Testifying before the House Appropriations Committee earlier this week, Legislative Budget Board (LBB) director John O’Brien told committee members that the state’s next budget will likely be awash in red ink.
On the low side, O’Brien told lawmakers to expect at least an $11 billion shortfall for the 2012-13 budget. But that figure could go as high as $15 billion if the economy and tax revenues performed below expectations. The shortfall’s main culprits: falling revenues, an ongoing structural deficit, and recurring expenses resulting from the stimulus act.
Making matters worse, Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs recently informed lawmakers that rising health care costs would add an additional $1.7 billion in cost to the current budget. The increased costs, in large part, stem from higher-than-expected enrollment growth in the state’s Medicaid program.
With the state’s budget outlook presenting a challenge, some are already beating the drums for higher taxes in order to close the shortfall. But just because Texas faces a multi-billion shortfall doesn’t mean higher taxes are a must. The 2003 legislative session is a perfect example of this.
Faced with a $10 billion budget shortfall—similar to the one we face today—Texas lawmakers held the line on spending and passed a balanced budget, without raising taxes.
Duplicating that 2003 effort won’t be easy, but considering the alternative—higher taxes, slower economic growth, and less money in your pocket—it is definitely the better approach.
As the time to write the 2012-13 state budget approaches, viewing the task as an opportunity, once again puts Texas in the position of leading the nation in strong fiscal policy.
One common theme in education that exists in much of the world is the belief by government bureaucrats that they know better than parents. Many academics and development experts tend to believe that because parents are poor they cannot make good decisions regarding their child’s education.
James Tooley, author of “The Beautiful Tree,” finds some very specific examples in Third World countries of parents acting as consumers of education. Parents visited schools, talked with teachers and administrators, compared notes with other parents, and checked up on what students were learning by questioning them or asking them how often their teacher checks their homework. These informal tactics allowed parents to actively compare children in the government public schools to those in the private schools in their neighborhood.
During his travels, Tooley would frequently ask parents why they chose one type of schooling over the other. Here are some of the responses:
• One parent said, “government school children are always smartly dressed in good uniforms but when you ask them some questions, you realize that they know nothing.”
• Another parent explained their reason for choosing a private school for their child by saying, “the children do not learn [in public schools]; all they do is play.”
Private schools are accountable to parents. If parents decide to withdraw their children and their fees, then the private school could go out of business. Owners of private schools understand this market principle and seek to keep their parents happy. Yet government experts don’t appear to trust the judgment of poor parents to decide the best school for their child and don’t understand how a private school can be accountable to parents.
Tooley believes in the education marketplace and finishes his book by saying “the market in education is powerful. It builds on something that no central planner can possibly embrace, the strength of millions of decisions by individual families, the millions of bits of information grasped by the Searchers who relentlessly create and innovate, modify and develop what the people want.”
James Tooley, in his book “The Beautiful Tree,” explores public and private schools in Third World countries and finds that the private schools deliver a superior education with less funding. Why are private schools better?
One government principal in Ghana says that parents choose private schools because public schools cannot fire bad teachers. She says private schools proprietors “are very tough. If teachers don’t show up and teach, the parents react. Private schools need to make a profit, with the profit they pay their teachers, and so they need as many students as they can get. So they are tough with their teachers and supervise them carefully. I can’t do that with my teachers. I can’t sack them…. It is very rare for a teacher to be sacked [in a government school].”
Another reason that private schools are better is incentives. Private school owners have to stay on their toes and constantly monitor the performance of their teachers. Leaders of private schools are constantly walking around their school, making sure teachers are teaching, and following up on parent complaints to ensure that students are learning. One private school proprietor in India decided to install a closed-circuit television system to monitor classrooms because he knew that if teachers were accountable to him, he could be accountable to parents.
Government schools don’t have this incentive. Tooley explains, “the chief problem in the government schools is that the principals and inspectors have no incentives to do any of these things. Principals will draw the same salary and same benefits if they sit in their offices reading the newspaper all day — or even if they don’t show up at all — as they would if they meticulously walked the corridors checking on their teachers.”
As I wrote on Tuesday, James Tooley, author of “The Beautiful Tree,” visited public, recognized private schools, and unrecognized private schools in the slums of India, China, and Africa to compare the quality between these different school environments.
Tooley and other researchers visited the schools unannounced and took copious notes on the size of classes, whether the teacher was actually teaching, and the condition of the building and facilities.
All in all, private schools came out on top on almost every measure. Private school classes were smaller, teachers at private schools were more committed to teaching (as determined by more time on task), private schools were more likely to provide the curriculum parents wanted (such as teaching English), and the condition of the building and facilities were of equal quality. The only input where public government schools ranked higher was on the provision of playgrounds.
Tooley found that class size was a key factor in parents choosing private schools. Parents view classes in government public schools as “simply too big.” The data supports this belief with public school class sizes being either twice or three times as large as private schools.
Tooley was also able to gather information on the level of teacher training, teacher salaries, and student learning. He found that government schools were more likely to have better trained and educated teachers and better paid teachers (in some cases seven times more than teachers at private schools). Yet more training and higher pay doesn’t necessarily lead to higher teacher performance in the classroom, better student results, or a better school.
He explains, “When critics dismiss private schools for not having extensively trained teachers, the key reason they do is because they assume the teachers will be less effective. We’ve already seen that these untrained teachers are far more likely to show up and teach then their more heavily trained counterparts in government schools. Does their lack of training make any difference to student achievement – a key indicator of their effectiveness? It turns out it does not. Private schools again turn out to be superior to government schools.”
Students in private schools also scored higher on standardized tests in key subjects than students in government schools even when controlling for background differences.
Private schools serving poor children in the slums actually receive no government funding and no international aid and yet are of a higher quality because market forces are at work and they are accountable to parents.
While the state’s prison population continues to fall, some counties are still disproportionately filling state lockups.
Consider that Lubbock County (population: 264,418) has 2,478 of its residents in prisons and state jails, while Hidalgo County (population: 726,604) accounts for 2,986 inmates. Thus, taxpayers in Hidalgo County are subsidizing other counties like Lubbock that incarcerate nearly three times as many of their residents per capita.
Gross disparities exist in revocations to prison from probation. For example, in Hunt County, according to state data, last year 95 percent of their adult probation department’s revocations were for rules violations rather than a new offense. That far exceeds the statewide average of 49 percent. From 2004-05 to 2008-09, probation revocations from Hunt County grew 24.9 percent, going from 244 to 309 even as its number of probationers declined. The county only has about 600 felony probationers, but it revokes them for rules violations at a much higher rate than most other counties.
Hunt County is not alone. Many other counties, particularly rural counties in East Texas, have revocation rates for rules violations far above the state average. In contrast, Hidalgo County is the lowest in the state – only 31.8 percent of their probation revocations were for rules violations. Most other counties in the Valley are also below the state average.
Imbalanced scales of justice weigh heavily on Texas taxpayers and lock in disparities, as the same person who would be sentenced or revoked to prison in one county receives probation or remains on probation in another county.
Decisions on revoking probationers must always put public safety first. However, lawmakers should require all probation departments and judges to use a progressive sanctions and incentives model. Instead of doing nothing when a probationer violates the rules and then revoking them for many years after enough violations pile up, graduated responses such as a curfew – and even a few nights in county jail if necessary – are used to promote compliance. Conversely, incentives such as less frequent reporting are used to recognize exemplary performance. Victims also benefit when probationers succeed, as probationers pay more than $45 million per year in restitution while inmates pay about half a million in restitution, fees, and court costs combined.
All counties must be held accountable for implementing best practices that result in more offenders successfully completing probation and reserve prison space for those who pose a danger to public safety.
Many philanthropists, foreign governments, and international aid organizations sincerely want to help the poor and are looking for the best way to educate the poorest children around the world.
This is a lofty goal. What is the best way to provide all children, even those in the most poor and remote areas on earth, access to a quality education? Many academics and development experts believe the answer lies in free public schooling for all. But does a free public education benefit every child or are private schools also part of the answer? Which type of school provides a better education? Do private schools even exist in the slums?
James Tooley set out to answer these questions by traveling around the world in search of private schools that serve the poor. He visited the slums in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, India and China to conduct research on public and private schools and shares his findings in his book, “The Beautiful Tree.”
As he visited with government officials in these countries to get a list of public and private schools, he commonly found that those in government did not believe that private schools existed in the poor areas and if they did they had to be of a very low quality. Tooley shares interesting stories as he explores the slums and searches for schools that the government doesn’t believe exist. He encounters many obstacles, but is able to find schools with the help of local townspeople, students, and parents.
Tooley found that there are basically three types of schools in the Third World:
1) Government public schools;
2) Recognized private schools; and
3) Unrecognized or unregistered private schools.
Government schools are public schools and are free and open to any student. They are typically funded by the country’s government, foreign aid, philanthropists, and international aid organizations.
Private schools are funded by fees paid by parents. Private schools make sure their fees are affordable to poor families and typically charge a monthly fee of about 5 to 10 percent of what the breadwinner earns a month. In addition, private schools serve a percentage of orphans and students who can’t afford their fees by allowing up to 20 percent of students to attend for free or at a reduced rate.
Private schools are either recognized or unrecognized by the government and may be for-profit or non-profit. Unrecognized schools are not regulated by the government and may not even be listed on their registry of schools. Tooley does not think much of government recognition, saying that it “conveys no information about school quality, it only indicates the school’s ability to afford bribes.”
Over the last year, the American people have said repeatedly and emphatically that they object to the federal government taking control of their health care. President Obama’s “new” health care proposal is nothing more than a rebranding of the same big-government ideas that the Congress has already passed and the public has already repudiated.
Instead of moving away from government control of health care, President Obama’s plan includes even more regulation. Creating yet another agency, a new Health Insurance Rate Authority, would provide “oversight” of rates. In recent years, the Texas Legislature has moved away from allowing government agencies to set consumer prices. Artificial price controls have never proven effective for very long, and there is no reason to believe that would change now.
Texas has shown that capping non-economic damages is essential to reducing frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits and increasing access to health care. The absence of damage caps in President Obama’s plan demonstrates a lack of seriousness on the issue of tort reform.
President Obama’s plan includes no free market ideas and no elements that promote competition among health insurers and health care providers. The token items that the President claims to have included from his critics were already in the Senate’s bill.
In fact, nothing in the substance of President Obama’s plan gives individuals more control over their health insurance. The only part of his plan that mentions more choices for consumers is the headline on the White House website. That does not count for legislative change.
Google is at it again. According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, the technology giant is planning on building a high-speed broadband service. Google claims that the network will be 100 times faster than what is available today, and reach as many as 500,000 people. Many municipalities have already created “Bring Google Fiber” groups on Facebook, seeking to attract Google to their respective cities.
Interestingly, Google is choosing to put its experimental network in territory tightly controlled by other service providers, citing the strong competition as the key to ensuring success. Google has stated that offering this experimental network could prod cable and phone companies to offer cheaper, speedier access on a broader scale.
The increase in competition is good for ensuring innovation as well. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association said that the cable industry planned to spend billions of dollars on top of the $161 billion it had already invested over 13 years in a national broadband infrastructure, and industry watchers are hoping that Google’s entry into the marketplace will spur competition and innovation. Google’s new fiber network could cost anywhere from $60 million to $1.6 billion.
A new Cato Institute study examines the arguments for national standards. Some individuals and organizations support national standards claiming that countries that outperform the United States on international assessments all have national standards. Let's examine the facts of countries that do better and worse than the U.S. on two different international tests.
• On the international 8th grade TIMMS test, eight countries that outperformed the U.S. have national standards, but so did 33 of the 39 countries that scored lower than the U.S. – including 11 of the 12 lowest performers.
• On the international PISA exam, 11 nations that outperformed the U.S. have national standards, three have regional standards, and five have no centralized standards. Of the nine countries that did worse on the PISA, four have national standards, one has regional standards, and four have no standards.
Clearly, national standards do not equal excellence.
Nations that perform well on international tests with national standards tend to be homogeneous. For a country as diverse as the U.S. making everyone happy with the content on religion or history will be extremely difficult. Just think about the recent battles in Texas over evolution and social studies.
Another thing to note is that some countries with national standards are actually decreasing the scope of their standards.
• Japan reduced the content of their national standards by 30 percent in 2002.
• Singapore reduced its national curriculum by a third in 1999 and added critical thinking in 2001.
• Korea is sending its teachers here to learn how to teach creativity and critical thinking.
What about the quality of the proposed national standards in the U.S.? A study released today by the Pioneer Institute and the Pacific Research Institute shows that Massachusetts and California have higher standards than the prosposed national standards. Another analysis done by higher education and public school educators comparing Texas' English and math college readiness standards to the proposed national standards finds that Texas' standards are more comprehensive than the national standards.
All of this confirms Texas' decision to not join the national standards bandwagon because it just doesn't make sense.
As state government agencies are pressed to cut their budgets, we are glad to hear that some public schools are also examining and rethinking items in their budgets.
The Houston Independent School District and YES Prep charter school are both considering putting an end to the practice of paying teachers more for an advanced degree, according to the Houston Chronicle. HISD estimates it will cost taxpayers $7.8 million this year to pay teachers an additional stipend for a master’s or doctorate degree.
A common misperception about teacher quality is that more training and education equals a better teacher. This is not necessarily the case. Just because a teacher has a Ph.D. in physics does not mean they know how to teach. A one-size-fits-all compensation method such as stipends for advanced degrees risks paying some teachers more who aren’t worth it and not adequately rewarding others who are. School leaders should make the decision on how much to pay each teacher individually based on their performance and effectiveness.
Research clearly finds that possession of an advanced degree has absolutely no correlation to higher teacher effectiveness or student achievement. Our recent paper on teacher quality explains this misconception.
The Center on Reinventing Public Education recently put out a report on teachers with master’s degrees that had some surprising facts.
• 90% of teacher’s master degrees are in education programs (not the subject area they teach).
• Master’s degrees in education had the highest growth rate of all master’s degrees between 1997 and 2007.
• 27% of teachers in Texas have a master’s degree and, as a result, receive an extra $1,423 per year on average. This amounts to more than $124.5 million a year spent on outdated method of compensation that does not translate into better teacher quality or higher student achievement.
As school districts are looking for ways to cut their budget and improve teacher quality, we recommend they cut out stipends for advanced degrees – there is nothing in state or federal education regulations prohibiting them making this cut.
The Texas Tribune re-launched its public employee payroll database last week, citing a need for more dynamic search capabilities. The original application, which the Texas Tribune found to be the most popular feature on its site, only allowed a visitor to search by name or agency. Today, users have a full range of search tools, allowing for a more in-depth analysis.
Through the Texas Freedom of Information Act, the Texas Tribune collected some 340,000 public employee records, accounting for $15 billion in payroll at the state’s largest agencies, universities, cities, school districts, and mass transit operators. Just by toggling through the “Job Title” search function, I found that the 169 “School Crossing Guards” across the state make, on average, $9,683 per year, while the highest paid crossing guards in the state receive $15,080. School Crossing Guard Supervisors make approximately $24,000 on average, while the highest paid Supervisor takes home $47,844. According to the data, “School Crossing Guards” and their supervisors are only on the payroll under that title in seven Texas jurisdictions.
Why do only seven jurisdictions in Texas have salaried crossing guards? $15,080 works out to almost $20 per hour for a guard working two 2-hour shifts per day during a nine-month school year – is that, in fact, a crossing guards schedule?
Obviously, the database can’t answer those questions, but having the data available and making the government transparent allows for us to discover questions we would have never thought to ask. We can then take those questions to PTA meetings, or our school superintendents, or our school board members to find answers.
Kudos to the Texas Tribune for making a great product even better.
One of the panels at this year’s Policy Orientation focused on Western civilization courses and the quality of education received at our state’s public universities.
In this “Quick Take” filmed after the panel, Dr. Richard Brake with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute discussed how Texas does at teaching its students western civilization, as well as if we need to improve and how.
Dr. Brake explained, “ISI has been involved with a multi-year effort to assess how much students know when they go into college about American history and government and how much they know when they come out.” The results of the study showed that students aren’t learning much while in college.
Take ISI’s Civic Literacy Quiz for yourself and see whether you also need a refresher.
At our 8th Annual Policy Orientation for the Texas Legislature, we hosted a movie screening of the education documentary ”The Cartel”. This incredible film has won numerous awards at multiple film festivals. The film’s director Bob Bowdon takes a minute to explain his film in this short video from our “Quick Takes” series.
“The Cartel” has been named an official selection of the Washington, DC Independent Film Festival and will screen at noon on Saturday, March 13. In addition, The Cartel will be shown in movie theaters in 12 cities across the country this spring – one of them being Houston – and the theatrical release will likely be in late April or early May. Stay tuned for more details on dates.
