Phil Kings Tax Grab

Texas State Representative Phil King is known throughout the state as a friend of business and especially the utility and the gas and oil companies. With this in mind his blatant plan to aid business with his school funding proposal should not be surprising.

King is presenting this as a way to reduce the cost of housing. Everyone pays property tax, either directly or indirectly, and everyone dislikes making those payments. But if school funding doesn’t come from property tax it will come from another source and King’s plan would use sales tax.

Under the present system a tax is levied on almost everyone, including homes and most commercial and industrial property. If the King plan is implemented everyone would receive a property tax cut of approximately 56%, which would be good if were that simple. All of that lost revenue would be made up through increased sales taxes and eliminating the exemption on things like food. The business and industrial property owners have very few reasons to pay sales tax. The 56% property tax reduction they would receive would be made up with increased sales tax paid by consumers. And that, my friend, is you and I. Not only would we pay additional sales tax to make up for the amount of our property tax reduction but we would have to pay enough to make up for the reductions to those businesses. The burden of funding schools would shift from everyone pays to consumers pay.

This change would require a constitutional amendment and that is a long process. The legislative committee to begin this process will be appointed by House Speaker Craddick and therefore will be heavy on those legislators who are friendly to business. All voters and consumers need to keep a sharp eye on this one.

Voter Right to be Informed

In the November 23, 2007 Aledo, TX, local newspaper, The Community News, editor Randy Keck chastised the voters for the November 6 defeat of a bond proposal by the Aledo Independent School District. Randy goes to lengths to make the point voters should inform themselves on the issues or not vote.

Education is important and should be funded. When the voter is being asked to approve the issue of bond and in effect going into debt then the voters should be informed. It is not the responsibility of the voter, when he hears vague references to a bond proposal, to search out the details. If the AISD is asking for money from people who would rather keep their money then it is up to the school district to do the explaining.

I consider myself better informed that most voters through media research and a network of politically active friends and associates. When a bond issue is proposed it should be assumed that those who are asking for money will make an attempt to convince the voters that it is necessary. After the run-up to the election, the voting, and the complaining afterwards there is still no concrete information available about the purpose of these funds. What I hear from the voters is “I didn’t know what it was for but it would raise my taxes so I voted against it.”

Keck also pointed out the large number who voted against the bond but didn’t vote for any of the school board candidates. Again the reason was the lack of information. What we hear out there, “I didn’t know any of those people so I didn’t vote for anyone.”

The fault is not with the voter.

Phil King for the People

District 61 State Representative Phil King will hold a fund raiser in Decatur on November 28 along with Legally Blonde Chairman of the Railroad Commission Elizabeth Ames Jones. The King campaign people said “host committee opportunities will be available for $250, $500, or $1000 per couple.” Ms Ames Jones’ contributor list is an interesting collection of oil companies and “self employed” people making heavy contributions. King’s report is suspiciously similar. I wonder what percentage of King’s constituents can afford $250 or more per couple for a meal that is already paid for by Ms Ames Jones?

These are the people who meet on the golf course or at high dollar events like this one and discuss ways to keep the money coming to them. They are a small percentage of the population and they have no regard for the rest of us. Do you for one minute think that when they discuss things in the back room they give any thought to your utility bills or insurance costs?

The good life we have enjoyed for so many years is disappearing into the pockets of a few. We have to find candidates for office that are outside this club and who have the ethical stamina to resist the temptation. If Phil King is taking money from oil and gas people and utility providers he can’t be expected to protect our environment and our utility cost as he should.

The Las Vegas Democratic Presidential Debate

Some of the stuff that happened won’t stay in Las Vegas

You have to wonder if they all stayed up late the night before at the tables. This was a very disappointing debate. My choice going into this debate was Edwards and that won’t change based on one event, but it gave me a lot to think about.

Richardson was someone worth watching before this. He certainly wasn’t worth watching in this debate. Dodd looked better than Richardson and actually had some good answers. You could respond that anyone who has reached this level must have some abilities but I could point to our president to refute that assumption.

The surprises were Biden and Kucinich. They both had good answers and they were cordial and respectful with very little politician’s doublespeak. Kucinich fits my views better than any of the rest but I realize most of my goals are long term and can’t and shouldn’t be done except with long and careful planning.

Politicians must be trained to be over-talkers. It is very irritating when the moderator says thank you and they keep right on rolling. They do this to get more time than their opponents but they should realize that to win they have to make the voters like them. The person on the Las Vegas stage that was most likable was Joseph Biden.

The issues will require a little thought once we get past the first impressions. My impressions of the three front-runners; Clinton is too much of a political insider and will not be willing to make bold moves in opposition to the “boy’s club”; it appears Obama really doesn’t have enough experience; Edwards had a rough night.

There was much made of the Chinese trade problem. Some of the candidates claimed there were sufficient rules in place and they would enforce those rules. This was the only thing during the debate that gave me real pause for thought. Who among these people who want our vote would be willing to go against those who profit from Chinese trade?

Some of these candidates will be out before I get a chance to vote in March. The leaders should change very rapidly.

For the Health of our Grandchildren

It is strange the number of people who think health insurance for children is a bad thing. It is a documented fact that persons with life threatening illnesses are more likely to survive if they are insured. The level of care is much higher for those with insurance.

Maybe they are only opposed to it being financed by a tobacco tax because as the use decreases the income will drop. According to the Washington Post smoking related illnesses cost Medicare $25 billion in 1997. The federal government estimates smoking cost the U.S.A. $52 billion per year, or about $221 per person for all Americans. The cost per person to finance the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is less than $14 per year for each American. If the increase in tobacco taxes and other restrictions results in reduced use the savings to Medicare will more than pay for SCHIP.

They sarcastically suggest we could reduce military spending to pay for health insurance for our children. Now that is actually a good idea. If we brought our troops home from the terrorist training ground we have created in Iraq we could save $200 million per day. In 200 days that would pay for ten years of SCHIP and then we could we could use this money to begin building our military back to a level where we could all feel secure again.

There has been suggestion that upper income middle class families will be able to receive SCHIP insurance and that some adults will be insured. Although there will always be some misuse when government projects are involved this is a program for children who would not otherwise be insured. The states administer these programs and the insurance is provided by private companies.

As a baby boomer I know what the reaction would be if we tried to eliminate Medicare. Why is it we would fight so hard to be sure the elderly have health insurance but we aren’t willing to spend $14 a year to provide the same benefit to our grandchildren?