Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Will Mayor White run for govenor?

http://blogs.chron.c...ffer_out_b.html

I'm creating a new thread. RBS posted the quote above in the Mayor's race thread. I think there needs to be a thread purely dedicated to next year's gubernatorial race as we are developing mini threads around the topic. I went back a year or more and I cannot find one.

Much happening! White is looking at making a run. Kay is holding to the Senate, but still in the race. We have a great producer of hair products - Shami. We have a great consumer of hair products - Perry.

Yeah, then there's Kinky with his vast resume in public and business administration.

This may be pretty boring until the primaries heat up. So, now we have a new, boring thread. However it's comprehensive and efficient. Oh, wait that's boring, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Good comeback if not for the fact that I've talked openly about living back in Houston for over a year now. In fact, it's been exactly 13 months now since my move back to town. But yeah, I'd be pisse

Don't take my word for it... Typical Marksmu tactic - dismiss it as a typical liberal tactic when you don't agree with it. And, if you think Sourcewatch is a typical liberal dot org attacking the mi

CVS is passing out half-off coupons for Aquanet in support of Rick Perry. ...or some other stupid nawn sekwitter that makes no sense and isn't even remotely relevant or true.

Please, God, give us Bill White.

Perry is an embarrassment to this state.

And Kay B... if she tilts her head to the side... that little candy M&M might fall out.

Pick your battles wisely. There's not a great deal of hope for a Democrat in a mid-term election for a statewide race while a Democrat has the White House. If KBH wins the primary, just be thankful that you don't have to put up with Perry again.

Btw, does anybody have the lowdown on the Lt. Governor race?

Edited by TheNiche
Link to post
Share on other sites

This should be an interesting race. I think the Dems will go with Bill White and Kinky will have to run as an independent once again.

Kinky has already stated he intends to run for the Dem nomination. Are you suggesting that if he loses in the primary, he'll pull a Joe Lieberman?

(Note that this is in no way a comment on either Kinky's or Joe's faith.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that if he loses in the primary, he'll pull a Joe Lieberman?

If that nomination shouldn't come to pass, I would think he'd run as an independent. I thought that's what he did in the last election, or was he independent all along?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Kinky is pulling out of the gov race, and will instead run for ag commish:

http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2009/12/friedman_switch_1.html

A good move, it seems. He won't take votes from Bill White, and after all, if a notorious populist like Jim Hightower can make it as ag commissioner, maybe Kinky can, too. I like the idea of being able to vote for an outsider for a major post and still support White for guv.

post above was for the blog, here's the actual peice from the Austin reporter:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6769521.html

Edited by crunchtastic
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I will have to remove my Kinky for Governor sticker.  Glad to see he's supporting White. 

Don't worry. You will soon be able to cover it up with your 'Kinky For Hydro Commissioner' sticker.

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Did anyone watch the debate tonight? I only saw a few minutes but plan to go back and rewatch it. I believe it will be put up on texasdebates.org

The one thing I came away with is that Medina is no pretender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone watch the debate tonight? I only saw a few minutes but plan to go back and rewatch it. I believe it will be put up on texasdebates.org

The one thing I came away with is that Medina is no pretender.

We watched pretty much all of it too--she's not a pretender but she's catering to a slice of indy's and tea party republicans. I think she should put her money where her mouth is and not run as a Republican, because she's clearly not. She would appeal to a much broader audience, but then she wouldn't get the $$$$ from the party--so there you go. Party politics as usual.

Rick Perry is more an embarrassment the GW ever was. Good lawd he needs to not talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We watched pretty much all of it too--she's not a pretender but she's catering to a slice of indy's and tea party republicans. I think she should put her money where her mouth is and not run as a Republican, because she's clearly not. She would appeal to a much broader audience, but then she wouldn't get the $$ from the party--so there you go. Party politics as usual.

Rick Perry is more an embarrassment the GW ever was. Good lawd he needs to not talk.

I liked what I heard of her (only saw some of it). I do not like Perry - and I really think that Hutchinson needs to keep her butt in Senate. The republicans do NOT need to open up another seat that could possibly be filled by a democrat.