Like many of President Obama’s policy goals, his goals for higher education sound fantastic. However, his plan to “expand access” to higher education is fundamentally flawed. It provides a massive increase in student aid – $156 billion in fiscal year 2011, up from $98 billion in 2008. The budget also will make it easier for borrowers to repay their loans, lowering income-based repayments and cutting the length of their repayments. Again, that sounds great. So what’s the problem?
Neal McCluskey from the Cato Institute summed it up best when he said: “There is perhaps no bigger vehicle politicians use to buy middle class votes than higher education and student aid – giving money away to people who want to go to college. And, there is simply no justification for this because the reason people go to college is so they can earn more money over their lifetime. So, when the president talks about ‘forgiving student debt,’ essentially what he’s saying is taxpayers should have to pay the burden for someone else to make a whole lot more money over their lifetime. It’s simply unfair.”
McCluskey continued, “And then there’s another problem connected to all this student aid, and that’s that it drives up tuition costs. The president talks about tuition inflation, well student aid is what drives tuition inflation because students can buy more, they demand more, which means universities can charge more because they can get the money.”
So not only is the President’s proposal unfair, it actually makes the problem of tuition inflation much worse. The way to solve tuition inflation is not by doing more of the same. Increasing access to grants and loans has become a crutch for bad higher education policy, and until lawmakers ease up on regulations and let the market flourish in higher education, things will only get worse.
The University of Texas at Austin recently announced it would be shutting down its well-known and much loved Cactus Café due to budget woes. The university will also be ending its decades-long program of informal classes that allow area residents to learn various subjects and skills for a nominal fee. Together, ending these programs will save UT-Austin $122,000, barely a drop out of its multi-billion dollar bucket.
The issue here isn’t cutting Cactus Café or the informal classes; it’s that UT-Austin chose to cut those programs rather than areas of the budget that would save substantially more money. For this reason, the cut seems suspect. UT-Austin has so many other areas in their budget to cut, and the fact that they chose something students and lawmakers would be upset about raises some red flags for me. Here’s why.
The state leadership’s letter asking state agencies to cut 5% from their budgets specifically states that: “Your plan should represent prudent, efficient reductions that minimize the impact on direct services. For purposes of this review, we expect you to analyze the necessity of all administrative expenses and purchases. Reducing direct services should be your last option, but should be identified, if necessary, in order to meet the 5 percent target.”
If that’s the case, then why is the Cactus Café the first cut that’s been announced?
To be clear, I’m not defending the Cactus Café. It’s just that when spending cuts are proposed, bureaucracies tend to offer up the ones that inflict the most pain on the public first (e.g., closing the Washington Monument on weekends) as a means to protect their turf. That’s certainly what this smells like.
The public should implore UT-Austin to cut the real fat in its budget. This paper lists several ways universities in Texas, particularly UT-Austin, could reform their operations to save substantial sums of money.
The entire process has been on wrong track from the very beginning. Once leaders in Congress saw that the American people generally disapproved of their proposals, rather than taking a step back, they tried to ram through reform using power moves and backroom deals. The entire issue has become so snarled that Congress couldn’t get out of the mess they created for themselves.
Fortunately, President Obama gave Congress an out this week when he proclaimed the new focus of his administration would be job growth. But during the same speech he reiterated his commitment to health care reform.
"As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed," Mr. Obama said in his address. "But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Here's what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close."
Well, Mr. President, there is a better approach. If Congress is serious about getting a health care bill passed this year, it should abandon its one-government-fits-all designs and instead take its first serious look at the patient-centered health care solutions the Texas Public Policy Foundation has championed all along.
According to the Cato Institute, federal subsidy programs topped the 2,000 mark for the first time last week. Almost half of those have been created in the last 20 years: the number of federal subsidy programs soared 21 percent during the 1990s and 40 percent during the 2000s.
As Chris Edwards, Cato’s director of tax policy, rather depressingly puts it, “There is a federal subsidy program for every year that has passed since Emperor Augustus held sway in Rome. We’ve gone from bread and circuses to food stamps, the National Endowment for the Arts, and 1,999 other hand-out programs from the imperial city on the Potomac.”
Of course, Washington isn’t alone in the subsidy game. Texas does pretty well too. In addition to the standard economic development programs, Texas is tops in the nation when it comes to renewable energy subsidies. By 2020, Texas consumers could be paying as much $1.3 billion a year to support wind energy—that is in addition to the $300 million or so the Feds are contributing to Texas wind producers. The solar folks are also lining up—the cost of proposed solar subsidies last session ran as high as $220 million. And they’ll all be back in 2011.
It would be nice in this one instance if we could topple Texas from its number one ranking.
Social media has revolutionized countless aspects of our lives and made communicating while at work, rest, or play a cinch. Yet, even as transformational as social media has been over the last several years, our state’s public information laws reflect very little of the world we live in.
Government employees of all ages are tweeting, blogging, friending, and chatting their day through the workweek—but much of this information is inaccessible to the public, violating the spirit of Texas’ Open Records Act.
To help tackle this issue, Dr. Wanda Cash, a guest columnist in the Texas Tribune and a journalism professor at the University of Texas, offers some interesting reform measures for lawmakers to consider this interim.
• Update existing law to include “new definitions that encompass wireless-transmission devices and social media;”
• Consider all e-mail traffic emanating from government servers to be public record—regardless of who owns the electronic device;
• Standardize the length of time all state agencies must keep public data; and
• Apply the same standards that government agencies face under the Open Records Act to privatized government functions.
While the details of Dr. Cash’s open government reforms may need to be fleshed out a bit further to determine their full impact, they certainly give lawmakers something to think about this interim as they go about formulating policy ideas for next session.
With as quickly as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are changing our world, it is important that our state’s public information laws don’t lag too far behind.
The report calls on the U.S. Department of Education to create an Office of Consumer Protection in Higher Education that would pressure colleges to produce significantly better data on how well they serve students, develop a system for making that data available for students to use in choosing a college, and direct students unhappy with their college’s educational practices to federal, state, or accrediting officials who can help them resolve their complaints.
A new bureaucracy isn’t needed to accomplish these goals – and may actually make things worse – so I disagree with their proposed means to achieve improved higher education accountability. But despite this disagreement, it seems both sides of the philosophical spectrum agree that the lack of accountability in higher education is a problem in need of addressing. It is also incredibly promising that the Center for American Progress referred to students as university “customers.”
The author of the paper states that “In most sectors of our economy, customer focus is paramount, as it should be in education, too. Customer focus could yield a more student-centric system through the development and dissemination of user-friendly 'truth-in-education' information that helps students make 'best-fit' choices regarding which education provider to select based on customer preferences such as: academic quality, price, convenience, learning style, beginning education level and the anticipated return on their investment in education."
The first step is always admitting there is a problem. Now our elected officials, regardless of party affiliation, should come together to reach a solution. Improving university accountability will empower students, improve educational quality, and allow taxpayers to better track the results their tax dollars yield.
Texas property crime victims often pay twice – once for the crime and once for the time as taxpayers. Only half of all court-ordered victim restitution in Texas is collected, although the national average is even lower.
Utilizing alternatives to incarceration when the offender does not pose a danger to the public can increase restitution. Consider that in 2008, Texas probationers paid an average of $109 in victim restitution, totaling $46.75 million. This is more than 34 times the restitution paid by each prison inmate. Probationers also performed 9.7 million community service hours, which would be worth $70.3 million based on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Additionally, felony probationers must pay $600 per year in fees plus court costs. Texas has some of the highest fees in the nation, which fund 40 percent of probation department budgets. This burdens indigent probationers – many of whom also owe child support – and creates a fiscal incentive to revoke a greater share of non-paying probationers to prison.
In 2008, Texas prison inmates paid a mere $501,000 in total victim restitution, fines, fees, and court costs, an average of only $3.21 per inmate. Parolees did better, paying $1.2 million solely in victim restitution, an average of $15.18 per parolee.
Most Texas parolees are employed – indeed the employment rate of Texas parolees exceeds Detroit’s overall employment rate. However, parolees are typically in the limited tier of lowest-wage jobs open to ex-inmates, who average less than an 8th grade achievement level. They often struggle to cover basic housing and nutritional needs. Also, the average inmate who leaves prison owing child support is more than $16,000 in arrears. These children are secondary victims of crime and overreliance on incarceration.
Incarceration is necessary for offenders who pose an ongoing danger to public safety, but two-thirds of offenders entering Texas prisons are non-violent and many county jails are overflowing with non-violent inmates. Incarceration protects the public in many cases, but also severs employment, family, and any religious ties, reducing the likelihood that the victim will receive restitution. The criminal justice system must be brought into fiscal balance with victims treated as consumers.
Allied Van Lines recently released its 42nd Annual Magnet States Report, which tracks where people are relocating within the United States. Texas remained the top destination for people moving between states. Texas’ net relocation gain was almost 2,000 in 2009, higher than the 1,900 gained in 2008. According to Allied, the movers are singles and families from various backgrounds. Not surprisingly, Allied also did a lot of corporate relocations for some very large companies based in Texas.
A large reason for Texas’ appeal is its favorable tax climate. Texas has no income tax, and holds a competitive advantage over most states due to its minimal tax burden on dividends, capital gains, and corporate income. As Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business stated, “Texas remains the best place in America to live, work, and raise a family.”
For those wondering why states like Pennsylvania, which was the third highest in net relocation losses, continue to lose so many people, the answer lies in their policies. Last year, Pennsylvania spent more on economic development programs than any other state in the nation. Their “economic development” spending was upwards of $754 million. As a direct result of this flurry of government spending, 2,591 people left on Allied Van Lines alone. This result is not surprising.
As pointed out in “Competitive States: Economic Growth Prospects for the 21st Century,” poor economic policies lead to poor economic outcomes. In order to spend money, the government must first take it from the private sector, either through taxes or borrowing. Often, the contribution of the government expenditures to the economy is less than the value of the money to the economy prior to its removal from the private sector. When comparing economic growth in the 10 states with the lowest total state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income against the 10 states with the highest total state and local taxes per $1,000 of personal income, overall economic growth has been significantly higher in the low-tax states.
When faced with high taxes and job loss, it is no wonder people are moving out of states with large “economic development” packages and into states where they can spend their own money how they choose. If the tax climate in Texas remains the same, we should be on top for a long time to come.
Can a low-performing school actually be turned around? A new article in Education Next suggests that instead of trying to fix failing schools, policymakers should close them and allow them to start over.
The author gives several compelling examples of how the best of intentions have not led to better schools. In California, the state targeted the lowest-performing schools for intervention. Three years later, only 11% of those schools made exemplary progress (109 of 968 schools). Ohio recently restructured 52 failing schools and few have met academic goals.
Several studies found similar results. The Center on Education Policy found that less than 15% of schools being restructured in California, Maryland, and Ohio made federal academic goals set by No Child Left Behind (adequate yearly progress). A 2005 report by the Education Commission of the States says that school takeovers “have yet to produce dramatic consistent increases in student performance.”
Thus, there are no best practices on how to improve a persistently failing schools. In fact, the successful charter school network KIPP attempted to turnaround schools and abandoned the effort after only two years.
If the evidence does not point to success, why do school leaders and policymakers continue to push for restructuring a school versus just shutting it down and starting anew? Politics.
It is very hard politically for a school superintendent or a politician to tell their constituents that a school in their community is so bad it is beyond fixing. They take a risk of angering their constituents who may have emotional ties to the school. So, in most cases, it is easier to come up with a list of action items to improve the school versus allowing the school to face the consequences of its mediocre performance and get shut down.
Often ignored in this debate is the best interest of students. Is it in the best interest of the student and their future if they are stuck attending a low-performing schools for several years? Wouldn’t they be better served if they could attend a high-quality school down the street?
Let’s look at the facts and invest our time and resources in what works instead of continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
In the midst of the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, Washington D.C. officials are hitting area shoppers with a brand new tax on shopping bags.
The new 5-cent tax, approved unanimously by the D.C. City Council last June, applies to every disposable paper and plastic bag a customer carries out of businesses that sell food or alcohol. An estimate from the Progressive Bag Affiliates of the American Chemistry Council puts the cost to Washingtonians at $5 million this year.
Instituting a costly new retail tax, particularly in today’s economy, has the potential to reduce business activity and harm struggling consumers, but supporters insist the cost is worth reducing pollution. History has shown that that is not necessarily the case though.
In 2007, the city of San Francisco banned plastic bags altogether in an attempt to reduce the amount of plastic bag pollution in the city. However, when the city conducted a litter audit, it was “revealed that plastic bag litter remained the same: 0.6% of litter composition.”
While we Texans may be tempted to sit back and watch with bemusement, it wasn’t long ago that we were under similar threat.
During last year’s legislative session, House Bill 1361 would have imposed a tax of “7 cents on each disposable plastic bag provided by a retailer to a customer to carry out purchased items,” but the bill never made it out of committee. You can bet that supporters of HB 1361 are watching the D.C. bag tax experiment closely, hoping that it doesn’t fail like in San Francisco and gives them cover to try again next session.
Whose beach is it anyway? We’re about to find out.
Hurricane Rita’s destruction of West Galveston Island moved the vegetation line inland and, with it, the beach.
In 2007, some beachfront property owners, including Carol Severance, were told by the General Land Office that their land was seaward of the new vegetation line and now part of the “public” beach.
At issue is whether the vegetation line’s movement gives the state of Texas a “rolling” easement over the private land that requires property owners to give the public access to their property and perhaps even move their beach houses off of the land.
The legal question is whether there is any such thing as a “rolling” easement, i.e., since the state did not have an easement over the land prior to Hurricane Rita, how can it have one afterward?
In other words, when two pieces of adjacent land now suddenly “overlap,” who gets to use the overlapped portions—property owners or beachgoers? In this case, the answer lies in the courts’ interpretation of the Texas Open Beaches Act (OBA).
Carol Severance has fought her way to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of blocking public access to her land. The Fifth Circuit has asked the Supreme Court of Texas for guidance in helping them understand the application of the OBA. Hinging on the Texas Supreme Court’s response is a large amount of private property and potentially numerous displaced homeowners.
The plain language of the OBA makes clear that it does not create a land interest that was not already in place through an easement created under traditional common law rules. Here, the state has not shown that it had an easement over Carol Severance’s land prior to Hurricane Rita. Since there was no property interest in the land prior to the “overlap,” the OBA should not be used to create one now.
Whose beach is it? We can only hope the Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals find the right answer.
This Thursday at 6:15 pm, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Austin CEO Foundation are hosting a screening of the education documentary “The Cartel,” followed by a Q&A session with Director Bob Bowdon. This incredible film examines the national education crisis and New Jersey schools through personal stories of student, parents, and teachers, and suggests ways to improve education. Check out the trailer and see for yourself.
The Cartel has won numerous awards at various film festivals including:
• Official Selection at the New Jersey State Film Festival & Philadelphia Independent Film Festival;
• Best Feature Documentary & Audience Choice Award at the Jersey Shore Film Festival;
• Best Full-Length Documentary & Official Selection at the Downbeach Film Festival;
• Silver Screen Award at the Nevada Film Festival; and
• Audience Award at the Hoboken International Film Festival.
Please contact me for more details on the screening or if you are interested in attending.
While many Americans are struggling just to make ends meet in today’s sluggish economy, a damning new report shows that government workers are prospering.
According to USA Today, the ratio of federal employees making $100,000 or more increased from 14 percent to 19 percent in the first 18 months of the current recession.
One agency with a particularly high concentration of six-figure bureaucrats was the Department of Transportation. “When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.”
The dramatic salary increases means that the average federal worker now earns an annual salary of $71,206 versus an average annual salary of $40,331 in the private sector.
State and local government employees also saw their pay raised over the last year-and-a-half, though, to be fair, the percent increase (3.9 percent) was on par with that of a private sector employee. Still, the average state and local government employee now earns $54,000 a year, or about $14,000 more than their private sector counterparts.
The growth in public sector wages and compensation is troubling, particularly given the current recession. By taking more and more from those who produce (in the form of higher taxes and increased borrowing) and awarding it (in the form of higher wages and increased benefits) to those in non-productive positions, we are removing the incentive to be productive and slowing our own economic recovery.
During the current economic downturn, some 35 state correctional facilities have been shuttered, though no adult facilities have yet been shut down in Texas where two-thirds of incoming inmates were convicted of a non-violent offense. However, as the state’s crime rate and prison population declines, this issue may arise.
Plans to close lockups often stir opposition in rural areas where the facility is one of the largest employers, though the cities of Dallas and Sugar Land have each sought to redevelop the valuable land on which prisons in their communities sit. Local communities and some of their lawmakers fought the closure of Texas Youth Commission facilities, two more of which will be shuttered in the current biennium.
