declaring the current system unconstitutional at best and criminal at worst.

    March 4, 2010 at 9:44 p.m.

  • food from grocery stores is not taxed now.

    How about taxing fast food, bakery items, and all other "junk" food (chips, candy, cakes, etc.) and unnecessary food items? Just think how much that would bring in.

    I think a combination of taxes would suffice.

    Mike, about the businesses wanting to leave the states if a state income tax was passed. They now pay property taxes, so it's not like they are getting by free.

    March 4, 2010 at 9:44 p.m.

  • has anyone here even done the math on this tax replacement idea??? It will cost people exactly the same if you drop one tax and increase another to make up for the one dropped. All that happens is that it's collected in a different way. A sales tax is a much fairer tax as EVERYONE pays sales tax when you purchase something. Yes renters pay property taxes too it's included in the rent. But paying sales taxes instead of property taxes puts more money back into the local economies creating jobs and cutting the need for a lot of local government dictators ( appraisal district employees) and eliminating all the expenses related to billing and collecting property taxes and all the manhours spent in the process. A higher sales tax would not add any costs to the current system in place. A state income tax should never be passed as it only taxes those willing to work. All the people sponging off the system continue to get a free ride at least a sales tax would be payed by the freeloaders every time they buy those expensive cloths, fancy footwear and all the expensive cuts of meat us poor working folk can't afford. Better yet get the government doing only what it was originally empowered to do and leave the rest to the people to take care of themselves. If some of the people won't do for themselves then to bad for them the gene pool needs thinning out anyway.

    God helps those who helps themselves the government helps all the rest at our expense.

    March 4, 2010 at 9:29 p.m.

  • Sug, did you get a message that *I* posted something on your wall? I didn't - but I did send you two messages out of the blue. I'm never sure my messages go through because I've written people instead of commenting on a thread and I never hear anything back. Wasn't sure that feature even worked!

    March 4, 2010 at 8:11 p.m.

  • Mike, Medina also discusses it in her speech in Victoria:

    March 4, 2010 at 6:21 p.m.

  • Mike, I was simply providing you with information about the document she had cited in response to you saying "She never produced any documents to say how she came to that conclusion."

    Her website also states:
    "Q: But is it really possible to completely replace property taxes in Texas by expanding the sales tax base?

    A: Yes. The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) released a study in April, 2009 showing that simply expanding the sales tax base to include categories of goods and services that are not currently taxed in Texas, but that are taxed in other states, would replace almost all the revenues currently collected by the property tax. Examples of some services that we currently do not tax include mining services, drilling services, legal services, limousine services and others. By also adding in a one-time sales tax on the sale of property (as opposed to an annual tax on property ownership), the TPPF study showed that we could replace the entire property tax revenues with a modest increase in the sales tax rate to 8.8 percent."

    March 4, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.

  • Interesting, the state of Texas receives zero revenue from property taxes, it is all locally collected and spent, well except for the robin hood school funding thing.

    Top sources of revenue for the state of Texas in the last budget cycle (08-09).

    What they call Federal Income 36.6%
    Sales Tax 24.9%
    Licenses, Fees, Permits, Fines and Penalties 8.5%
    Franchise Tax 5.0%
    Other revenue sources 4.4%
    Motor Fuels Taxes 3.6%
    Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental 3.1%
    Utility Taxes 3.0%
    Settlements of Claims 3.0%

    And a whole bunch of smaller sources of revenue.

    March 4, 2010 at 6:16 p.m.

  • Thanks Sugarmagnolia

    I received several emails saying that it might not be so strange; probably coming from the same computer(s) but three times in a row made me think....The first time I thought it was my imagination(delete),the second time ,made me think twice(delete) but the third time made me save it for future reference.

    Have a good one

    March 4, 2010 at 6:07 p.m.

  • Mike - your problem with the avatar mismatch may not be related to mine, but I had two interesting things happen lately.

    First, I got an email on my Yahoo account that someone had left something on my wall, so I went to my wall to read it, and there was NOTHING there from that person. Hmmmmm....

    Then, the same day, I got two emails on Yahoo that a certain poster had sent me two messages, and they were there, but from someone that I would never think would try to contact me, and the emails read in a way that I think they must have been for somebody else, not me. I think some "wires" are crossed somewhere, as surely those had nothing to do with me. So I'm confused as well.

