One of the most important issues in the campaign for governor of Texas, has been the issue of how to pay for our schools. Nearly all of the candidates have their solutions, and they are very different. In fact, this issue may be the one that most clearly defines the difference between the candidates.
Rick Perry's position is known because he just approved some taxes in the last legislative session. In exchange for a cut in property taxes, Perry approved a new and higher business tax, and also approved a large cigarette tax increase. Now it looks like his property tax cuts are disappearing because of higher appraisal values. Perry's solution is coming up short, and will probably have to be revisited in the next legislative session.
Kinky Friedman doesn't like the new business tax or the new cigarette tax. He says he would abolish both of them. Kinky wants to legalize casino gambling, and dedicate the billions of dollars raised to education. He says Texans are already gambling, but they have to go out-of-state to do it. This provides a huge windfall of Texas money for these other states. Kinky would keep this money in Texas, and use it to pay for public education.
Chris Bell doesn't believe we have adequately funded the schools, and has said he would favor an even higher business tax to solve the problem. That's kind of a brave position in an election year, but he probably didn't have a whole lot of the business vote anyway. It is, at least, a viable position.
James Werner says he would abolish the new business tax, and would also abolish property taxes. He says he would pay for this with a higher and broader-based sales tax.
Carole Strayhorn is the only candidate without a viable solution. Grandma just seems to want to play politics with the issue. She says she would abolish the business tax, and then make more property tax cuts. But she won't tell us how she plans to pay for all this cutting. It's easy and popular to talk about cutting taxes - the hard part is coming up with a solution. This is something Grandma has failed to do.
There you have it. Four candidates have offered different, but viable solutions. One has played politics. She should be ashamed of herself.
I'm not sure if this in an innocent mistake or if you are deliberately misstating Chris Bell's position, but in either event, Bell does not "favor an even higher business tax to solve the problem" of underfunded schools.
ReplyDeleteBell does not propose to raise the business tax rate, he proposes to close the loopholes. Currently there are HUGE loopholes in the business tax for oil and gas companies, hospital corporations, big-box retailers, chain restaurants, and a few other select businesses with powerful lobbyists.
Bell does not propose to raise the business tax, but to apply it evenly by closing the loopholes.
Also, Bell has said that he, too, would favor legalized casino gambling as an alternative to fund education. Yet Bell also candidly acknowledges that the Legislature has already considered and rejected the idea of casino gambling so any candidate serious about education must have a plan beyond relying on a funding scheme which the Legislature has already refused.
What is Friedman's backup plan to fund education if the Legislature once again predictably refuses to legalize casino gambling?
Proudly teaching -
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about casino gambling to pay for education.
Pledging that you will fund education with casino gambling is basically the same as pledging to fund education by asking Bill Gates to pick up the tab. It is hypothetically possible that Gates would say "yeah, sure, how much do you need?" so no one can say you have no fundung plan, but it is dishonest to say you have a viable funding plan.
Legal casino gambling is the same sort of funding plan; it is an answer to the question how do you propose to fund education, but it is an answer that is wholly unrealistic and reflects either a sneaky way to dodge the issue or a complete misunderstanding of the budgetary process.