Prisons have been misused as a bipartisan economic development tool. For example, former Democrat New York Governor Mario Cuomo went on a prison building spree and delivered a prison each to many Republican senators in upstate New York in exchange for support on other measures. Moreover, Cuomo used public housing authority bonds with a higher interest rate than general revenue bonds, a bill that New York taxpayers are still picking up today. This year, the state finally repealed the Rockefeller-era drug laws that fueled this building binge with long prison terms in low-level drug possession cases.
All job losses are regrettable. However, if other agencies are cut instead, jobs will also be lost. Raising taxes may well cost even more jobs as money is drained from the private sector. Furthermore, it’s not the government’s role to create jobs.
However, what’s worse is the harrowing impact of the prison work environment on employees. The prison guard suicide rate is far higher than the general population, and at least anecdotal evidence suggests rates of family violence, depression, alcoholism, and heart attacks are much higher as well. In 2005, 761 Texas prison guards were arrested. Sadly, a prison guard’s life expectancy is only 59, compared to the overall lifespan of 77. Texas guards’ salaries start at $26,000, and many won’t live to collect their retirement, which goes to their survivor.
Given that there are 2,000 prison guard vacancies and still more lower-paying county jail guard vacancies, prison closures in Texas would not necessarily result in job losses, depending on the number of units shuttered. In the larger picture, retraining prison guards in other areas such as probation is preferable to prisons as a jobs program.
Barely a month after the Texas Department of Insurance rejected the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association’s (TWIA) request to increase rates by 10 percent, TWIA’s board announced that it will consider raising rates 5 percent across the board for policy holders. While even the 10 percent rate increase was inadequate, maybe this increase will be enough to move us toward solving current coastal insurance problems and getting private insurers back into the market.
The creation of TWIA has pushed private insurers out of the market, while increasing the amount of exposure for the state. TWIA’s total exposure has increased from $13.2 billion in 2001 to $64.2 billion this year. The cumulative impacts of Hurricane Dolly and Hurricane Ike wiped out TWIA’s finances and the recent legislative fixes are not likely to help – there is concern now that TWIA will not be able to sell the first tier of catastrophe bonds. Texans are still trying to put Galveston back together. Another storm would be catastrophic at this point in time.
Misguided concerns for consumers have led to the current homeowners’ and windstorm insurance regulations that have mishandled pricing, increased risk, and kept private companies from investing capital in Texas. A large, diverse group of policy holders is what spreads the risks and minimizes costs, keeping prices competitive and low. Yet these regulations keep pushing us in the other direction. As Bill Peacock points out in his recent op-ed, “Windstorm Insurance Ruling Shows Legislative Reforms Have Failed,” there is a right way and a wrong way to go about helping consumers.
If TWIA returns to its original intent to serve as the market of last resort – instead of today’s first and best option – private companies will want to return to the Texas coastal market. With the private companies’ return, coastal residents will see competitive, lower prices, and enough money in the market to cover homeowners in the case of another major storm.
Last Friday, a group of 222 economists publicly rejected the Administration’s view that we need to “spend our way out of this recession,” instead insisting that officials focus on solutions that emphasize the free market.
In their statement, the troupe of economists – hailing from a number of prestigious universities, including Harvard, George Mason, and Rice – warn that:
The country’s economic future depends on Congress’ ability to rein in the growth of federal spending. Failing to restrict spending growth will further balloon the national debt, impede economic growth, and threaten the long-term economic health of our Nation. Controlling spending growth to reverse our dangerous debt accumulation can be done without endangering the near-term economic recovery, and will prove beneficial over the longer horizon.
The 2009 near-term “stimulus” has proven to be an inefficient spur to job creation and does not merit repeating. Any further policy efforts should be focused on opening borders to free trade, cutting burdensome regulations, and providing necessary tax relief to employers and employees.
The growing chorus of academics and scholars calling for an end to the Keynesian policies of the Obama Administration is getting hard to ignore. Let’s hope officials in Washington are listening.
• School for the Talented & Gifted at Yvonne A. Ewell Townview Center
Dallas, TX - Magnet
• School of Science & Engineering Magnet
Dallas, TX - Magnet
• IDEA Quest Academy & College Preparatory
Donna, TX (Rio Grande Valley) - Charter
• KIPP Houston High School
Houston, TX - Charter
• Michael E. DeBakey High School for Health Professions
Houston, TX - Magnet
• YES Prep Southeast
Houston, TX - Charter
• Highland Park High School
Dallas, TX - Traditional
• Carnegie Vanguard High School
Houston, TX - Magnet
• South Texas High School for Health Professions
Mercedes, TX (Rio Grande Valley) - Magnet
• Fort Worth Academy of Fine Arts
Fort Worth, TX – Charter
• Hidalgo Early College High School
Hidalgo, TX
It is not surprising that charter schools and magnet schools comprise the majority of Texas schools on this list. Charter schools and magnet schools are schools that students “choose” to attend. They offer a variety of educational models ranging from specialized curriculum focusing on a specific area such as math and science or fine arts to having a strong college-going culture.
Hopefully, we will see more high-quality charter schools and magnet schools open in Texas, giving more students the opportunity to attend a high-quality school.
States Continue Raising Taxes
States, struggling to contain huge budget deficits, raised taxes and fees by $23.9 billion and enacted $7.7 billion in other revenue-raising measures for FY 2010, according to a new report from the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO).
Among the slate of new net tax and fee increases:
• Personal Income Taxes: $10.7 billion
• Sales Taxes: $6.1 billion
• Fees: $5.3 billion
• Other Taxes: $967.8 million
• Cigarette, Tobacco and Alcohol Taxes: $908.1 million
• Alcohol Taxes: $54.1 million
• Motor Fuel Taxes: $42.3 million
NASBO executive director Scott Pattison said the new tax and fee increases represent the “highest tax increases ever,” and that, incredibly, Americans should expect further tax hikes in the near future.
This news is disturbing on a number of fronts. Americans already “pay more in taxes than they will spend on food, clothing and housing combined,” face the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and are under threat of massive federal tax increases tied to proposed climate change and health care legislation. Add to that even more taxes being collected at the state level, and one begins to wonder if anyone is looking out for the American taxpayer anymore.
The American Revolution Center has just released a study that found 83 percent of American adults fail a quiz on America’s founding and the American Revolution. The results of the study are not only alarming but incredibly sad.
On the 27-question test within the survey, a national sample of American adults scored an average of only 44 percent correct. Additionally:
• Nearly 83 percent received a failing grade.
• Only four of the 27 questions were answered correctly by 70 percent or more of respondents.
• Many more Americans knew that Michael Jackson authored “Beat It” and “Billie Jean” than knew that James Madison was the Father of the Constitution, or that Alexander Hamilton was the first Treasury Secretary.
• Only 11 percent of Americans could identify John Jay as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Compare that to the 60 percent who knew the number of children of Jon and Kate Gosselin, a reality-TV show couple.
• More than 50 percent of Americans wrongly attributed the quote “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” to either George Washington, Thomas Paine, or President Barack Obama, when it is in fact a quote from Karl Marx, author of The Communist Manifesto.
• One-third did not know that the right to a jury trial is covered in the Bill of Rights, while 40 percent mistakenly thought that the right to vote is.
The study also found, in addition to the alarming lack of basic American Civics knowledge, that Americans think it is important that citizens do know the history and principles of America’s founding and the American Revolution and that this information is taught in school.
While teacher performance is much discussed, little is said about law enforcement effectiveness. As policymakers face budget pressures, they should examine law enforcement spending to prioritize activities that prevent and solve the crimes that most harm victims.
In the Texas Department of Public Safety’s budget, Goal C. is to “Prevent and Reduce Crime.” However, the sole performance measure within this goal for each division is the number of arrests. It doesn’t matter if the arrest is of a drug kingpin or murderer, or a person with a joint. Similarly, in the proposed 2009-10 budget for the Dallas Police Department, performance measures for the narcotics division are total arrests, investigations conducted, and operations/investigations per full-time equivalent employee.
The San Antonio Police Department’s proposed budget commendably includes targeted clearance rates for property crime (11.5%) and violent crime (32.8%), although these numbers suggest too many resources may be devoted to arrests for the most minor crimes as opposed to solving more crimes that severely harm victims.
Fort Worth is the best among major Texas cities. Four of its five police department budget performance measures, are result- and victim-oriented. They are the serious violent and property crime rate, percent of violent crimes solved, percent of property crimes solved, and rate of traffic fatality accidents. (You’ll notice that arrests are not included.) Outside of Texas, Washington D.C. has measured victim satisfaction.
Many policing activities are actually proven to prevent crime, leading to fewer arrests.
State agencies like DPS can propose new performance measures in the spring and many Texas cities are adopting their budgets, presenting an opportunity to improve law enforcement effectiveness through better performance measures.
Last week, Texas Comptroller Susan Combs unveiled her office’s latest effort to promote open government: the Leadership Circle.
The program – considered to be the first part of a two-step, carrot-and-stick approach – spotlights local governments in Texas that are “opening their books to the public; providing clear, consistent pictures of spending; and sharing information in a user-friendly format that lets taxpayers easily drill down for more information.”
Program participation is free and local governments even score themselves, though the results are verified by the Comptroller’s office. Based on the participant’s answers and the extent to which they have embraced transparency, one of three awards are given:
- Gold: Awarded to government entities that are “setting the bar in their transparency efforts;”
- Silver: Presented to those making progress; and
- Bronze: Given to those just starting the process.
The Leadership Circle’s first winners include: City of Tyler (Gold), Smith County (Gold), Tyler ISD (Gold), Arp ISD (Bronze), Chapel Hill ISD (Bronze), and Lindale ISD (Bronze).
Recognizing cities, counties, and school districts – like those listed above – is a great, low-cost way to reward local officials for their efforts. But even more importantly, the program helps keep the transparency issue in the public eye. And if the transparency movement is going to continue to be a force for good government, the public must constantly see it and demand it.
Today, the Center for Education Reform released its state rankings and Texas’ charter school law received a “D.” This isn’t really surprising considering the multiple rules and regulations that have been added on in recent years, the lack of facilities funding, and barriers to growth such as the state imposed cap of 215.
Yet, in spite of a mediocre state law, more and more Texas students and parents are choosing to attend a charter school. In Texas, charter school enrollment continues to increase. The Texas Education Agency reports that the number of students attending an open enrollment charter school increased from approximately 90,000 students to 102,000 students (2007-08 to 2008-09). Fourteen school districts operate charter schools that serve another 25,000 students. This brings the total of Texas charter school enrollment to almost 128,000 students.
The same trend holds true nationally. Across the country, more than 1.4 million students attended a public charter school last year. This year, student enrollment in public charter schools is more than 1.5 million students, according to the Center for Education Reform. The United States has more than 5,000 charter schools and 39 states currently allow charter schools, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
Unfortunately, the charter school movement still has many artificial barriers to growth such as caps on enrollment, caps on the number of schools that may operate, or paperwork requirements that traditional public schools don’t have to fill out in order to expand. These barriers plus a lack of facilities has led to long waiting lists in many areas.
Nationwide, an estimated 365,000 students are on a charter school waiting list. In New York City, about 40,000 students applied for 8,500 seats. Texas had nearly 17,000 students on wait lists last year. (TPPF will release an updated total tomorrow.) Even states with very few charter schools such as Maryland has a waiting list with 3,000 students.
Students deserve the ability attend the school of their choice. It is time to get rid of arbitrary caps and other unnecessary barriers to expansion.
Some jurisdictions use performance measures for various departments to help determine the extent to which taxpayer funds are accomplishing their intended purpose.
A 2006 Texas Public Policy Foundation report called for measures based on results, not on “pure activity and volume measures such as numbers of applications processed, the number of individuals served by a program, complaint volume, and so on.”
With that in mind, how should prosecutors’ performance be measured? In San Bernardino County, California, one of their two performance measures for the district attorney’s office is the percent of felony cases resulting in a prison sentence. Is their goal of 33 percent necessarily justice? Violent felons going to prison certainly may be, but, apart from the cost, does imprisoning first-time drug possession offenders alongside violent criminals enhance public safety? Similarly, Johnson County, Kansas uses total prison and jail time obtained as one of their measures.
The most traditional district attorney performance measures are the number of cases processed, convictions, and conviction rate. For example, among the four measures used by Fort Bend County, Texas are felony and misdemeanor dispositions. Similarly, the measures in Dallas County focus on the number of filings and dispositions. These volume measurements are of little value, since more cases may simply reflect an increase in crime.
Dan Conley, the district attorney in Boston, notes a prosecutor’s job is not simply to obtain convictions, but “to seek the truth and achieve justice.” A good place to start is achieving justice for victims, which can be measured by restitution obtained and victim satisfaction. A report by the National District Attorneys Association advocates such measures, though it also endorses measures such as convictions and incarceration. If performance measures and office culture emphasize convictions, why would a prosecutor refer a case to victim-offender mediation even though research shows it increases restitution and reduces costs?
As counties tighten their belts, measures for prosecutors’ performance should emphasize maximizing the use of every dollar to enhance public safety and outcomes for victims.
Not every student is the same. Each student has different learning styles, interests, strengths, and weaknesses. Yet, many traditional public schools ignore this fact and don’t understand why students dropout or leave that model for one that better fits their needs.
As students and parents become more dissatisfied with their neighborhood public school, homeschooling is seeing explosive growth. Education Next has a fantastic article about homeschooling that is well worth the read.
Ten years ago, the number of students homeschooled across the country stood at roughly 850,000 students. Today, that total is estimated to be between 1.5 million and 2 million students. This equals about 3% of all k-12 students. Texas has 160,000 homeschooled students (see page 6).
Actor Will Smith said that he and his wife home school their children because they like the flexibility.
“They can stay with us when we travel,” he said, “and also because the school system in this country – public and private – is designed for the industrial age. We’re in a technological age. We don’t want our kids to memorize. We want them to learn.”
Some parents of students with special needs or diagnosed learning disabilities are pulling their kids out of public school as they believe they can do a better job teaching them at home.
Surprisingly, religion is not the main reason parents choose to home school their kids. In fact, 70% of parents who home school their kids give nonreligious reasons for doing so.
What about academic outcomes for home school students? The College Board reports a dramatic rise in the number of home school students taking AP tests. A 2004 survey of universities found more than 75% of universities have admission policies for homeschoolers. Admissions officers tended to have positive feelings about home school applicants and universities were typically happy with the academic performance and graduation rates of home school students.
The National Home Education Research Institute also finds positive academic outcomes for homeschoolers. Its report finds that homeschooled students perform much better academically than public school students for less money and without certified teachers.
Parents and students interested in learning more about homeschooling should contact local home school groups in their community or their state home school association.
Even as Harris County faces budget pressures with assessed property tax values falling $7.1 billion in 2009, Sheriff Adrian Garcia is renewing the call for building a 2,193 bed jail that could result in a tax hike.
In 2007, voters rejected a $195 million bond measure for a 2,500 bed new jail that would have grown the criminal justice share of the budget by 9 percent, including $9.6 million annually to staff the new jail. The proposed jail could be voted on in November 2010.
Many options to control the jail population that are consistent with public safety have not been implemented. The Harris County jail is under federal investigation and its population has swelled to 10,500, with the County also paying to lock up more than 1,000 inmates in Louisiana.
In 2007, House Bill 2391 authorized police officers to issue tickets and notices to appear in court for certain minor misdemeanors instead of making an arrest and bringing the suspect to jail. Harris County has declined to implement this policy. The Travis County Sheriff’s office is issuing tickets and 90 percent of suspects show up for their hearing.
Also, most but not all of the County’s judges use a graduated sanctions model with sanctions such as a curfew and increased reporting to reduce revocations from probation to jail and prison. Without this proven approach, probationers may either be revoked for a minor initial violation, or many accumulated violations may lead to a revocation because a swift and certain message was not sent.
Additionally, Harris County is jailing 1,200 first-time offenders for possession of less than a gram of drugs, a state jail felony. Lawmakers excluded these offenders from state jails, with the intent that they be placed on probation, which is the approach most other counties take in all of these cases.
Other possible solutions include more rapid processing of cases (5,093 inmates are awaiting trial), victim-offender mediation for minor property offenses, work release, a day reporting center with a work program, and electronic monitoring.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications.
On November 30, KVCE 1160 AM in Dallas/Fort Worth -- the radio home of the Lone Star Lessons -- changed formats. We appreciate KVCE airing these segments for the last two years, and we hope to have a new radio home for these segments very soon.
According to Recovery.gov, the website is
supposed to “foster greater accountability and transparency in the use of funds
made available” through the $787 billion stimulus act. But a disturbing new report
from ABC
News shows quite the opposite.
A number of inaccuracies exist within the site that falsely
claim to have spent stimulus money creating or saving jobs in nonexistent
congressional districts. That’s right – the government is spending your tax dollars
to create jobs in places that don’t exist.