    March 4, 2010 at 5:55 p.m.

  • Strange...I receive an alert from my GMAIL account when I get a comment on my blog...On my Google screen "exresident" appears in the reply section but Matt's avatar shows up on my blog...This has happened three times.....What's happening,VICad?

    March 4, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.

  • I like how no one, no conservative, challange my rebuttal about Ronald Reagan, China, and the National Debt.

    March 4, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.

  • I love how local conservatives gang up on someone.

    March 4, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.

  • According to the state of Washington's Department of Revenue they collect 53% of revenues from sales tax and 12% from property tax or to be exact, $8.4 billion from Property tax ,which is their 4th largest source if income.

    March 4, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.

  • born2Bme

    I'm just a lowly poster with an opinion and a lot of time on my hands… The economists are earning their six-figure salaries by giving their advice to the large companies and the retired ones are probably in Europe enjoying the fruits of their labors.

    You want a more equitable tax system, I don't disagree with that sentiment but I was just wondering if our large corporations would move their corporate headquarters to a state did not have a state income tax. Would the retirees move to a state that did not tax their pensions?
    Would a 9% to 12% sales tax rate bring in the same amount of revenues as the tax on commercial and personal property? Has it been tried in states like California, New York, Illinois, and other states as large as ours?

    Since we have a constitutional requirement to balance the budget, it's been said that Democrats will raise taxes and a Republican will raise fees to accomplish that goal. When I am entering Texas from New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana I can see where a lot of my taxes have been spent on superior highways and roadside parks. I notice we have a lot of infrastructure that has been ignored, so a future administration will either have to raise fees or taxes to repair them. They will be a one term administration.

    March 4, 2010 at 1:46 p.m.

  • mike,

    I'm not an economist and don't know the ins-and-outs of things, so I couldn't get technical.
    Any kind of tax that would make it fairer for property owners would be fine with me. We need something that will spread the taxes out to every Texan equally. Whether it be a usage tax, sales tax, or a income tax of some kind.

    March 4, 2010 at 12:39 p.m.

  • That link was not broken..I couldn't reach with my Blackberry but my desktop took me to the site with the dark green background...Gone.

    March 4, 2010 at 11:53 a.m.

  • OK, You are in your comfort zone with a tit-for-tat childish postings but I am leaving for lunch but I'm sure you can find someone else to accommodate you....Try the elementary schools.

    March 4, 2010 at 11:50 a.m.

  • You can't refute hypotheticals, besides if you would read the link, instead of blindly following BSspotter, you would have known that.... Double teaming is really just one voice.

    March 4, 2010 at 11:46 a.m.

  • The remarks were intended for BSspotter not his secretary.

    March 4, 2010 at 11:41 a.m.

  • BSspotter

    Your link took me to an anti-tax, right-wing conservative think tank that goes by the name of Texas Public Policy Foundation. This foundation produces a lot of one-sided hypothetical s that have not been tested…. I was hoping you would take me to a YouTube link or at least some transcripts where Medina actually talked about the facts and figures, pros and cons, of eliminating the property tax…I wanted to know if she actually knew what she was talking about or anything besides “refreshing the tree of liberty.” Did she do it in the debate?

    I don't believe in micromanaging elected officials. Redundant levels of scrutiny sometimes lead well intended amateurs into making unsubstantiated, uninformed remarks. Worst yet it gives those with an agenda enough knowledge to make them dangerous.

    I would rather have a pragmatic elected official that uses the word growth in their vocabulary along with fiscal responsibility. I would prefer to have an elected official that wants to improve government; rather than one despises it. Do we need officials that believe in fiscal restraint, absolutely, but we don't need ideologues. We need one that will compromise without giving up their principals.

    March 4, 2010 at 11:22 a.m.

  • dollysdad

    My Reagan example was not an indictment on President Reagan but it was to emphasize that he ran as a conservative ideologue but did not govern that way. He did not scale back the entitlements, as promised but instead saved it with his Social Security bipartisan commission in 1983. He was the first to compromise with the Soviets on arms control, and he raised taxes three times ignoring the conservative dogma. It was Reagan that gave us the EITC. When he did lower taxes and increased defense spending, the deficits ballooned and the recession deepened, causing him to lose the 1982 midterms….Instead of abolishing the Department of Energy and Education(as promised) he added the Department of Veteran Affairs…That is a worthy department but it grew to be one of the largest federal agencies…..My point, all recent administrations have grown government, even though they run on a small government platform…Barack Obama ran on a no lobbyist and public finance platform; that didn’t happen either.