The only saving grace, is that Bill White, and the current White House are so incompetent, that it really does not matter who the republicans nominate, because that person will win. If the national polls are correct, and on this issue I believe they probably are - then most of America is sick and tired of democrat politics already. Everything those bimbos in Washington are doing make it easier and easier for a republican to get elected in any up and coming election. Massachusetts is a great example. One of the bluest states is about to elect a republican, because they cant stand the politics of the current administration.

Cant help but cringe when you look at the news and see that yet again, Democrats carve out little party favors for those who give them money and support. (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM)

Washington is for sale, and the democrats are selling it all to the highest bidder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have a question. In the last debate, Medina mentioned getting rid of property tax and replacing it would be a "broad based sales tax." What does that mean? Doesn't everyone in Texas pay a sales tax when they purchase something?

She starts talking about it at the end of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq2eMIZcPy0

Edited by lockmat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. In the last debate, Medina mentioned getting rid of property tax and replacing it would be a "broad based sales tax." What does that mean? Doesn't everyone in Texas pay a sales tax when they purchase something?

She starts talking about it at the end of this video:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Iq2eMIZcPy0

It means that instead of paying 8.25% sales tax and property tax... how about a 10.5% (or higher?) sales tax and no property tax. The sales tax would have to increase to rate such that it offsets the loss in property tax revenue. That's the only way it could work. In other words, yes everyone pays a sales tax when they buy something. It's about RAISING TAXES on everything you buy and making you pay MORE sales tax...

I could only handle about 45 seconds of that youtube video. Good God Medina fits the typical Texas GOP zombie role of no/less federal government, arming ourselves to the teeth, none/lower taxes (even though it would have to be the same tax in reality), etc, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that instead of paying 8.25% sales tax and property tax... how about a 10.5% (or higher?) sales tax and no property tax. The sales tax would have to increase to rate such that it offsets the loss in property tax revenue. That's the only way it could work. In other words, yes everyone pays a sales tax when they buy something. It's about RAISING TAXES on everything you buy and making you pay MORE sales tax...

I could only handle about 45 seconds of that youtube video. Good God Medina fits the typical Texas GOP zombie role of no/less federal government, arming ourselves to the teeth, none/lower taxes (even though it would have to be the same tax in reality), etc, etc.

everything except food and prescriptions etc

What does a liberal do in a race like this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means that instead of paying 8.25% sales tax and property tax... how about a 10.5% (or higher?) sales tax and no property tax. The sales tax would have to increase to rate such that it offsets the loss in property tax revenue. That's the only way it could work. In other words, yes everyone pays a sales tax when they buy something. It's about RAISING TAXES on everything you buy and making you pay MORE sales tax...

I could only handle about 45 seconds of that youtube video. Good God Medina fits the typical Texas GOP zombie role of no/less federal government, arming ourselves to the teeth, none/lower taxes (even though it would have to be the same tax in reality), etc, etc.

Getting rid of property taxes is impractical. There are a lot of very small municipalities and bedroom communities that simply do not have a commercial tax base that is large enough to even operate their existing infrastructure. What can be done with minimal hassle is getting rid of the franchise tax and getting rid of property taxes on commercial properties and shifting more of the tax burden directly to consumers on the basis of their consumption. It'd be the ultimate pro-economic-development move, sure to attract corporate relocations and to promote investment in our capital stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting rid of property taxes is impractical. There are a lot of very small municipalities and bedroom communities that simply do not have a commercial tax base that is large enough to even operate their existing infrastructure. What can be done with minimal hassle is getting rid of the franchise tax and getting rid of property taxes on commercial properties and shifting more of the tax burden directly to consumers on the basis of their consumption. It'd be the ultimate pro-economic-development move, sure to attract corporate relocations and to promote investment in our capital stock.

Beyond that, in economies such as the one we're currently in, people tend to hoard rather than spend. If people aren't buying crap, then the government stands a pretty successful chance of going broke. You don't have that issue to such a degree with property taxes included in the mix. I think there may be some trite old saying that involves eggs and baskets that refutes this sales tax idea pretty solidly.