The site’s imaginary districts exist in a number of states. Here
are the ones in Texas that the Foundation found after a quick look:
Congressional
District
Jobs
Saved or Created
Money Spent
52nd
0
$8,937,289
58th
45
$3,659,694
86th
6
$943,326
00
11
$752,292
68th
1
$ 310,963
91st
30
$57,367
85th
5
$56,661
TOTAL
98
$14,717,592
Though these inaccuracies were reportedly linked to human
error, dispensing fictional data—particularly on a site dedicated to
transparency—is simply inexcusable. If the purpose of Recovery.gov is really to
“foster greater accountability,” then someone needs to be held accountable.
Who knew that the sentencing of federal defendants had anything to do with spending on national defense? There is no connection, but Congress is well known for Christmas tree-style legislation, and the National Defense Authorization Act signed in October by President Barack Obama calls on the United States Sentencing Commission to study mandatory minimum sentences, which eliminate judicial discretion by requiring a minimum term of incarceration. The Commission advises federal judges on sentences, though any changes to mandatory minimums would have to be approved by Congress.
Partly due to mandatory minimums, the federal prison population has risen from 24,000 in 1980 to 209,000 today, as the Bureau of Prisons staff has increased from 10,000 to 36,000 employees. While some mandatory minimums concern crimes involving weapons, some of the 170 mandatory minimum laws concern drugs and other nonviolent offenses. In 2008, 21,023 offenders were convicted of crimes subject to mandatory minimums
The conservative late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist said mandatory minimums are “perhaps a good example of the law of unintended consequences.” Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia testified before Congress in July that mandatory minimums sweep too broadly. She cited a mandatory minimum statute that would impose a 20-year sentence not only on the kingpin who had organized and operated an extensive drug trafficking ring, but also on the manual laborer hired to offload a shipment of that kingpin’s drugs.
Texas is not among the states with mandatory minimums, as probation is an option for every offense. As federal corrections costs continue to soar, this is an ideal time to re-examine mandatory minimums.
I recently attended a conference with a lot of fellow free marketers. One of the speakers was a former appointee in the administration of George W. Bush. During the subsequent Q&A, it became apparent that many in the crowd were not happy with the growth of government during Bush’s eight years in office.
I must confess to being one who wasn’t particularly happy with President Bush’s big government conservatism. Heck, I still sometimes grumble about his father’s presidency. But as I listened to the crowd the other day, it reminded me far too much of Barack Obama and his constant blaming of Bush for all the world’s evils.
Those of us who believe in liberty, personal responsibility, and free enterprise have a choice to make. We can either dwell in the past or look to the future. If we spend all out time grumbling about the Bush years, we’ll never have the energy and insight to advance the free market cause. Even daydreaming about the next Ronald Reagan won’t help. Yes, we must learn from past successes and failures, but we can’t let the past get in the way of the future. We can’t let it get in the way of liberty.
The stakes are too high. As our board member Jeff Sandefer said at the same event, “the opposite of ‘liberty’ is not ‘financial insecurity’ but “slavery.’” We must be “committed to finding a calling, to finding a specific wrong we will right, to seeking a cause that will roll back the power of government and set an example for others to follow.” There is no room in this future for grumbling about the past.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
According to government reports at Recovery.gov, the federal stimulus program has added more than 19,500 jobs to the Texas economy. But last week, Dallas Morning News reporter Dave Michaels found some fuzzy math was used when compiling those numbers and collecting the data.
As summer came to a close, so did the work for more than one-fourth of those employed through the stimulus program. About 5,100 of the 19,500 jobs that had been created ended just as abruptly. Now, one may count a job as a job, whether temporary or full-time, but look at the quality of some of those jobs.
A housing authority in a small Navarro County town claimed a grant of $26,174 employed 456 people – that’s $58.16 per employee or $7.27 an hour for just one eight hour day’s work. That’s not what I would call sustainable living.
The article is rife with other examples of misrepresentation, which begs the bigger question: who is wrong here? Those dishonestly inflating their job creation numbers, the federal government for not cautiously vetting the candidates applying for these grants, or both?
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
There are a lot of ways to measure how the economy is doing. But employment, or jobs, is probably the measure that means the most to us. On a macro level, we understand that it means something good when we read that two million new jobs were created and unemployment fell to 4.2%. On the micro level, it doesn’t require a Ph.D. to understand what it means when we look around and see our friends, neighbors, and even ourselves losing jobs.
So when we look at Texas today, it is easy to figure out why Texas is doing better than the rest of the national economy. It is because of jobs.
We created more jobs than the rest of the country combined in 2008, and kept creating a net increase in jobs much further into the recession than any other state.
To be sure, we’ve lost jobs this year and unemployment has increased, but we’ve still outpaced the national economy in keeping jobs and in creating new jobs to replace some of those that are lost.
Why is this? Why has Texas, alone among the 50 states, been a beacon of job creation?
We know it is not because of high taxes and government spending. The Associated Press reported last week that the administration’s report on jobs created by its economic recovery plan—how shall I put this—overstates the number of jobs actually created. And a new Harvard report finds that “fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are much more likely to be growth enhancing than those on the spending side.”
Maybe it is because we know that it is Texans, not the government, who create jobs. And because our level of taxes and regulations allow Texas entrepreneurs to go about their jobs of meeting consumer demand and in the process, create more jobs.
The Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom held a policy primer last week to more closely examine the causes behind Texas’ economic success. It featured Tom Pauken, chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission; Ken Legler, state representative from Pasadena; Kurt Summers, owner of Austin Generator Service; and Andy Ellard, general manager of Manda Machine Co. in Dallas.
We spent some time looking at the big picture, but honed in on the role of the entrepreneur of in keeping the Texas economy going. 51% of Texas jobs and 48% of payroll expenditures are provided by employers with less than 500 employers. And most new jobs come from these smaller businesses. The panel pointed out that the entrepreneurs/owners of these businesses have a hard enough time providing jobs while meeting the demands of the market. When the government steps in to make life even harder, the jobs can disappear pretty quickly.
Here are some comments made after the event by Rep. Legler.
Among other things, the bill would extend unemployment insurance benefits in all states an additional 14 weeks. For states with unemployment rates at or above 8.5 percent, an additional six weeks of benefits would be granted.
With the passage of this bill, this marks the fourth time since June 2008 that Congress has voted to extend benefits, meaning that certain jobless Americans could be eligible for up to 99 weeks worth of benefits. This breaks the previous record of 65 weeks set back during the 1970’s.
While we can all sympathize with people who have legitimately lost their jobs through no fault of their own, Congress’ passage of HR 3548 threatens to do more harm than good. There’s a real danger that extending unemployment benefits – seemingly indefinitely – will further incentivize unproductive behavior and prolong economic stagnation.
Remember, economists have proven that when you subsidize an activity, you tend to get more of it – as is the opposite with taxation.
Nobody can fault Congress or the administration for wanting to help the unemployed; however, there is a right way and a wrong way. And more government involvement, more government spending, and more government subsidies are just not the right way.
This spring, the Texas Public Policy Foundation testified in support of a higher education transparency bill by Representative Lois Kolkhorst, HB 2504.
HB 2504 passed both houses unanimously, and public universities in Texas are in the beginning stages of implementing the reforms that HB 2504 mandates, including posting the syllabus of each course, the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, and other information on the internet by next fall. The bill requires that this information be no more than three clicks away from the institution’s homepage.
David Koon at the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy notes that although “Texas is the first and only state to have such legislation… the law reflects a growing national concern with the lack of transparency in state universities.” He calls HB 2504 “a step in the direction of greater transparency.”
His article notes that most schools are having no problem complying with the law, but Valerie Paton, a vice provost of Texas Tech University, said the deadline poses a “significant challenge” to the university, citing cost concerns. Regardless, it seems most universities are complying.
The main controversy surrounding the bill, however, is the provision requiring universities to come up with a plan to post student course evaluations online. These evaluations have always been private, and as of right now they will remain that way. Still, it is clear the legislature may want to address the issue of making student evaluations public in the future.
Koon notes that “Texas is moving ahead of…the rest of the country by providing greater public access to the workings of higher education. Though the ivory tower remains shielded, Texas’ new syllabi law provides at least a small window on its inner happenings.
Other states should look to HB 2504 as an example of how to begin improving accountability standards at their public universities.
First, as documented in this report, the E-Verify system used to verify workers’ legal status has numerous flaws. Some 17.8 million records are inaccurate, resulting in incorrect feedback when employers submit a worker’s name and address. The bill will include language designed to improve this system. Currently, E-Verify is optional for most businesses, but is required for federal contractors and recipients of stimulus funds, as well as all businesses in Arizona, Mississippi, and South Carolina.
The other provision slated to be in the bill that is relevant to our recommendations would create an “employment-based visa system” that would “align visa numbers with actual labor market demands and economic needs.” The goal of allowing the market to work is laudable. Currently, the visa system frustrates many companies because of arbitrary caps on the total number of visas and visas from certain countries.
The cap on H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, such as engineers and computer scientists, is 65,000, which is still being reached despite the economic downturn. As late as 2001, the cap on H-1B visas was 195,000. In 2008, one U.S. technology company hired 1,000 programmers in India because they couldn’t obtain U.S. visas for any of them. The Heritage Foundation and Governor Rick Perry have endorsed raising the cap, but Congress could go even further and abolish the cap to truly let the market work.
Our report also recommended abolishing country caps on these visas. These caps leave even more highly-skilled workers, who have jobs lined up with U.S. employers, waiting for years to immigrate, if they are able to come at all.
The actual language of Congressman Gutierrez’s bill must be analyzed and other provisions likely to be in the bill are unrelated to our research, but it is encouraging that he is addressing these two issues that impact employers seeking to grow and create jobs.
Last month, the College Board released a study which found, not surprisingly, that the average cost of tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose 6.5 percent from last year. During this same time period, inflation decreased by 2.1 percent. So, why such a profound tuition increase? After all, our country is in a recession.
Many blame state governments for not appropriating universities enough money. Maybe this has had some small impact on tuition increases in states other than Texas, maybe, but those who use this as an excuse overestimate its impact and seem to have ulterior motives in mind. Hint: universities themselves use this excuse at every available opportunity.
Additionally, this excuse definitely doesn’t explain the tuition increases here in Texas. Our state government increased appropriations to higher education by 15 percent this legislative session. Tuition has still increased at our state’s public universities.
The College Board study is quick to point out that although tuition has increased, student loans more than make up for the increased tuition costs. Or as the Cato Institute’sNeal McCluskey puts it, “colleges were able to charge students more without greatly affecting access by pawning much of the new charges off on donors and taxpayers.”
The College Board study is just more evidence that student aid drives tuition increases because it means third parties are paying for the costs, much like the reason health insurance costs are so high. No one cares how much a product costs when they aren’t footing the bill.
Rather than instituting more of the same, policymakers should make real higher education reforms that address the core of the problem – too much government interference and zero university accountability.
In the wake of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, a new kind of “refugee” has emerged: the American taxpayer.
No longer able to afford the liberal tax-and-spend policies of the past, Americans increasingly find themselves fleeing their high-tax home states in search of greener pastures. One state hit unusually hard by this phenomenon—New York.
Between 2000 and 2008, over 1.5 million people, or 8 percent of the population at the start of the decade, left New York for other states in the U.S., according to a new report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. At its absolute worst, the state lost nearly 250,000 people in 2005.
This mass out-migration is more than just a drain on New York’s population though, it’s also having a frightening effect on the state’s tax base.
According to the report, “in 2006-07 alone, the migration flow out of New York drained $4.3 billion in taxpayer income from the state.” In other words, states aren’t just losing people—they’re also losing money too.
New York’s example should serve as a stark reminder that taxes matter. Today’s population is more mobile than ever, and if high-tax states don’t rethink their approach soon, they could very well end up broke and population-less.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
A couple weeks ago, Houston Mayor and U.S. senatorial candidate Bill White spoke at a University of Houston Faculty Senate meeting alongside former UH Chancellor Bill Hobby. The main topic of discussion at this meeting revolved around university research and Proposition 4.
But the most troubling comments made at the meeting were not about Proposition 4, but rather the so-called failure of the free market in higher education.
During his presentation, White told attendees that “we should not create a market system in higher education.” He seemed to be suggesting that the problems at public universities can’t be solved by more competition and less government regulation, as the Texas Public Policy Foundation and others propose.
The truth is, most problems in the higher education market are because of too much government interference, and unleashing the free market would be the best way to improve those problems.
Below are just a few examples of how government involvement in the higher education market harms students:
Higher education isn’t any different than the market for automobiles, toothpaste, or diapers. Students are the consumer, and universities are the producer. The free market can create the same options for university students as every individual has when purchasing an automobile, if only the government would just get out of the way.
In the education policy community, many folks are following the charter school movement and wondering if state lawmakers are going to get rid of their caps on charter schools or allow the existence of charter schools in their state. Much of the momentum comes from the Obama Administration’s strong stance in favor of lifting caps on charter schools and their decision to reward states with strong charter laws with Race to the Top stimulus funds.
Last February, I researched state policies on charter schools and found that 25 states and the District of Columbia had some type of cap or limit on charter schools. Since then, Louisiana has removed its cap, Illinois and Tennessee have raised their caps, and Delaware has gotten rid of its moratorium on new charter schools. The demand for charter schools is strong. Nationwide, 365,000 students are on a waiting list to attend a charter school.
Texas has a cap on charter schools and has a charter school waiting list of nearly 17,000 students. Efforts to raise the cap died from a point of order on the House floor during the last hours of session. This is extremely unfortunate since Texas hit the 215 cap earlier this year and no new charters can open until the cap is raised or an existing school returns its charter.
What do students think about charter schools? The Illinois Policy Institute recently released an interesting documentary on charter schools in its state titled Charter Schools: Changing Lives. This is a must see for those that are on the fence or are trying to learn more about charters.
Last week, I was among a group of business professionals that got to hear remarks by retired Navy Admiral Bobby Inman, Interim Dean for the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He gave a very general and interesting overview of the current state of the globe, region by region. The most surprising comment I took away from the lecture was that the slim South American country of Chile is the place to do business on the continent. But why?
• Transparent and stable public finance management
• Protection of property rights
• Openness to global free trade and investment
Sensible immigration laws may also be a factor in economic prowess. Take the information technology industry for example. If an IT company was to submit a business plan and invest $500,000 over five years, the Chilean government will provide a slew of incentives, starting with a permanent visa. Contrast that with the United States’ complex, bureaucratic, and backlogged immigration system, recently analyzed by TPPF’s own Marc Levin, and Chile resembles a petri dish for innovative entrepreneurs.
But why do U.S. entrepreneurs have to go overseas in search of employees? Because business owners, especially those in the technology fields, can’t find enough homegrown workers with the necessary skill sets to perform their essential tasks.
I think we are going to see big things from Chile in the coming decade. Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and standard of living are all on the rise, with free market policies and sensible immigration laws serving as the catalysts that have made Chile the most developed country in Latin America.
The recent awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences shows that at least one of the Nobel prizes is based on common sense.
The prize was awarded to Elinor Ostrom at Indiana University and Oliver E. Williamson at the University of California, Berkeley for their work on the “tragedy of the commons.” As John Tierney points out that since 1968, environmental activists have misused Garrett Hardin’s flawed 1968 article in Science magazine to push for regulation of just about everything from fisheries to population growth. The theory being that problems like air pollution or depletion of the ocean fisheries represent market failures that require government intervention. But these two economists show that this is not the case.
As the Nobel prize announcement said, “Rules that are imposed from the outside or unilaterally dictated by powerful insiders have less legitimacy and are more likely to be violated. Likewise, monitoring and enforcement work better when conducted by insiders than by outsiders. These principles are in stark contrast to the common view that monitoring and sanctions are the responsibility of the state and should be conducted by public employees.”
It seems as if people are pretty good at solving their own problems if left alone by the government!
Of course, not everyone agrees. Robert Shiller, a Yale University economist who believes that “animal spirits” trump Reaganism and Thatcherism, said, “This award is part of the merging of the social sciences. Economics has been too isolated and too stuck on the view that markets are efficient and self-regulating. It has derailed our thinking.”
While his attempt to spin the prize award back toward the need for government regulation fails, at least he is right in his comment about the isolation of economics. Elinor Ostrom is a political scientist, not an economist, and another encouraging thing about this award is that “in honoring her, the judges seemed to suggest that economics should be thought of as an interdisciplinary field rather than a pure science governed by mathematics.” In other words, Human Action, rather than mathematical modeling, should be the focus of economic study. We are all individuals motivated by varying incentives, a fact which modern economics almost completely overlooks, and which ruins the application of most econometric models when it comes to public policy.
At a time when it seems that almost everyone is moving toward collectivism, this award should give hope to those of us who still believe in individual freedom.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
If you had to guess, what would you say Americans are most concerned about today? Exploding deficits? Rising unemployment? Affordable health care? According to the results of a new Rasmussen poll, it’s none of the above.