    March 4, 2010 at 10:42 a.m.

  • Legion357
    I try to keep my blogs down to where they will fit on a 8 ½ X 11 sheet of paper, so I did not specifically intend to distinguish each parties talking points… My brain tilts left, so I mentioned the two slogans that I always see mentioned in a conservative candidate’s platform.

    In the world of politics, I give a lot of leeway to talking points and spin but an outright lie in a major newspaper should not be published without a caveat or at least an editor’s note….IMO

    I cannot picture a conservative Republican running on a state income tax platform; that's the Holy Grail..

    I don't disagree with your assumption that a state income tax would be cheaper than the property tax but will corporate offices pull up stakes? Will a retiree’s pension be taxed? Legion357 described a progressive tax system like our federal system where those issues can be sorted out; unlike a flat rate tax policy.

    March 4, 2010 at 9:54 a.m.

  • We don't need to worry about our level of government spending - it is not sustainable and will end on it's own. We are headed for financial collapse, and I think that's what Obama and his BFF Andy Stern really want. Out of the chaos a "new order" will emerge a new United Socialist States of America.

    That tired, old, out-of-date Constitution will be scrapped and a new one will be written by Andy Stern, Obama's BFF and other various socialist and left wing extremist. You know I wish I was just joking about this.

    March 4, 2010 at 8:32 a.m.

  • Mike, cutting or stabilizing budgets at the local level is tricky because there are elected officials responsible for parts of the whole budget. I think that having a strong fiscal-restraint policy would go a long way toward encouraging department heads to trim & maintain their budgets. Department heads are the ones best equipped to know what parts of their budgets can be stable or decreased.

    Line-by-line justification of increases would be a good start. The status quo is to just leave the tax rate untouched and rely on the inevitable appraisal increases to generate a nice budget increase, which is completely backward. The budget should be created under redundant levels of scrutiny, THEN the tax rate should be calculated based on appraisals. Honesty would go a long way toward leaner budgets.

    I would prefer to have an elected official who is motivated to produce leaners budgets rather than one who isn't. Which do you think would be more likely to pull it off?

    March 4, 2010 at 6:04 a.m.

  • Mike said: "In our recent state primary Debra Medina ran on a platform of replacing the property tax as a source of revenue with a larger sales tax. She never produced any documents to say how she came to that conclusion."

    Did the dog eat your homework, Mike? She cited this 40-page study extensively:

    March 4, 2010 at 5:52 a.m.

  • Dollysdad.

    You said "And he did grow the military budget into bankrupting the old USSR".

    He grew the military budget by borrowing money from Red China. Guess what that money is still owe in the National Debt.

    Nice Try.

    March 4, 2010 at 1:55 a.m.

  • Legion,

    People don't understand the concept of tax replacement (is that the right term?).
    I would be perfectly happy with a state income tax instead of the high property taxes that we have now. It would be spread out among more people.

    March 3, 2010 at 7:13 p.m.

  • Well said Mike.

    But you did not mention setting politicians(or political partys) talking points. They all use them.

    A short stop, while channel surfing,on CNN points that out. The job figures due out tomorrow are expected to be dismal, the administration has put that out as a "talking point".

    The expert pundits have their opinion on the statement. 1. A warning that things are not going as planned, the stimulus package was not big enough, and 2.The stimulus plans already enacted where only temporary fixes, akin to throwing money out of a airplane, and when they run out,( I say when because a lot of the stimulus money has never been released), things will only become worse. A much higher federal deficit, stagnant growth, and a employment figure that only nudges up or down a small number.

    As far as property taxes, I stayed in Washington state for a few months, at first I wondered why the sales tax was so high, then I talked to a homeowner, no property tax, a moderate state income tax, (a deduction on their federal tax return),a higher sales tax yes, but added all together it was less than our Texas property tax alone, plus we also pay sales tax.

    NO STATE INCOME TAX, we have all heard that "talking point", but IMO, if he77 ever freezes over, and it is approved in Texas, people will realize it would not only be cheaper than property taxes for a majority of citizens, but more a ( and I know a bad word), fair tax for Texas. We can all dream can't we?

    March 3, 2010 at 7:03 p.m.