Edit: I think everyone involved with the formulation of this idea must realize how foolish it is, but they're banking on the general public to be full of retards. The Republicans have done such a bang-up job convincing their constituency "taxes be bad an' stuff" that come campaign season, they have to pay some lip-service to the idea of reducing or eliminating taxes, regardless of how untenable or just plain stupid it is.

Edited by AtticaFlinch
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond that, in economies such as the one we're currently in, people tend to hoard rather than spend. If people aren't buying crap, then the government stands a pretty successful chance of going broke. You don't have that issue to such a degree with property taxes included in the mix. I think there may be some trite old saying that involves eggs and baskets that refutes this sales tax idea pretty solidly.

Edit: I think everyone involved with the formulation of this idea must realize how foolish it is, but they're banking on the general public to be full of retards. The Republicans have done such a bang-up job convincing their constituency "taxes be bad an' stuff" that come campaign season, they have to pay some lip-service to the idea of reducing or eliminating taxes, regardless of how untenable or just plain stupid it is.

The three most common ways for a state or municipality to generate revenue are property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes. All three of these sources will tend to contract in an economy such as the one we're currently in. And I'd suspect that since people with less income tend to spend a greater proportion of their earnings on consumption items, that a sales tax would be more stable than an income tax; and income taxes on corporations are notoriously volatile, if that's what you thought might save the day. And in certain parts of the country, a sales tax would almost certainly be more stable than property tax receipts.

So yeah, I'm not really buying this concept that moving to a consumption tax is overly-risky due to short-term considerations. The fact is that sound financial planning during good times can allow states and municipalities to continue operating at normal levels through most downturns. There certainly are examples of cities that are downsizing...but that doesn't reflect so much on the particular source of a city's revenue so much as it does on how they've managed that revenue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The three most common ways for a state or municipality to generate revenue are property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes. All three of these sources will tend to contract in an economy such as the one we're currently in. And I'd suspect that since people with less income tend to spend a greater proportion of their earnings on consumption items, that a sales tax would be more stable than an income tax; and income taxes on corporations are notoriously volatile, if that's what you thought might save the day. And in certain parts of the country, a sales tax would almost certainly be more stable than property tax receipts.

So yeah, I'm not really buying this concept that moving to a consumption tax is overly-risky due to short-term considerations. The fact is that sound financial planning during good times can allow states and municipalities to continue operating at normal levels through most downturns. There certainly are examples of cities that are downsizing...but that doesn't reflect so much on the particular source of a city's revenue so much as it does on how they've managed that revenue.

You may be right, but my larger point beyond that was simply that collecting sales tax exclusively is foolish. Property tax revenue will drop the year following an economic decline, a year after property taxes drop (unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of property tax collection). Sales tax revenue will drop immediately, and that drop is more difficult to prepare for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, but my larger point beyond that was simply that collecting sales tax exclusively is foolish. Property tax revenue will drop the year following an economic decline, a year after property taxes drop (unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of property tax collection). Sales tax revenue will drop immediately, and that drop is more difficult to prepare for.

No, not really. The preponderance of the State of Texas' budget is based on a 6.25% sales tax. There are some auxiliary revenue streams, such as royalties from oil & gas production, but those are mostly correlated to and are often even more volatile than sales taxes. Yet, even under craptastic state leadership and even given a legislature that meets only once every two years--precluding emergency measures on their part--our budget isn't anything like the game of federal/state brinksmanship that is played out by the likes of California, New York, or other states with a more diverse portfolio of revenue sources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet, even under craptastic state leadership and even given a legislature that meets only once every two years--precluding emergency measures on their part--our budget isn't anything like the game of federal/state brinksmanship that is played out by the likes of California, New York, or other states with a more diverse portfolio of revenue sources.

some states' budgets are forced to be balanced and others aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that to get rid of the property tax she'd have to amend the Texas constitution with the assistance of the legislature. And even if she did, the state budget would still be balanced because as has been noted most of it comes from sales taxes. However, local municipalities (authorized by the constitution to collect sales taxes for their own uses) would then be unable to pay for a lot of things. By "broad based sales tax" she could mean increasing the state sales tax and then divvying up the money to the local municipalities as the state government might deem fit to replace revenue lost from the absence of property taxes. I guess local municipalities would still be able to increase their own area's sales tax but that wouldn't really be "broad based".