In a recent telephone survey of 1,000 likely voters, government ethics and corruption was singled out as the issue with 83 percent of respondents regarding it as “very important,” followed by the economy (82 percent) and health care (73 percent).
The new findings are intriguing on a few different levels. First, this marks the first time since January 2008 – right around the start of the recession – that government ethics and corruption has trumped the economy as the number one issue affecting likely voters. Second, the poll’s results reveal a growing sense of mistrust in government and the way it handles public money.
One need only read the daily news to understand why the public feels this way (see here, here, and here); stories of fraud, waste, and abuse in government litter the headlines. Interestingly though, these feelings of frustration are giving way to action.
Concern over the misuse of public money has led to a surge in the number of federal and state-based transparency websites. One of the newest ones to enter the fray is the Cato Institute’s DownsizingGovernment.org, whose mission is to help the public “understand where federal funds are being spent and how to reform each (federal) government department.”
These tools alone, however, are not enough to change the public’s perception. It will take time and principled leadership.
“Smart Growth” is a fad that has caught on in many cities, counties, and states by promising better urban growth and planning. So far, it has delivered only the artificially inflated prices of the housing bubble, the collapse of which sparked the current recession. Unfortunately, despite the proven calamity, there is a continuing push to bring these destructive policies to Texas.
Smart Growth is the label that has been given to a wide array of restrictive government policies that define what land can be used and what it can be used for, levy fines and fees on homeowners and developers, and generally distort the real estate market. California, Florida, and the city of Portland are the leading examples of governments that have adopted Smart Growth policies. It is no coincidence that these are among the nation’s most decimated housing markets. By restricting the use of available developable land, these regulators decreased supply, even as demand was being fueled by more liberal lending policies. Consequently, prices started to climb rapidly, sparking speculation that drove prices even higher, feeding a vicious cycle that distorted home prices far more than in areas without such restrictions.
In a report recently prepared for Houstonians for Responsible Growth, Demographia broke down the factors contributing to real estate costs, and found that construction costs, demand, population growth, available land, lending practices (Texas had among the greatest number of sub-prime mortgages in the nation), and other factors were not able to explain why California’s and Florida’s bubble was so much bigger than Texas’. Instead it was restrictive land use policies disconnecting the housing market from the true indicators of cost that fueled such an incredibly large bubble.
Home ownership has become a symbol of the American Dream, but it remains out of reach for too many people. Many potential first-time home buyers are being driven out of the market by restrictive government policies. Texans must recognize the consequences of these policies and work to ensure that our cities are able to grow and develop appropriately to meet the demand of our growing population and business community.
And should it be a surprise that much of that population and business growth comes from people and businesses leaving California and Florida?
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
This is a glimpse of the future under the energy efficiency regime being pushed in Texas and across the U.S. The picture shows a new home in the SOL neighborhood, three miles east of downtown Austin. It is being built on the premise that energy efficiency is the cheapest option for “new” energy.
A new study along these lines claims that energy efficiency would eliminate the need for seven new power plants and save Texas consumers $5 billion. But the reports always underestimate the costs of the energy efficiency measures and overestimate their savings. For instance, the study states that energy efficiency houses cost about 15% more to construct, though numbers in the study show the costs to be more like 20%. But whatever the figure, the mantra is that these higher costs will eventually be recouped through annual energy savings.
However, the numbers don’t actually work out so well. The report estimates that the savings of a net-zero home will run about $500 per year. However, if a normal house costs about $150,000 to construct, then the additional costs of making a home energy efficient will be about $22,500. That’s a payout of about 61 years, considering interest costs and inflation.
So one of the problems of the current energy efficiency push is that most people won’t live long enough to see the benefits of their investment in it! That is why those promoting energy efficiency want to mandate it, i.e., make us pay for it. They say while individuals may not be able to benefit from energy efficiency, society does, which represents a market failure. So we’ll all be better off if we pay for something that we’ll never benefit from personally.
One problem with this is that it ignores opportunity costs, i.e., the benefits that could have been achieved had energy efficiency money been invested elsewhere – say college, or a business, or savings for the future. This would make the likely payout much longer than 61 years. In fact, it would probably make the return go negative, which just highlights the fact that most energy efficiency arguments ignore basic math. Something is only efficient if it costs less. The energy efficiency solutions being mandated today are not. It also ignores basic human nature. If something is cheaper and better we’ll buy it or use it. If it is not, we won’t.
When energy efficiency is cheaper than building new power plants, then the market will be the place those measures are adopted. But until then, we’ll keep using coal, nuclear and natural gas to keep our lights on and our homes cool.
The Heritage Foundation and its related website Overcriminalized.com have published a profile of a Texas man sent to federal prison for 17 months, including 71 days in solitary confinement, for importing plants from Peru. Now 71 years old, George Norris of Spring, a Houston suburb, was convicted in 2004 of violating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), as implemented by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and the Lacey Act. His prison sentence was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 2006. He is now a free man again after also serving two years of probation. His case proves the point that criminal law has gone too far.
Norris was a retiree whose hobby was collecting orchids. The hobby eventually became a part-time business operated out of the greenhouse behind his home. In October 2003, his life was turned upside down when six armed federal agents raided his home and left with 37 boxes full of documents. Norris was eventually charged, along with his supplier Peruvian orchid grower Manuel Arias-Silver, with what amounts to a paperwork violation.
The raid stemmed from Norris purchases of a newly discovered rare species of orchid called phragmipedium Kovachii from Arias-Silver, who artificially replicated the specimens. The CITES actually permits the export and import of artificially replicated plant species, but requires that they be accompanied by permits issued by the exporting country. Norris advertised the availability of the species in his newsletter. A taxonomist who received who was disgruntled because he was not the first to name the species asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to investigate Norris.
A buyer (who was an informant for Fish and Wildlife Service agents) ordered four phragmipedium Kovachii from Norris and asked that the permits be sent with the specimens. That surprised Norris because normally the permits were taken by U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors at the port of entry for their reference. On this basis, Norris’ house was raided. Upon examining Norris’ confiscated files, investigators found some of the plants he had offered for sale were not listed on any permits. Among those missing permits were three of the phragmipedium Kovachii orchids.
Both the ESA and Lacey Act provide for criminal penalties, including prison terms. Norris was indicted for one count of conspiracy to violate the ESA, five counts of violating CITES requirements and the ESA, and one count of making a false statement to a government official for mislabeling orchids. His sentence of 17 months in prison followed by two years of probation concluded in June 2009.
Norris’ ordeal, which was also highlighted by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute in 2004, illustrates that the more than 4,000 federal criminal laws have ensnared entrepreneurs who at most should be subject to civil penalties for conduct, that unlike traditional crimes, does not endanger the public.
It is not often that governments voluntarily reduce fees or taxes. So when one does, it is worth taking a closer look.
Last month, the Plano City Council eliminated impact fees on developers building new homes and businesses. The fees were charged based on the size of the water meter for the project, and typically ran from $1,000 to $2,000 for a typical home, but could go as high as $95,000 for the largest meters. The money was then used to build additional infrastructure for the city. But as new construction has slowed in Plano, the city is looking for ways to make it less expensive for people to live in.
Taken by themselves, impact fees could be seen as a user fee, which is one of the better ways for governments to raise money. Use a service, pay a fee. That is what makes toll roads so appealing from a market perspective. But user fees are only good if used instead of general taxation, replacing the tax revenue rather than supplementing it.
I don’t know which route Plano took, but the good news now is at least its city council members acknowledge the fact that fees and taxes make living their more expensive – not for the developers, but for the people who live there and ultimately have to bear these costs.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Several weeks ago, I wrote about the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. There still hasn’t been much discussion about the bill, so I thought I’d give some more details about the damage it could cause if passed by Congress.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80%. Once this occurs, private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans, and the remaining 20% of the market that would remain private will most likely shrink as lenders try to comply with new government regulations.
Beginning in July of next year, taxpayers will pay $100 billion a year to lend to students.
Several college administrators have sent a letter requesting they be given a longer transition period to this “public option.” They don’t think the government will be able to make the transition in just eight months time.
Supporters of the bill claim it will save $87 billion by cutting out private middlemen. However, the director of the Congressional Budget Office thinks these savings estimates are inaccurate.
According to the Wall Street Journal article, “the statutory methodology ‘does not include the cost to the government stemming from the risk that the cash flows may be less than the amount projected (that is, that defaults could be higher than projected).’” Also, “the government's accounting system is specifically skewed to make direct loans from the government appear to cost much less than guaranteed loans made by private lenders… the real ‘savings’ are only $47 billion, even though, in a deception that would be criminal fraud if it weren't mandated by Congress, the official estimate remains at $80 billion.”
The bill is expected to pass the U.S. House. The only chance that it will be stopped lies with the U.S. Senate.
If it passes, parents will be forced to use a Washington bureaucracy to borrow money for their college-bound children, and taxpayers will pay a fortune to send those children to college.
Last week, the Senate Finance Committee voted down an amendment to the health care bill that had been proposed by Sen. John Cornyn (TX) and Jim Bunning (KY). The amendment should not have been controversial – it simply required that the Senate Finance Committee post on its website the final text of the health care reform bill and a final Congressional Budget Office score for 72 hours prior to a committee vote on final passage. Amazingly, the amendment failed 12-11, with only one Democrat crossing over to vote yes.
Instead, the committee decided it would post the “conceptual” language online along with cost estimates. Apparently the senators on the committee who voted against the amendment didn’t think posting the actual language would be worthwhile on the grounds that the average American wouldn’t be able to understand it anyway.
According to Sen. Bunning, "This is not a normal bill for us or for the American people. The devil is in the details. The way legislative language is written could have a large impact."
Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME), a swing vote in the health care debate, agreed with Bunning. "We should not be afraid of having a better and complete understanding of what we are all doing," she said. "The fact is, words matter, and so do the numbers."
The failure of this amendment is particularly disturbing considering the public had been demanding greater transparency throughout the summer, holding signs at rallies across the country urging legislators to “read the bill.”
The informed participation of citizens is vital to the success of any popular government, because without access to factual information there is no way of effectively participating in the political process. The importance of transparency in this particular bill can’t be overstated. Not only does it come with a steep price tag, it also threatens to usurp the rights of individuals to make their own health care decisions.
Without transparency, taxpayers are unable to hold their government accountable. Hopefully that’s not what is motivating our congressional leaders.
Last Saturday, Austin news outlets reported the tragic story of an unidentified jogger who had been struck and killed Friday evening outside a downtown parking garage. After her identity became known and tributes filled the Internet, many of those outlets came back for follow-up stories, seeking to fill in the picture of who this young woman was and why so many people reacted so emotionally to her death.
Hopefully I can help explain what made that young woman so remarkable. Her name was Brianna Nichole Becker. She was my intern and my friend.
By the spring of 2008, the Foundation’s internship program had grown to the point where I was given a communications intern. I had met Brianna through Young Conservatives of Texas – a group she had joined at the University of Texas and of which I was a former state chairman – and recruited her to come over and work with me. Her work product was so strong and her work ethic so reliable that I would have kept her that summer had she not had that great offer lined up with the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute in Washington, DC. She made such an impression on them that they did a spotlight feature on her.
Thankfully, I didn’t have to prod Brianna to return for a second semester that fall. We even had internal discussions about creating a part-time communications position for her long-term, but as much as she enjoyed the communications work, her passion was for the law and we supported her decision to pursue that.
Brianna provided critical support during the early stages of developing our social media program. Her writing skill and philosophical grounding were such that I trusted her with writing many of the scripts for our “Lone Star Lessons,” a daily radio commentary that airs on KVCE-AM in Dallas/Fort Worth. She was someone our other interns looked to for leadership, and brought a positive energy that rubbed off on the entire office.
Even after leaving TPPF, Brianna continued to support our activities as a regular attendee of our Policy Primers and other functions. She spoke alongside our Elizabeth Young at last month’s kickoff of the Coalition for American Traditions and Ethics – the Associated Press’ Austin bureau chief commented to me this morning how impressive she found Brianna’s presentation.
She was a cheerful presence in all situations, a friend to all who knew her, and a passionate and articulate supporter of liberty. Those of us who knew her and worked with her are devastated that she has been taken from us way too soon.
Last Thursday, we hosted an event at the AT&T conference center with award-winning journalist John Stossel. While we routinely make arrangements for traditional media to cover our functions, this was our first time to have a blog row for social media activists. Brianna was the first to accept my invitation.
After the event, she had a nice visit with our president and other staff, and I was able to introduce her to Mr. Stossel as the best intern I ever had. One of the few points of solace I can take right now is that I got to tell her that before she left us.
Many have paid tribute to Brianna online – from Gov. Rick Perry and Comptroller Susan Combs, to her YCT and College Republican contemporaries, even people who had only met her at the Stossel event. I particularly recommend Robbie Cooper’s post on UrbanGrounds.
But our mutual friend, Michele Samuelson, highlighted Brianna's very last message on Twitter, sent shortly before setting out on that fateful jog: "I never wanted something as much as I want tomorrow to be the real deal, the one and only time I need to take that test." (Brianna and Elizabeth were scheduled to take the LSAT together on Saturday morning.)
To which Michele responded, “In an odd way, her wish was granted. We know where she is – dancing in heaven, with her Savior. That really is the real deal.”
God bless you, Brianna. We’ll always value your friendship and we’ll see you when we get there.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
On Tuesday in the Capitol Auditorium, Texas state leaders gathered for a federal climate change legislation summit on the economic impacts for Texas from the federal climate bill known as Waxman/Markey. This massive legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives in late June. With the bill’s fate now in the hands of the U.S. Senate, these sweeping federal mandates to control energy move perilously close to becoming U.S. law. Wisely, Gov. Rick Perry and state agency heads convened to sound a clear alarm: with more at stake than any other, the Texas economy would likely be devastated by the sweeping, forced transformation of energy federally mandated by this bill.
This extraordinarily large of group of state leaders did not mince words. Governor Perry began the summit with the assessment that the Waxman/Markey federal climate bill would be “an economic disaster for Texas” – a sentiment shared by the 12 commissioners of major state agencies participating.
Hosted by Public Utility Commission (PUC) Chairman Barry Smitherman, all members of the PUC, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and the Railroad Commission presided. Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples, Deputy Comptroller Martin Hubert, and Texas Workforce Commission Chairman Tom Pauken spoke. Twenty-four speakers representing academia, think tanks (including myself), manufacturing, refining, agriculture, oil and gas, electric utilities, renewable energy, environmental and consumer interests populated the five panels in this day long summit. A large majority of the speakers either adamantly opposed the bill or underlined the unavoidably negative impacts on energy prices, food, consumer goods, and employment.
Chairman Pauken noted the urgent need of federal policies “designed to encourage capital investment and create jobs in the private sector… Government cannot create jobs; only the private sector can. Waxman/Markey will kill more jobs than it creates.”
The state leaders who participated in this cap-and-trade summit should be saluted for their courage and candor. Texas leadership provided an informed and unified stand against Waxman/Markey as a Texas job killer with no measurable environmental benefits. Bravo!
During Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour’s remarks at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s 20th anniversary gala, he highlighted how Mississippi has relied on many of the same policies as Texas – principally, low taxes, limited spending, and tort reform – to enhance its competitiveness. Interestingly, under the Barbour administration, Mississippi has also progressed on criminal justice reform.
Barbour signed the Mississippi Juvenile Justice Reform Act, which parallels many of the policies Texas has implemented in the last few years. The Act emphasizes less expensive community-based alternatives to incarceration and vocational programs that redirect youths from crime into the workforce. Just as legislation passed in 2007 in Texas disallowed misdemeanors from being incarcerated at the Texas Youth Commission, the Mississippi law prohibited the incarceration of status offenders. This refers to conduct, such as possession of alcohol, that is a crime only because it is committed by a minor.
Over the last two years, changes in administrative polices have reduced the number of Mississippi prisoners in solitary confinement from more than 1,000 to 130. This lowers costs because less space is required when there are two prisoners to a cell and there is a reduced need for prison guard time. When an inmate is in solitary confinement, a prison guard must transport each inmate individually from their cell to meals and the restroom.
More importantly, a study of Washington state inmates found that those released to the public from solitary confinement, controlling for all other factors, had a significantly higher recidivism rate. In Texas, as in many other states, inmates in solitary confinement are not eligible for educational or vocational programs, but simply sit in their cell for 23 hours a day.
Texas has approximately 10,000 inmates in solitary confinement and more than 1,000 are released directly from solitary confinement. A key component of the new policy on solitary confinement in Mississippi is precise criteria for what behavior justifies entry into solitary confinement and exit form it. In Texas, many inmates are placed in solitary confinement simply for alleged gang membership, even though they have not misbehaved in prison.
If Texas adopted the Mississippi approach and achieved even a more modest reduction in solitary confinement, it could save millions of dollars by closing a prison unit or a wing of a unit.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
A new report by Dr. Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute finds that homeschooled students perform much better academically than public school students for less money and without certified teachers. This should broaden the appeal of homeschooling to more families.
The homeschooling movement is growing. Ten years ago, roughly 850,000 students were homeschooled. Today that number has grown to as much as 1.5 million to 2 million students.
How is it possible to learn without a certified teacher? Dr. Ray’s research of more than 11,000 families in all 50 states (and even Guam and Puerto Rico) finds that there is no correlation between a certified parent and higher test scores. In fact, he finds slightly higher test scores for students if neither parent had ever had a teaching certificate than if one or both parents were certified.
How much better are homeschoolers academically? Homeschooled students performed 34 to 39 percentile points higher than public school students in all core subject areas.
What does it cost to homeschool? Homeschool families typically spend between $400 and $599 per child whereas the average per student cost in public schools nationwide is $9,963.
What does a typical family that homeschools look like? Usually, the parents are married with an average of 3.5 children, and have a median family income between $75k and $80k. This figure is similar to the nationwide median of $79k for married couples with kids. About 20% of mothers work outside the home in mostly part-time positions. Most families are Protestant (82.4%) or Roman Catholic (12.4%). In addition, the parents are well educated. Ray found 62% of the mothers and 66% of the fathers have a bachelor’s degree or more advanced degree.
Obviously, homeschooling is working for these kids. By reducing property taxes, local officials will inevitably make it easier for more students to have this opportunity.
A new poll confirms a marketing problem between the charter school movement and the average Joe. Most Americans are quite confused and some are just wrong regarding characteristics of charter schools.
Charter schools are PUBLIC SCHOOLS. They cannot teach religion, charge tuition, or be selective in their admissions policy. For more information on what a charter school looks like, please refer to our Charter School Q&A and share it with others. Charter schools have quite a mountain to climb to make sure parents truly understand the structure, laws, and benefits of charter schools.
Lately, politicians have been promising more health insurance coverage for everyone. That sounds terrific, and I wish it were possible, but let’s stop and think about this promise for a second.
In an ABC News special, John Stossel does just that. He points out that “health insurance means someone else pays your bills, and when that happens...patients don’t care what things cost. And if someone else is paying for it, who cares how much it costs?”
And that’s the problem. Stossel explains this economic concept using hypothetical “grocery insurance” as an example.
What would happen if a third-party paid for your groceries? John Mackey of Whole Foods explains, “[Consumers would] buy a lot more. Instead of buying a bottle of wine for $7.99 they’d buy a bottle of wine for 300 dollars.”
Does this economic theoretical transfer into real life? It does, and one can look to medical services not covered by insurance as proof.
Insurance doesn’t pay for Lasik, and guess what – Lasik keeps getting cheaper! The price of Lasik has gone down thirty percent because without insurance, people shop around to get the best deal. One doctor says of the procedure, “I can’t get away with not telling the patients how much exactly it’s going to cost. No one would put up with it.”
Insurance was designed to cover major health emergencies, but now it covers many things. Things like in-vitro fertilization in some states and breast reconstruction in others. Some states even require insurance companies to cover marriage therapists and smoking cessation programs. That’s right: single, non-smoker males are required to pay for these things in some states.
Expanding health insurance won’t solve our nation’s health care system shortcomings as some policymakers suggest. It will only exacerbate the problems we have now.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Indiana recently became the 10th state to pass an education tax credit program, with a total of 14 education tax credit programs operating across the country.
Education tax credits allow individuals and corporations to receive a tax break when they spend money on educational expenses, like tuition, books, or lab materials. Depending on the state, individuals may receive a tax credit for money they spend on their own children or for donating to organizations that give scholarships to low- or middle-income students. Companies can often make similar donations.
The program details:
• Individuals and corporations can donate to scholarship granting organizations (SGO’s).
• The program will allow up to $2.5 million annually in tax credits.
• Tax credits can be claimed in an amount up to 50% of the tax liability.
Several individuals and organizations, like the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, supported a tax credit program in Indiana. The Orthodox Union, Agudath Israel, and the Indiana Catholic Conference, among others, also lauded the opportunity the program gives their members to send their children to private schools. Governor Mitch Daniels spearheaded the movement, including it in the budget proposal when he called the special session.
This program is small (especially compared to the $118 million cap for the Florida corporate tax credit program) and will hopefully be expanded quickly. Additionally, a dollar-for-dollar tax credit would encourage more donations for well-deserving students.
Nevertheless, Indiana has taken a solid step toward promoting greater competition in its K-12 school system. The same cannot be said for Texas. Texas lawmakers should study education tax credits during the interim and implement a broad-based program during the next legislative session.
A recent article in the New Yorker investigates the practice of paying teachers to do nothing all day and sit in a “rubber room.” New York City has 7 rubber rooms occupied by about 600 teachers accused of misconduct or incompetence. The average length of stay in a NYC rubber room is three years, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries and pension benefits per teacher to keep them away from students.
What is this all about? Union requirements and job security for teachers.
After just three years of teaching, public schoolteachers are granted tenure and essentially guaranteed a job for the rest of their career. Burdensome documentation requirements, red tape, local politics, and multiple levels of appeal make it next to impossible for principals and superintendents to dismiss a teacher for poor performance, incompetence, or misconduct. A group in Colorado charted out all the steps to fire a bad teacher. This is mind numbing considering that research conclusively finds that having an excellent teacher for three years can be path to erasing the achievement gap for poor and minority students.
In Texas, many school districts dismiss less than 1% of teachers per year, compared to a 16% dismissal rate in the private sector. Over a five-year time period, Arlington ISD only dismissed two teachers out of the more than 4,000 teachers employed in the district. A large school district in Houston, Cy-Fair ISD, dismissed one teacher out of more than 5,200 employed at the district over five years – a dismissal rate of 0.01% per year. Public school districts across the state show a similar pattern. Clearly it is not easy or politically palatable to fire bad teachers.
But, the tide may be turning. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is pushing back on rigid teacher tenure rules. He recently told the largest teacher union, the National Education Association, that when the tenure system keeps an ineffective teacher in the classroom, “the system is protecting jobs rather than children.”
Good luck, Mr. Duncan. You will have quite a fight on your hands.
It looks like Xtreme Power, the Kyle-based manufacturer of state-of-the-art batteries for storing renewable energy, is close to expanding its manufacturing capacity by locating a new plant in Michigan. It is moving its manufacturing facilities north to take advantage of Michigan’s offer of mega-subsidies, even though Texas has an ownership stake in the company through the Governor’s Emerging Technology Fund. This is an excellent case study on several fronts.
First, real economic development. Texas gave the company $2 million of seed money to get started here a few years back. I don’t agree with that, but it is small change compared to the $1 billion or so that is being used to lure them to Michigan. Lesson: Keep your taxes and regulations low and companies will move and stay here with little or no taxpayer dollars needed. Keep taxes and regulations high and you’ll need to drain taxpayers’ wallets to lure companies to your state to replace the jobs lost from the companies that have moved to other states—like Texas!
Second, renewable energy. This just shows how uncompetitive wind energy really is compared to coal, nuclear, and natural gas. This company is going to get a billion dollars in government subsidies to build batteries to store electricity from wind turbines. Maybe, just maybe, that billion dollars—along with the per-kWh and REC subsidies—will allow wind-generated electricity to be competitive with electricity generated from traditional sources. That all depends on if the batteries work and can actually store enough electricity to make the wind system reliable.
Third, government ownership of private companies. I suppose we can’t complain about Texas having a 4% stake in the billion dollars worth of subsidies from Michigan and the feds. But do we really want Texas to own Xtreme Power, any more than we want the feds to own GM? Seems like we are doing well enough with getting and keeping businesses here without becoming shareholders. And how about we cut taxes for everyone by $2 million rather than giving that cash to one business—that then picks up and moves to Michigan!
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Dr. Richard Vedder, a TPPF Senior Fellow, recently appeared on Reason.TV to answer the question, “Why does college cost so much?” His answer: too much government interference in the higher education marketplace.
“It takes a larger percentage of a family’s income to go to college today than it did 30, 40, 50 years ago,” Vedder explained. This has occurred despite government policies aimed at making college more affordable.
Government policies, despite their good intentions, have resulted in the opposite of their desired effect because they have increased demand for higher education. In a free marketplace, supply would go up to counteract this, but in higher education, it is almost impossible for new suppliers to enter the marketplace because of excessive regulations and an overly burdensome accreditation process. Not to mention that government subsidizes public universities but not new for-profit colleges; it’s hard to survive when your competition receives government funds.
Sound familiar? This is similar to the approach the government is taking to “fix” health care. Once again, those in power have failed to learn from economic history. If they had looked, they would find that these anti-market policies have failed across the board, especially in higher education.
In fact, tuition costs have increased twice the rate of inflation for the past 30 to 40 years. That’s faster than the rate of inflation for medical costs! Now, President Obama wants to make Pell Grants an entitlement of sorts, as he thinks this will make college more affordable.
We have seen the consequences of expanding government’s role in higher education. It has only made things worse. In an effort to fix the problem, what is government doing? Expanding the government’s role in the higher education market even more! That’s government for you.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
How many U.S. Congressmen and American voters have read all of the 1,480-page global warming bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives June 26 by seven votes? An extremely small group, I suppose. Usually labeled the “cap and trade” bill, the official name is the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). The provisions on carbon caps cover only 400 pages of the text.
This massive bill was rushed through the House floor in less than six hours. Many members had not seen a 300-page amendment supposedly “available” at 3:00 a.m. on the day of passage. And many congressmen chuckled when asked if they read the bill or have a clear idea of the basic contents. Those laughing included the bill’s architect and author, Congressman Henry Waxman.
American voters should declare this attitude totally unacceptable lest this year’s pattern – overnight passage of trillion-dollar, thousand-page bills – becomes the norm.
Now in the U.S. Senate, ACES not only mandates aggressive carbon caps which will drive up the cost of fuel, electricity and basic goods, but also thousands of other dictates creating an unprecedented expansion of the federal government’s control of energy production and use. A senior lawyer for the Sierra Club referred to ACES as the most complex legislation in U.S. history. And elected representatives find actually reading such a monumental bill a joke?
Public discussion of health care reform has overshadowed needed attention to the global warming bill. The juggernaut that is ACES, however, begs for the light of day. If reading through the 1,480 pages of ACES is beyond the pale for most, consider a meaningful alternative. Look through the 10-page table of contents of ACES, available on the Government Printing Office website. It is perfect summer reading material: a template for EPA assisted living with rules to direct every moment of individual life. Forget the espionage thrillers. A cursory scan of the more than 500 section titles of ACES is an eye-opener and a jaw-dropper all in one.
Wednesday was Cost of Government Day—the day when the average American is finally finished working to pay all the costs of taxes and government regulation.
According to Americans for Tax Reform, this year is the latest that the COGD has ever occurred, falling 26 days later than last year, and 23 days later than the previous all-time high of July 20, 1982. Two big reasons for the late date are the stimulus packages (both Bush’s and Obama’s) and bailouts for the Big Three automakers.
It is interesting to note that Tax Freedom Day this year was April 13, eight days earlier than last year. Why was it earlier? Well, one reason was that the recession has cut government income more than it has our income. But another reason was that the stimulus packages contained tax cuts! So what the government gave us earlier this year through the tax cuts they more than took away through the larger spending in the stimulus package.
Finally, while we worked 103 days on average this year to pay our taxes, Americans actually worked more—104 days—to pay the costs that government regulation imposes on the economy. This may be the first time that this has happened.
It may not be the last if pending legislation to regulate health care and carbon emissions passes Congress this year. But there is still hope that these bills will get bogged down amidst the ongoing citizen protests.
As I alluded to last Friday, KIPP is radically different than the traditional one-size-fits all school. KIPP schools have a common set of values know as the Five Pillars: High Expectations, Choice & Commitment, More Time, Power to Lead, and Focus on Results. Here are some examples of differences between traditional public schools and KIPP. (Disclaimer: These are my initial observations and not an exhaustive list.)
• High Expectations for EVERY student
o Strong college-going culture
o College pennants decorate the walls and classrooms
o College Field Trips
o Solid, Rigorous curriculum including Algebra in 7th grade
o Consistent Discipline standards
o Positive Rewards such as Out-of-Town Field Trips
• More Time for Instruction
o Longer School Day (9 hours)
o Summer School
o Saturday School (every other week)
• Enthusiastic and Hard Working Teachers
o Work longer hours than traditional teachers
o Willing to do whatever it takes to help students succeed
o Able to be creative and experiment in the classroom
o Make home visits to every student’s home
o Available at night to answer students’ phone calls regarding homework
• Principals are Truly School Leaders
o Have the power to hire and fire teachers
o Set salaries of teachers
o Have control over their schools’ budgets
As KIPP charter schools continue to succeed and expand – they hope to have 100 schools by 2011 and serve approximately 40,000 students – I hope traditional public schools will take some plays out of the KIPP playbook and implement some of these strategies in their classrooms. One important lesson KIPP has taught all of us is that thinking “outside the box,” trying new things, and innovating can lead to amazing results.
Thankfully, the public has been focused on the terrible health care proposals coming out of Washington for the past several weeks. Unfortunately, that preoccupation is allowing some other bad bills to slip through the process largely unnoticed.
One example: the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. This blog post from the Cato Institute summarizes the bill and its problems quite nicely.
Referring to the legislation, President Obama said, "Not since the passage of the original GI Bill… have we taken such a historic step on behalf of community colleges in America. And let me be clear: we pay for this plan by ending the wasteful subsidies we currently provide to banks and private lenders for student loans, which will save tens of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. Instead of lining the pockets of special interests, it's time this money went toward the interest of higher education in America."
The bill would:
• end federally backed student loans that come through private companies, and instead make Uncle Sam the universal lender;
• greatly increase Pell Grants and peg their growth to the rate of inflation plus 1 point;
• balloon the federal Perkins loan program;
• authorize $5 billion over two years for elementary and secondary school facility projects, with a focus on “green” efforts;
• authorize $10 billion over ten years for Early Learning Challenge Grants; and
• provide $12 billion to community colleges.
Now, to be fair, the legislation isn’t all bad since it could save some money (although not nearly as much as the President claims). However, only $10 billion of the estimated $87 billion in savings will go towards deficit reduction. With the rest, politicians will do with it what they do best – spend! There are also no incentives for schools and colleges to actually improve their product. Essentially, they get access to millions with no standards.
Politicians regularly claim more money is the solution for higher education problems; that is simply not the case. This bill is just another example of government hand outs with no precautions to ensure taxpayer dollars are used appropriately and produce the desired results.
Yesterday, Dr. Arthur Laffer appeared on several media outlets to promote the report he produced for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “The Prognosis for National Health Insurance.” While most of the coverage has been positive and fact-based, one of his interviews has been mischaracterized by some to imply he does not understand that Medicare and Medicaid are government programs.
One such example of this appearing online:
Economist Laffer on CNN: "[J]ust wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid ... done by the government"
What Dr. Laffer actually said on CNN:
“I mean, if you look at the unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Medicaid and the projections going out as to what these costs will be, I think she’s grossly underestimating the type of costs you’re gonna see from these programs. I mean, if…if you like the post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles, and you think they’re run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care done by the government. I mean, the single provider I think is a real problem Judy, and I know we have a disagreement here, but…”
When taken in context with his repeated references to government programs like Medicare and Medicaid throughout the interview, as well as throughout the report, this mischaracterization is extremely unfortunate.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation commissioned Dr. Laffer’s report to start a fact-based dialogue about effective health care reform. We believe that current health care reform proposals currently being considered in the House and Senate not only fail to solve the crisis, they worsen it. Dr. Laffer’s research clearly points out several indisputable facts that the current proposals based on President Obama’s policies would:
• add $285 billion to the federal deficit by 2019;
• increase national health care expenditures by an additional 8.9 percent;
• raise medical price inflation 5.2 percent above what it would have been otherwise;
• slow U.S. economic growth in 2019 by 4.9 percent less than doing nothing;
• impose an additional $4,354 financial burden on every man, woman, and child in the U.S.; and
• still leave 30 million Americans uninsured.
Jay Matthews’ new book, Work Hard. Be Nice., tells the inspiring story of two young teachers’ struggle to create a new type of public school that challenges traditional notions and strives to prepare all students – regardless of their background, income level, and ethnicity – for success in college and life.
In 1994, after teaching for two years in the Houston Independent School District, Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin (former Teach for America alums) started a school for 5th graders in inner-city Houston.
Feinberg and Levin named the school KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program). They got the idea for the name from a chant they learned from their mentor Harriett Ball.
Read, Baby, Read
You gotta read, baby, read.
You gotta read, baby, read.