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that to get rid of the property tax she'd have to amend the Texas constitution with the assistance of the legislature. And even if she did, the state budget would still be balanced because as has been noted most of it comes from sales taxes. However, local municipalities (authorized by the constitution to collect sales taxes for their own uses) would then be unable to pay for a lot of things. By "broad based sales tax" she could mean increasing the state sales tax and then divvying up the money to the local municipalities as the state government might deem fit to replace revenue lost from the absence of property taxes. I guess local municipalities would still be able to increase their own area's sales tax but that wouldn't really be "broad based".

You're completely correct in your analysis. Getting rid of property taxes or even just capping the rate would entail enormous changes in the way that municipalities raise funds. There are ways to legislate this policy in such a way as would be effective and equitable, and I do believe that this is a political discussion that needs to be had, however I do not believe that Medina is a capable leader in that respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not really. The preponderance of the State of Texas' budget is based on a 6.25% sales tax. There are some auxiliary revenue streams, such as royalties from oil & gas production, but those are mostly correlated to and are often even more volatile than sales taxes.

Not sure what your definition of 'preponderance' is, but less than 25% of Texas' revenue comes from sales taxes. Interestingly, considering Gov. Perry likes to refuse federal money, Texas' biggest revenue source is the federal government at over 36%.

Texas Revenue Sources

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not possible with a consumption tax because consumption taxes are too unpredictable. Attica said so.

If we're relying on the strength of my opinion to set taxation regulations, I think we need to drop all the taxes and fund the government exclusively with lotto revenue and a 1,000,000% tax on blue hair dye.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what your definition of 'preponderance' is, but less than 25% of Texas' revenue comes from sales taxes. Interestingly, considering Gov. Perry likes to refuse federal money, Texas' biggest revenue source is the federal government at over 36%.

Wow, I'm surprised at how many auxiliary sources of revenue we've got.

This proves two things: 1) I need to fact check things that seem to make common sense, and 2) sales taxes were only down 2.7%, whereas most other taxes were down significantly more. The franchise tax, which is basically a corporate income tax, was down 4.5%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm surprised at how many auxiliary sources of revenue we've got.

This proves two things: 1) I need to fact check things that seem to make common sense, and 2) sales taxes were only down 2.7%, whereas most other taxes were down significantly more. The franchise tax, which is basically a corporate income tax, was down 4.5%.

I think what's even more interesting is the expenditures.

If only we could rid the state of children and sick people, then we could get by on just sales tax and federal government revenue and still have about $10 billion to spare.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm surprised at how many auxiliary sources of revenue we've got.

This proves two things: 1) I need to fact check things that seem to make common sense, and 2) sales taxes were only down 2.7%, whereas most other taxes were down significantly more. The franchise tax, which is basically a corporate income tax, was down 4.5%.

Looking at the list during the daytime when I am awake, it seems that you should get credit for a few more of those categories being called 'sales tax'. For instance, motor vehicle sales taxes, fuel taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, utility taxes and hotel taxes should all be considered under the umbrella term 'sales tax', even though they are assessed under a different law than the sales tax law. That puts it up into the mid-30s, still much lower than I would have guessed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the list during the daytime when I am awake, it seems that you should get credit for a few more of those categories being called 'sales tax'. For instance, motor vehicle sales taxes, fuel taxes, tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, utility taxes and hotel taxes should all be considered under the umbrella term 'sales tax', even though they are assessed under a different law than the sales tax law. That puts it up into the mid-30s, still much lower than I would have guessed.

Texas is not magically getting this money from the Federal Government. Texas pays in collectively much more than it gets back.