The more you read, the more you know, ‘Cause knowledge is power,
Power is money, and
I want it.
How are these schools so different? They hire smart, enthusiastic teachers. They have extremely high expectations for their students. They spend more time on instruction through a longer school day and longer school year. The teachers work hard and expect their students to work hard and do their homework. They expect students to call their teachers at night at home if they have questions about their homework. They give their principals the ability to lead the school. They get to know the parents through home visits.
This grand experiment called KIPP has turned into a network of 82 schools spanning 19 states and the District of Columbia serving more than 20,000 students. According to KIPP’s 2008 report, more than 95% of their students are African American or Hispanic, more than 80% are poor (as determined by their eligibility for the school lunch program), and yet 85% matriculate to college (compared to 40% of low-income students matriculating to college nationwide).
While KIPP is an open-enrollment charter school, traditional public schools can adopt many of these “best practices” without having to convert to a charter school. With so much riding on the quality of our education system, I hope traditional public schools will be open to trying new things. This has been a recipe for success for KIPP.
Having a master’s degree does not necessarily make a teacher a better teacher. In fact, research clearly finds that possession of an advanced degree has absolutely no correlation to higher teacher effectiveness or student achievement. Our white paper on teacher compensation discusses this misconception.
Here are a couple of remarkable facts. Ninety percent of teacher’s master degrees are in education programs (not the subject area they teach). Most school districts give teachers a financial incentive to attain a master’s degree and thus, it should not surprise us that master’s degrees in education had the highest growth rate of all master’s degrees between 1997 and 2007.
In Texas, 27% of teachers have a master’s degree and, as a result, receive an extra $1,423 per year on average. This equals more than $124.5 million spent on an outdated method of compensation that has no bearing on increasing learning in the classroom!
During this recession, school leaders are likely looking for easy ways to cut their school budgets without hurting students. Here is an easy thing to cut for all new teachers hired and phased out over time for current teachers.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
On Thursday, internationally renowned economist Dr. Arthur Laffer appeared on Bloomberg News to discuss his report for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “The Prognosis for National Health Insurance.” You can watch the interview below.
Today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation released a report by internationally renowned economist Dr. Arthur Laffer, "The Prognosis for National Health Insurance." He debuted the report this morning with a live interview on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street," which you can watch below.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Over the weekend, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers mocked the suggestion that congressmen should read the pending federal health care legislation.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s 1,000 pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” he said.
Oops...a congressman accidentally slipped and told the American people something we already suspected: the people we elect don’t even read, much less understand, the bills they write and pass into law.
Put another way, Congress has written and expects the American people to obey the law; yet an elected representative in favor of the law doesn’t even understand it and refuses to even entertain the thought of reading it. There are almost no words.
Clearly, Mr. Conyers is uninformed about the values upon which our government system is founded. We elect our congressmen to make governing decisions on our behalf, and we expect those decisions to be based on sound judgment and the best and most thorough information available.
And while the congressman’s remark is certainly startling, he also unintentionally brings up some important points. Why does a bill even need to be 1,000 pages long, and why does a member of Congress need help from two lawyers just to understand the bill’s language?
Let’s simplify health care, not pass laws so complex that even our society’s so-called elite can’t understand.
A majority of economists believe the United States does not need a second stimulus package, according to a new poll from the Wall Street Journal.
In the survey, 43 of the 51 economists rejected calls for another round of government stimulus, with one person commenting that it would be “dangerous to pile on more federal debt atop a mountain of debt.”
Other reasons cited against a stimulus 2.0 had to do with concerns over pork-barrel spending and the fact that very few of the funds from the first $787 billion stimulus had been spent so far.
The poll’s results also revealed misgivings many of these academics have with the federal government’s first Keynesian attempt to fix the economy.
Nearly half of those surveyed thought that the first $787 billion stimulus package had only a small effect or hurt the economy – not exactly the responses our nation’s leaders should be looking for after passing the largest fiscal stimulus in U.S. history.
Whether or not the WSJ poll has any impact on Congress’ erratic reasoning is hard to say. But if anything, it reinforces the message that large groups of economists wholeheartedly disagree with this administration’s fiscal approach.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) has announced it will end its contracts for 1,899 temporary beds at privately-operated county jails. At a rate of $41.48 per day, this will save taxpayers $28.8 million per year.
This still leaves TDCJ with 156,641 beds, and Texas with the nation’s second highest incarceration rate. Nonetheless, this is a significant victory for taxpayers and a product of criminal justice reforms that have redirected nonviolent offenders from prison. Indeed, this eventuality was unthinkable in early 2007, when the state was projected to need an additional 17,000 prison beds.
It is important to note that this transformation of Texas criminal justice was achieved without shortening sentences for any offenses. Judges were given more options such as shorter-term treatment facilities but offenders could still be sent to prison. Additionally, the Texas crime rate declined in 2008.
Since the contract facilities were county jails, they were designed for short stays, not the prison population they were being used to house. Accordingly, the temporary contract beds do not offer the same programming as the regular privately operated beds within the system.
It is always possible TDCJ will need to restart the contract, particularly if the economic downturn continues. Crime has increased in every recession since the late 1950’s. However, the Legislative Budget Board projected in January 2009 that, due primarily to reforms enacted in 2007, the demand for prison beds would not exceed TDCJ’s regular capacity until 2013.
The uncertainty in the demand for prisons illustrates the benefit of using private lockups versus building new prisons. Not only does a prison require the state to invest tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, government-run prisons are politically difficult to close.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
William F. Buckley Jr.’s first book, God and Man at Yale, examined the anti-Christian and anti-capitalist mindset which, even in 1951, was pervasive among the Yale University faculty. The book caused quite a bit of controversy—not because it wasn’t true, but because the radical liberals/socialists/communists in American academia and other institutions (the press, government, etc.) were not prepared to be exposed in a country that was so traditionally-minded.
Today, we’ve come to a place where the radicals no longer mind being exposed. In fact, they live out in the open!
Now, there is nothing wrong with folks living as they please and expressing their opinions. The problem, of course, is that society is so accepting of some of these radical opinions today that we are paying to support them with our tax dollars just about everywhere we turn in academia, government, etc.
One such person espousing a radical economic/political philosophy today is John E. Roemer, Professor of Political Science/Economics, Yale University. The essence of his argument is that pure Marxism, i.e., communism, is not enough to bring equality to the masses. Under Marxism, Roemer says, equality is achieved through the “distribution of output in proportion to the value of labor performed.” Traditionally, the way to achieve this is to eliminate private property and to make all property public so that the government can then distribute profits according to the “value of labor performed.”
However, Roemer says that if we did this today, it would still result in an undesirable distribution of income, because of the unequal distribution of skills caused by our present capitalist system. But after a while, he says, the distribution of skills would start to become more equitable under socialism, as long as under socialism there was included “some kind of equal-opportunity educational system.”
However, even then, Roemer writes, “equality of opportunity may not be enough. Imagine that the distribution of innate talents is such that an equal-opportunity educational system would still engender a great deal of income inequality. Many would still advocate redistributive taxation, justifiable under the Rawlsian construal that the distribution of talents is morally arbitrary.”
So here we come to the bottom line. Marxism just isn’t good enough, because innate differences among individuals (of course, this begs the question of how the distribution of talents came to be in the first place—a discussion for another time) results in unequal distribution of wealth. So even in the most socialist of countries, the government will still have to actively redistribute property/income on a real time basis to bring about true equality.
Combating this type of belief system, and its imposition on us through the power of the sword by government, is just one of the reasons we do what we do here at the Foundation.
The Waxman-Markey bill has been the cause of a great deal of justified alarm about its potential threat to the American economy and future prosperity. If passed, the bill will create a cap-and-trade system regulating the amount of carbon dioxide that can be legally emitted by US producers each year. This system will not only impose huge costs on the American economy, but will also have a virtually insignificant effect on carbon dioxide emissions. On Sunday, the San Antonio Express-News criticized the cap-and-trade bill as flawed. But even if it is defeated in the Senate, there will still be many battles to come in the judicial and administrative spheres.
In 2007, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that the EPA has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from new motor vehicles. Beyond that, it held that EPA must regulate those emissions unless it determines that GHGs are not a contributing factor to climate change or provides a reasonable explanation as to why it will not make this determination. Of course, EPA had done just that: it said in a 2001 National Resources Council Report that the scientific uncertainty was too profound to make a reasoned judgment about the contribution of GHGs to global warming. Unfortunately, because that was not the reasonable explanation the Court wanted to hear, it was deemed insufficient.
This case symbolized a massive usurpation of administrative discretion by the Court: rather than defer to the agency’s reasonable judgment, as it traditionally does, the Court substituted its own inexpert judgment for the EPA’s and overstepped its boundaries. The Court was inappropriately involved in this case because Massachusetts and its co-litigants did not have proper standing to be heard in court. The doctrine of standing is meant to prevent the courts from becoming an arena for political decisions; it ensures that the parties involved in the case are at risk of a particular injury and that the remedy they seek will directly address that injury. Otherwise, anybody can sue in court for anything, which is precisely what happened here.
In response to the Court’s ruling, EPA has made the determination that CO2 is a pollutant that poses a risk to human health and welfare. This Endangerment Finding subjects CO2 to regulation under the mammoth Clean Air Act. Now that this finding is in place, the Court will almost certainly find itself involved in the myriad of legal questions that will arise if EPA attempts to apply the ill-fitted Clean Air Act to CO2 regulation. By involving itself in what is fundamentally a political dispute, reserved for the legislative branch, the Court injected itself into the middle of the GHG debate – and will likely be there for decades to come.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
How do you know teachers will be successful before you’ve seen them teach? Malcolm Gladwell, author of the best sellers Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers, delves into this question in his article, “Most Likely to Succeed.” He points to the “quarterback problem” –neither the NFL nor a school district knows for sure how their recruits will perform until they see them in action.
Isn’t that the truth? And as schools struggle, it becomes increasingly important for school districts to hire quality teachers. In fact, research identifies the teacher as the most important school-related factor in raising student achievement. Gladwell emphasizes that students in a “bad” school with an “excellent” teacher are better off than students in an “excellent” school with a “bad” teacher. He highlights qualities of excellent teachers like making the lessons understandable and energizing the class. Conversely, the school system harps on certification and advanced degrees, indicators that research has proven unreliable.
What does a good teacher look like? They are smart. According to research from the National Council on Teacher Quality, teachers with strong literacy skills as identified by high SAT, ACT, or GRE verbal scores are more likely to produce large gains in student achievement. In addition, the selectivity of a teacher’s college is also significant as “students make greater learning gains if their teachers attended a selective college.”
To find these great teachers, Gladwell recommends that the teaching field “throw the door wide open” to all college-educated candidates. From this large pool, schools could select candidates and send them to a training camp. They could offer positions only to the most successful. Tenure wouldn’t be rewarded, and teachers would be paid competitively.
While these suggestions may sound revolutionary, they are just plain common sense. Shouldn’t schools want to select the best candidates and observe the teachers’ work before putting them in the classroom? Injecting the teaching profession with some competition might not only encourage “good” teachers to stay in the profession, but it would also likely improve student performance, a result that everyone can agree is “excellent.”
Some of the cost savings that universities in other states have implemented:
• The University of Washington got rid of landlines, saving more than $1,000 a month.
• The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill canceled their traditional bus tour of the state for new faculty members because “in a recession, people don’t want to see 100 faculty members traveling around and staying in hotels.”
• Oberlin College in Ohio reduced window washing and saved $22,300.
• Whittier College in California cut one day of its new-student orientation, saving $50,000.
• Cafeterias, too, are saving money, cutting food waste and reducing hot-water and detergent costs by eliminating trays. Whittier College saved almost $30,000 a semester after going fully “trayless.”
• Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa, estimates that it saved $40,000 by not replacing old voicemail equipment.
• Rhodes College in Memphis hired students for 25 professional staff positions, saving $725,000 a year…and giving those students valuable work experience.
• Other schools have pruned their expenses by reducing paper usage by posting materials online, cutting back on power washing, switching trash pickup from daily to weekly, increasing teacher course loads, switching from bottled to tap water, relying more on videoconferences than travel, and rebuilding computers instead of buying new ones, etc.
Revenue-strapped universities in Texas should consider these opportunities, if they have not done so already. With tuition increasing dramatically in the past several years, and universities making announcements that further tuition increases are coming, they owe it to the students and taxpayers to streamline their operating expenses first.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
I’ve often heard that quote from the late President Ronald Reagan, but never have they seemed as clear as they do now.
Almost on a daily basis, we’re bombarded with startling new reports about the erosion of our individual liberties. From the freedom of assembly to protections against unreasonable search and seizure to our right to keep and bear arms, every area of individual liberty seems to be under attack from the Nanny State.
The attacks on our freedom don’t stop there.
Congress is now considering a number of different proposals that pose a very real danger to all of our economic, political, and social freedoms. These proposals include:
• The cap-and-trade bill would limit emissions from certain industries and create a scheme where many companies would have to purchase carbon permits. These costs would ultimately be passed on to the consumer. The measure has been called “the biggest tax in American history.”
• Sweeping health care legislation which would provide for an effective government takeover of our health care system, at a 10-year cost of well over $1 trillion.
• The Clean Water Restoration Act would expand the scope of the Clean Water Act to allow federal regulators to dictate the use of any land with even the slightest amount of water on it. The Heritage Foundation has said it represents “the most dangerous federal intrusion on private property rights in existence.”
Needless to say, the escalation of intrusive behavior by the government, particularly at the federal level, into the lives of private citizens is happening at an alarming rate.
With Independence Day coming up this weekend, I hope that we all take a moment to consider how severely our freedoms are being eroded by an overreaching national government.
Despite tough economic conditions for students and parents, University of Houston System regents recently voted to raise tuition at all four of its campuses beginning next fall.
Not surprisingly, UH officials claim they have done everything possible to cut costs. However, students don’t seem to agree with that assessment. They presented regents with alternatives, including freezing faculty salaries.
When asked how much staff the system was willing to let go, the administrator of finance said it would be less than one percent.
Regents did express sympathy for students but maintained they couldn’t manage the loss of revenue during a time when the university was striving to become a tier-1 research institution. This excuse begs the question: should research be the top priority at UH when it requires raising tuition during the worst recession our country has seen in decades?
One student had it exactly right when he told the regents who would be voting on the increase, “In the real world, this business model would not happen. When revenue is low, businesses don’t raise prices.”
In making this observation, the student brings up an important point, intentionally or not. The higher education market lacks sufficient competition. If universities operated under a free-market model, they would have scrubbed down every aspect of their operations before asking their customers to pay higher prices.
Free markets have a funny way of forcing businesses to re-prioritize during economic hard times. The same cannot be said for government agencies because they have the luxury of asking for more money. The Foundation’s higher education reforms would help infuse competition into the higher education market, keeping costs under control and quality high.
A Zogby poll commissioned by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency reveals strong public support for alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. The poll, which was released earlier this month, finds 77 percent of those surveyed believe the most appropriate sentence for non-violent, non-serious offenders is supervised probation, restitution, community service, and/or rehabilitative services with prison or jail as an option if the offender fails. Non-violent, non-serious crimes are defined in the survey as those offenses that do not involve violence and sex and where the loss is $400 or less.
Some 68 percent of respondents felt that incarceration is only sometimes, rarely, or never necessary for drug possession cases where the offender is not involved in selling drugs. Only 30 percent believed that incarceration is usually or always necessary in such cases. In regard to disturbing the peace or loitering, 52 percent of respondents said incarceration is never necessary, with an additional 34 percent believing it is only rarely or sometimes necessary. Similarly, only 21 percent of those surveyed believed incarceration is usually or always necessary for public drunkenness.
In another question, more than 55 percent of respondents thought that alternatives to prison reduce costs to state and local governments. They are quite correct, as in Texas the cost of prison (including health care) is $56.10, compared with $1.24 per day for the share of probation costs borne by taxpayers. Those surveyed were surprisingly aware of various alternatives to incarceration, with 94 percent familiar with house arrest, 92 percent familiar with electronic monitoring, and 79 percent familiar with restorative justice.
Some 54 percent of respondents believed that serving time in prison or jail does not reduce the likelihood that a person will commit a crime in the future. Among those surveyed, 45 percent believed that alternatives to incarceration are effective at reducing recidivism compared to 38 percent who thought the same about prison or jail time.
In sum, these results are important because they demonstrate that the public recognizes the benefits of alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders, particularly at a time when local and state budgets are tight and correctional spending has surged in recent years.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
The Equity Project, a new charter school in New York City, will open this fall, according to a recent New York Times article. The charter school conducted a nationwide search to hire America’s finest teachers and hired eight teachers, including two Ivy League graduates. They will assume responsibilities traditionally covered by other staff members and will work a longer school day and year. The price for their expected success: $125,000 a year.