The problem is not raising taxes, or changing the way we tax things, the answer is that the government needs to provide FEWER services. Federally, at the State level and Locally. You wont need to raise taxes if you cut services that the government should not be providing anyway. If you get rid of all the unnecessary government services, jobs, etc, there will be plenty of money to cover the things that are actually necessary.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas is not magically getting this money from the Federal Government. Texas pays in collectively much more than it gets back.

The problem is not raising taxes, or changing the way we tax things, the answer is that the government needs to provide FEWER services. Federally, at the State level and Locally. You wont need to raise taxes if you cut services that the government should not be providing anyway. If you get rid of all the unnecessary government services, jobs, etc, there will be plenty of money to cover the things that are actually necessary.

What specifically do you recommend Texas get rid of? Compared to most other states, we're already running pretty tight as is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically do you recommend Texas get rid of? Compared to most other states, we're already running pretty tight as is.

Lets see, if it were me....

Illegal Immigrants. First, require proof of citizenship and home address for school registration. That alone will save billions. When we stop educating other countries children. Require the same for unemployment, welfare, health care, etc. All of it. Stop giving away freebies to those who do not pay into the system.

Second, police the border. If the Feds tell us now. Too bad were going to do it anyway.

Third - get rid of worthless government programs like they did the TRCC. I dont specifically have any examples other than TRCC that I have dealt with personally, so I wont speak on them, but Im guessing there are other worthless agencies out there that do nothing just like the TRCC did nothing.

For all I know there is an entire agency devoted to making sure that state medians do not contain fire ants.

There are alot more examples of Federal Waste, than State waste, but I am sure if one were delve in on the subject they could come up with alot of examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas is not magically getting this money from the Federal Government. Texas pays in collectively much more than it gets back.

The problem is not raising taxes, or changing the way we tax things, the answer is that the government needs to provide FEWER services. Federally, at the State level and Locally. You wont need to raise taxes if you cut services that the government should not be providing anyway. If you get rid of all the unnecessary government services, jobs, etc, there will be plenty of money to cover the things that are actually necessary.

Actually, I am unaware of the state of Texas giving a dime to the federal government. Perhaps you could point out some examples. Now, certainly Texas TAXPAYERS send in a lot of money, some of which is sent back to the state. However, that makes it even harder to justify turning down over $1.2 Billion in taxpayer money being returned to the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see, if it were me....

Illegal Immigrants. First, require proof of citizenship and home address for school registration. That alone will save billions. When we stop educating other countries children. Require the same for unemployment, welfare, health care, etc. All of it. Stop giving away freebies to those who do not pay into the system.

Second, police the border. If the Feds tell us now. Too bad were going to do it anyway.

Third - get rid of worthless government programs like they did the TRCC. I dont specifically have any examples other than TRCC that I have dealt with personally, so I wont speak on them, but Im guessing there are other worthless agencies out there that do nothing just like the TRCC did nothing.

For all I know there is an entire agency devoted to making sure that state medians do not contain fire ants.

There are alot more examples of Federal Waste, than State waste, but I am sure if one were delve in on the subject they could come up with alot of examples.

Let's see...

Illegals are not allowed to get unemployment benefits. You have to have a valid SSN to collect. Illegals don't have one. Besides, only 25% of unemployed people in Texas get unemployment, due to our extremely restrictive rules. NO savings here.

Medicare & Medicaid - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Healthcare - CHIP is not available to children of illegals. Of course, illegals can go to the doctor or emergency room and pay cash, and they can purchase private insurance. Only the emergency room care costs us when they do not pay the bill. I'll leave the debate on refusing medical care to dying patients to others.

Welfare, Food Stamps - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Source: A Republican Texas Comptroller

Policing the border - We already run interdiction on the border at great cost to Texas taxpayers. I'm not sure how duplicating the federal effort (a cost shared by ALL US taxpayers) with a Texas border patrol...paid for only by Texas taxpayers...would save us money, but I look forward to your explanation. Not sure what state laws the Texas guys would enforce, either, but you can explain that too.

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I am unaware of the state of Texas giving a dime to the federal government. Perhaps you could point out some examples. Now, certainly Texas TAXPAYERS send in a lot of money, some of which is sent back to the state. However, that makes it even harder to justify turning down over $1.2 Billion in taxpayer money being returned to the state.

Without the taxpayers there is no state, or federal government. I was of course talking about the individual taxpayers - which is why I said collectively.

As a whole Texas Taxpayers send more money to the Federal government and get back less proportionately than other smaller states. Texas is a net loser in the way the Feds distribute money. Especially when the Feds condition control on the receiving of money by the States.

I dont agree with turning down ALL of the Federal money being given away, but I certainly agree with turning down the portions that actually end up costing us more, or allowing the Feds more control of State functions. The Federal Government has already greatly exceeded its constitutionally granted powers. The Fed holds funding over the states to gain control that it could not otherwise legally have.

Texas turned down addittional unemployment benefit money b/c it carried strings on it that forced Texas to permanently extend the unemployment benefits in the future, long after the Feds money had disappeared. Texas should do everything it can to prevent any further Federal control over anything.

The Feds are in a huge deficit because they continue to spend money they do not have and borrow from future generations on the assumption that the economy will always be expanding. It is wise to turn down a short term benefit to save money in the long term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see, if it were me....

Illegal Immigrants. First, require proof of citizenship and home address for school registration. That alone will save billions. When we stop educating other countries children. Require the same for unemployment, welfare, health care, etc. All of it. Stop giving away freebies to those who do not pay into the system.

Second, police the border. If the Feds tell us now. Too bad were going to do it anyway.

Third - get rid of worthless government programs like they did the TRCC. I dont specifically have any examples other than TRCC that I have dealt with personally, so I wont speak on them, but Im guessing there are other worthless agencies out there that do nothing just like the TRCC did nothing.

For all I know there is an entire agency devoted to making sure that state medians do not contain fire ants.

There are alot more examples of Federal Waste, than State waste, but I am sure if one were delve in on the subject they could come up with alot of examples.

Wow, you seem intent on spending a lot of money to rid our economy of a source of labor that keeps wages low enough that the State can afford to budget for things like new roads. And yet, aside from ER health care like Red pointed out, this group of people contribute more by way of property and sales taxes than they take. And as for education, doesn't it strike you as obvious what would happen to the crime rate if you at the same time disenfranchise a whole generation of poor people of the same ethnicity and also have many tens of thousands of surly teens unattended to by their parents during the daytime?

Marksmu, your proposals would require a significant increase in the size and scope of government, federal, state, and local. It smacks of big-government liberal elitism.

Btw, "alot" is two words.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Federal Government has already greatly exceeded its constitutionally granted powers. The Fed holds funding over the states to gain control that it could not otherwise legally have.

I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, but as I recall, you're in 10th Amendment territory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intersting ideas, MarkSMU.

Of course, besides the obvious faults that Redscare points out like illegals NOT getting the benefits you claim they do, I'd also argue that you'd actually be increasing the size of the government because it takes PEOPLE to guard the border and/or go around and do searches on folks to check their status. It would take taxes to pay those people unless you want to hand them over to a private security corporation like Blackwater. Of course, after the first lawsuit for wrongful death or illegal search and seizure ona U.S. citizen, I'd imagine the costs would skyrocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see...

Illegals are not allowed to get unemployment benefits. You have to have a valid SSN to collect. Illegals don't have one. Besides, only 25% of unemployed people in Texas get unemployment, due to our extremely restrictive rules. NO savings here.

Medicare & Medicaid - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Healthcare - CHIP is not available to children of illegals. Of course, illegals can go to the doctor or emergency room and pay cash, and they can purchase private insurance. Only the emergency room care costs us when they do not pay the bill. I'll leave the debate on refusing medical care to dying patients to others.

Welfare, Food Stamps - unavailable to illegal immigrants.

Source: A Republican Texas Comptroller

Policing the border - We already run interdiction on the border at great cost to Texas taxpayers. I'm not sure how duplicating the federal effort (a cost shared by ALL US taxpayers) with a Texas border patrol...paid for only by Texas taxpayers...would save us money, but I look forward to your explanation. Not sure what state laws the Texas guys would enforce, either, but you can explain that too.

You dont actually believe that illegals can not collect on all these government programs do you? Illegals register their children in schools without a second thought. They register their children for free lunch programs, no questions asked, they register their children for state subsidized health care without a second thought. They receive food stamps under other people's identity - work under their social and then receive benefits. They goto emergency rooms for non-emergency care because they know they will not be required to actually pay for it. They commit crimes that our tax paid police have to deal with. They cost us a fortune.

An anchor baby allows an illegal immigrant a world of opportunity. Its quite common for them to have an anchor baby and subsequently work and collect benefits under that new social. I can not tell you how many times we have had an applicants social security numbers Match, and then run a background check, and find that though the number and name match on the automated verification system, but the person applying for the job is only 5 years old. An anchor baby also immediately qualifies for all those welfare programs that the parent is ineligible for as well, including CHIP...they even complain that the child's benefit is not enough to support the family.

I dont care who is in office - republican or democrat - every party is going to try to not make it look as bad as it is - especially when its part of their job to control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An anchor baby allows an illegal immigrant a world of opportunity.

Yep, it certainly does. If you're born here, you're a citizen. It says so explicitly in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And if we started deporting parents then we'd have to break up families and provide foster care for the children orphaned by the decree of law. And that'd require increasing the size and scope of the government...again, making you sound like a big-government tax-and-spend liberal elitist.

EDIT: And your anti-family ideas make you sound like a pinko Marxist commie.

Edited by TheNiche
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a whole Texas Taxpayers send more money to the Federal government and get back less proportionately than other smaller states. Texas is a net loser in the way the Feds distribute money. Especially when the Feds condition control on the receiving of money by the States.

A fact not helped in the least by turning down federal money.

I dont agree with turning down ALL of the Federal money being given away, but I certainly agree with turning down the portions that actually end up costing us more, or allowing the Feds more control of State functions. The Federal Government has already greatly exceeded its constitutionally granted powers. The Fed holds funding over the states to gain control that it could not otherwise legally have.

Can't have it both ways. If the fed is exceeding its powers, you cannot then complain that they use money to gain control. The state should turn down ALL of that $37 Billion...but they don't.

Texas turned down addittional unemployment benefit money b/c it carried strings on it that forced Texas to permanently extend the unemployment benefits in the future, long after the Feds money had disappeared. Texas should do everything it can to prevent any further Federal control over anything.

Not according to the Republican controlled Texas Legislature.

The Feds are in a huge deficit because they continue to spend money they do not have and borrow from future generations on the assumption that the economy will always be expanding. It is wise to turn down a short term benefit to save money in the long term.

We saved nothing, nada, zero. The money turned down by Perry was reallocated to other states. The total amount of the grants remained the same, and Texas taxpayers will help pay for grants to other states while receiving nothing. The only thing Texans got was a $1.2 Billion reduction in money spent in our own state so that Governor Perry could claim to be a conservative...something we already knew.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont actually believe that illegals can not collect on all these government programs do you? Illegals register their children in schools without a second thought. They register their children for free lunch programs, no questions asked, they register their children for state subsidized health care without a second thought. They receive food stamps under other people's identity - work under their social and then receive benefits. They goto emergency rooms for non-emergency care because they know they will not be required to actually pay for it. They commit crimes that our tax paid police have to deal with. They cost us a fortune.

Let's be clear. You stated that the way YOU would save money is by not allowing these illegal immigrants to participate in these programs. I simply pointed out that they ALREADY cannot legally participate. Fraud is fraud. Investigators constantly look for it and root it out. However, as to your original point...that you would prohibit their participation...it already is prohibited.

Apparently, what you meant to say is that you would drastically increase the number of investigators to look for fraud, just as you would start up a huge state run border patrol and increase the size of our police forces and prisons to deal with our teenage unschooled criminal problem. Man, just how big do you want to grow Texas government! :o

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...