It is possible that many bright and qualified individuals would leave the private sector to teach with that type of salary. With the average teacher in Texas making about $47,000, this would be quite a raise.
Texas has the largest teacher incentive pay system in the country, and numerous school districts here reward teachers who perform well. Unfortunately, most school districts continue to pay teachers with a salary schedule that rewards seniority over merit, consuming enormous amounts of resources and restricting the their ability to offer more competitive wages to attract the best and brightest.
Michelle Rhee, chancellor of Washington, D.C., schools, has been wrestling with the teachers’ union for months to implement a contract that would allow her to pay up to $131,000 for senior teachers while giving her more leeway in reassigning and firing teachers. No agreement has yet been reached. Stay tuned.
Why don’t school districts across the country select teachers more carefully, expect them to perform, and pay them accordingly? Maintaining the status quo is much easier than rethinking teacher compensation and trying something new. Hopefully, this “experiment” in New York City will lead to higher student achievement – and encourage more schools to pay well for proven results.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
The Texas Legislature made wise decisions on juvenile justice in the 2009 session. First, the Texas Youth Commission’s (TYC) funding was cut from $314.9 million in 2008 to $210 million per year for 2010-2011. Community-based alternatives to TYC received $60 million. The result is $44.9 million in net savings to taxpayers.
Part of these savings some from closing unnecessary TYC facilities. The 2010-2011 budget calls for the West Texas and Victory Field TYC units to be closed in 2011. Both are remotely located away from the urban areas from which most youth come.
Not only does this shifting of resources save money, research has indicated that all but the highest-risk youth are less likely to recidivate if they are kept in the community. More than 55 percent of offenders leaving TYC are rearrested within one year. In contrast, Ohio implemented a policy called RECLAIM that redirected youth from state lockups to community-based programs – these youths had a 22 percent recidivism rate.
The further downsizing of TYC continues a trend. The Texas Youth Commission held some 5,646 youth in 2000 and 4,800 youth in 2006. That declined to 3,448 in 2007 and 2,054 in April 2009. These declines are largely attributable to SB 103, passed in 2007, that prohibited misdemeanants from being placed at TYC and reduced the maximum age of TYC residents to 19 from 21. Some counties also reduced their utilization of TYC due to concerns about the abuses.
Another positive development in the 2009 session is the passage of HB 3689, the sunset bill for TYC and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC). One of the most important provisions requires each juvenile probation department to use a risk assessment instrument. This will enable the departments to better determine what treatment approach is most appropriate. Some adult probation departments use the results of the instrument to allocate staff, accounting for the fact that a probation officer with a higher-risk caseload may need more time per offender.
In sum, a smaller TYC and community programs that are better targeted to the individual offender will improve Texas’ juvenile justice system and enhance public safety.
In his recent National Review Online article on the federal government’s deficit spending, Rich Lowry wrote, “The same way overzealous Republicans once argued that tax cuts paid for themselves, Obama Democrats argue that deficit spending pays for itself.”
Lowry’s statement is problematic on several levels.
For one, it essentially equates tax cutting and deficit spending, abandoning the moral high ground in an attempt to come across as reasoned. Even more importantly, it misrepresents the facts. In truth, tax cuts have paid for themselves time and time again: the Harding/Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts all accomplished this.
As noted in the Foundation’s Thinking Economically lesson on the Laffer Curve, “In the four years prior to the 1965 (Kennedy) tax rate cuts, federal government income tax revenue, adjusted for inflation, had increased at an average annual rate of 2.1%, while total government income tax revenue (federal plus state and local) had increased 2.6% per year. In the four years following the tax cut, these two measures of revenue growth rose to 8.6% and 9.0%, respectively. Government income tax revenue not only increased in the years following the tax cut, it increased at a much faster rate.”
People claim the early Reagan income tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves. But they compare tax revenues between 1981 and 1982 when the tax cuts didn’t take full effect until July 1983. Look at the revenue before and after the cuts had been fully implemented, and they worked. The problem with the Reagan tax cuts is that they weren’t implemented fast enough. Just as predicted, people deferred income until after the tax cuts were fully implemented, delaying the growth in tax revenues. Tax cuts generally won’t increase revenue overnight, but they will increase revenue once the economy has a chance to respond.
The one tax where cuts (or increases) affect revenues almost immediately is the capital gains tax. “Following the 1981 capital gains cut from 28% to 20%, nominal capital gains tax revenues leapt from $12.5 billion in 1980 to $18.7 billion by 1983—a 50% increase.” After the rate went back up in the late 1980s, capital gains revenue collapsed. And, once again, “in 1996, the year before the tax rate cut (back to 20%) and the last year with the 28% rate, taxes paid on assets sold totaled $66.4 billion. A year later, tax receipts jumped to $79.3 billion, and they jumped again to $89.1 billion in 1998. … Seldom in economics does real life so closely conform to theory as this capital gains example does to the Laffer Curve. Lower tax rates change people’s economic behavior and stimulate economic growth, which can create more, not less, tax revenue.”
Tax cuts won’t always increase the incentives for people to earn or recognize more income. But we are a long way from a tax rate low enough for that to be the case.
A recent study reveals some troubling information about the state of education in America.
Despite our government’s education reform efforts, the study shows American students have not improved in math, science, and reading in four decades. Alternatively, our international competitors have consistently improved test scores in each of these areas.
Another alarming statistic finds that the longer American children are in school, the further behind international students they fall. Of course, this fact speaks volumes about the quality of K-12 education in the U.S.; however, it also has major negative ramifications for institutions of higher education.
It seems that just when students are beginning their higher education is when they are the furthest behind internationally.
Because U.S. students aren’t where they need to be, other nations are taking advantage of our educational shortcomings. In fact, “In 1995, America was tied for first in college graduation rates; by 2006, this ranking had dropped to 14th.”
While one does not need a college degree to be a productive member of society, the statistics make clear that education reform efforts, both in K-12 and higher education, are generally headed in the wrong direction.
Reforms over the last 40 years such as increasing education spending are not yielding the anticipated results. In fact, the McKinsey study finds that “school spending in the U.S. is among the least cost-effective in the world.” True reformers should start looking at where the money goes and not just focus on spending more.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Amid all of the craziness at the Capitol this session, the Texas Legislature recently passed a bill that will help students have more education options than their assigned public school. This legislation is now on its way to the governor.
HB 1423 by Rep. Ryan Guillen and Sen. Florence Shapiro allows junior colleges and community colleges in Texas to open a charter school. The colleges would still have to go through a rigorous application process at the Texas Education Agency and with the State Board of Education to be approved.
Many Texas community colleges already collaborate with charter schools across the state. For example, Houston ISD and Houston Community College collaborate with two early college high schools and at an academy for international studies, while Texas State Technical College in Waco collaborates with the Rapoport Academy. See the full list on page 7 of our research on charter schools.
Senior universities already have the ability to open charter schools in Texas. Currently, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Houston, Stephen F. Austin State University, and Texas Southern University either operate or collaborate with a charter school.
Charter schools run by senior universities are exempt from the state cap on charters of 215. This bill also exempts junior colleges and community colleges from the cap.
Charter schools are helping more than 110,000 Texas students. With this new opportunity for community colleges, imagine how many more Texas children can be helped.
Former President Ronald Reagan once quipped that, “government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
Funny how true those words still are.
Bungling what could have been a defining moment of fiscal conservatism this session, the Texas Senate instead allowed the Texas Department of Transportation sunset bill House Bill 300 to sail through with revised local option transportation tax and fee language attached.
The bill, as is currently written, allows local governments to impose any combination of three new taxes and fees while requiring virtually no measurable performance objectives.
Though discouraging, the Senate’s decision is not the final say.
HB 300’s next stop – if it advances at all – is a House/Senate conference committee, where five members from each chamber will duke it out over the differences between the two versions. If common sense prevails, taxpayers may pull out a win just yet and force government to live within its means. If not, refer back to quote above.
Much of the higher education discussion this session involved HB 51, which would give more state dollars to fund university research. As far as I can tell, there hasn’t been any notable opposition except from Sen. Dan Patrick, who remarked during floor debate that research might actually harm student learning and for the legislature to keep this in mind during future debate of the issue.
Still, no legislator has asked the question: What benefit does university research (largely taxpayer funded) provide society? The answer: very little if any. Sure, there is good research, but the majority of it isn’t being produced at our state’s public universities.
Only 13% of all research occurs at universities – 87% is privately funded. It seems the government doesn’t need to fund research at all. The free market has proven that it supports private investment in worthwhile research, whereas the taxpayer funded research at our state’s universities yields poor results and shifts professor focus away from teaching.
Recent research by TPPF Senior Research Fellow Rick O’Donnell expands on the issue of university research, and the facts he lays out make a good argument against any more taxpayer investment in it.
Texas universities have invested an estimated $9 billion on scientific research in the last 10 years. The rate of return on these taxpayer research investments was just $8.3 million a year, or 0.09 percent. By any standard, that’s a poor rate of return.
Beyond being a bad investment, the emphasis on research at our universities harms student learning. In fact, the average college professor only spends 21% of his time performing teaching relating activities. The rest is spent on administrative duties and research. Imagine how much the quality of education could improve if professors spent more time focusing on educating students.
Let’s change the incentives at our public universities. Don’t increase funding for research; enact policies that will shift professors’ focus back to their original mission – educating university customers.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Early this week, a huge story broke out of the UK about how English Ministers of Parliament (MPs) have been claiming personal expenses with public dollars. Here are a few of my not-so-favorites:
* £30,000.00 (or $46,995.00) over three years for MP Sir Peter Viggers’ gardening expenses which include a duck house for his pond. Due to this find by the Telegraph UK, he will be retiring his seat in the next election.
* £100.00 ($156.55) for MP Sarah McCarthy-Fry’s hair straighteners.
* £2,200.00 ($3,446.30) for MP Douglas Hogg’s moat cleaning bill at his country home. He has agreed to repay this expense to the taxpayers.
In fact, there are several MPs who have turned in receipts and are shown to accept to repay an expense. However, no interest is said to have been collected, and who is to say that if the abuse wasn’t discovered that money would have come back at all?
Due to the fact that a private entity, the Telegraph UK, has decided to take it upon itself to investigate the expense accounts of Members of Parliament, light is finally being shown into the dark crevasses of English government so that a new culture of open, public government is to include meticulously following the money.
The British controversy only adds more fodder to the transparency cannon as governed people begin to wake up and demand to see how the officials they elect are spending the money they allocate them to spend.
Victims of the politics that eliminated the Washington, D.C., school voucher program are kids like Mercedes Campbell, a student at Georgetown Visitation Prep. After escaping the notoriously poor D.C. school district, she describes her new life in glowing terms. “I approach things differently,” she said. “It’s like a whole new world, basically.” Her mother, Ingrid, now facing the prospect of returning her child to a failing school, in an interview desperately asks President Barack Obama, “why, sir, why?”
In addition to the anecdotal stories of past success and the perilous future these children face, there now is statistical evidence from a U.S. Department of Education study that confirms the ardent enthusiasm Mercedes and her mother have for the scholarship:
• Reading achievement increased by 3.7 months of learning and math achievement was no worse for those who used scholarships.
• Parents of students offered scholarships were more likely to report that their child’s school was safer and had an orderly school climate.
Similar success has been documented in scholarship programs across the country like the Horizon school choice program.
The answer to Mrs. Campbell’s question seems to be that although the government has failed miserably for decades with public schools, it will sacrifice what definitively works for her child for the unproven contingent hope that it may find a way to fix the public schools. To this sort of hope in the unseen that doesn’t put these kids first, we must answer as USA Today did in its editorial this morning: Mercedes deserves better.
County jails cost Texas taxpayers hundreds of millions to operate and represent a quarter of most county budgets, constituting the single largest item. In considering the Jail Standards Commission sunset bill on Wednesday, it is important that the Texas House avoid further burdening taxpayers by taking into account the unnecessary costs that could be added by possible amendments.
Specifically, one anticipated amendment that failed to make it as a stand-alone bill (HB 2170) could remove discretion from the Jail Standards Commission regarding staffing ratios and make state law the 1:48 staffing ratio currently used by the commission. This would prevent the commission from granting variances where a larger ratio is compatible with safety. Modernized designs could potentially reduce the number of deputies needed to maintain a safe jail, an approach that would be precluded by this amendment. Because the amendment would require that the county budget be sufficient for a 1:48 ratio, it would invite costly litigation.
This amendment would also require that ratios be calculated for each floor of the jail, as opposed to throughout the jail. This could force many counties to increase the number of jailers. Harris County already pays $30 million in overtime to meet current staffing requirements.
Other failed proposals could be attached as amendments at great cost to taxpayers. For example, HB 1714 would have prevented county officials from contracting with private facilities, even though they are often the most efficient option and the local jail may be full. HB 3247 would preclude counties from contracting with private facilities that lack a collective bargaining agreement. At best, this would raise labor costs; at worst, if an agreement couldn’t be reached, the county would be forced either to find a more expensive way to deal with the inmates or to release dangerous inmates.
These potential amendments are solutions in search of a problem. Texas county jails, including privately operated county jails, are by definition costly to taxpayers, but they can become even more so with unnecessary legislative micromanagement.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
I recently had the opportunity to sit down and chat with Rep. Lois Kolkhorst about her bill, HB 2504, which would improve higher education transparency.
She was spot-on in her assessment of the current transparency deficiencies at our state’s public universities. And she would know – Rep. Kolkhorst formerly chaired the education subcommittee on appropriations, which oversees all the funding to our universities.
“These are publicly funded universities, and there are complaints that we don’t give them enough money,” she said, “But I can tell you that through general appropriations and tuition from students, we are paying a lot of money to fund education.”
The truth is that there is not nearly enough transparency in higher education. Without transparency, how can we know where all our money is going? Well, we can’t.
There is not enough transparency in place to ensure universities are being held accountable for their spending. Kolkhorst’s HB 2504 could help change this, as it would require universities to post course budgets, syllabi, and curriculum vitae online.
Federal carbon cap legislation would be a $20 billion disaster for Texas, according to a new report released by ERCOT. The billions of dollars in added electricity production costs would inevitably be borne by Texas consumers, some of whom already have trouble paying the bills. ERCOT estimates that the typical consumer’s monthly bill would increase by $27 a month, or $324 annually. And this is only a partial estimate of the carbon cap’s total costs.
ERCOT then went on to make recommendations on how to mitigate some of these federally imposed costs by increasing wind energy capacity. It doesn’t necessarily follow, however, that spending billions of more dollars on costly wind projects will leave consumers better off than they are today. The Foundation found in its report on the state of wind energy that combined subsidies, tax breaks, market disruptions, and increase production costs associated with wind energy in Texas could equate to more than $4 billion per year. This more than offsets the estimated carbon cap savings of $3 billion generated by wind power.
Federal carbon legislation would impose one of the most profound, new financial burdens to electricity consumers in Texas. Residential consumers will be faced with higher monthly bills, while business owners will be faced with higher production or overhead costs. There is little doubt that Texas economy would ultimately be worse off under a carbon cap scheme. It is less clear, however, that spending additional billions in taxpayer money on costly wind subsidies will leave consumers better off.
A Legislative Update from the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Dear Friend:
Government-funded health insurance to families making as much as $66,000 per year. Medicaid eligibility expansion that will cost state taxpayers almost $300 million during the next two years. Unemployment eligibility changes that will permanently raise employer taxes by at least $75 million per year. Gasoline tax changes that could increase the taxes motorists pay by as much as 125% during the next decade. Burdensome air regulations that could stop power plant expansions and smother the state's economic growth. An expensive state grant program for full-day pre-kindergarten despite research showing no lasting benefits.
Sound like California? How about New York or Massachusetts? Sadly, that could very well be the 81st Texas Legislature's list of achievements in about three weeks.
With less than 20 days left in the legislative session, we now have a fairly representative snapshot of legislation that has an opportunity for passage. Unfortunately, taxpayers will be lucky to escape untouched, and if current momentum continues, they will be negatively affected well beyond the current national recession.
The federal government led the way by passing a spending plan so large that it crowds out the private sector and will actually cost Texas more than 130,000 jobs, according to our research. The state legislature began shortly thereafter, and gave taxpayers a glimmer of hope when the House and Senate adopted versions of the budget that appeared to reasonably hold the line on spending, coming in at just under the rate of growth for population plus inflation. Despite the use of federal stimulus money, budget writers generally limited stimulus spending to one-time expenses. But then came the tidal wave of tax-and-spend bills.
Everyone has heard the speeches and remarks from our legislators about Texas’ superior economic condition, and disparaging remarks about states that are raising taxes during a recession. But if these measures are adopted, expect Texas to join the list of states being singled out for misplaced fiscal priorities.
Thank you for your continued interest in our work. While the overall outlook for the session is grim, there have been a few modest successes, as you'll see in the items below. As always, you can review our research, testimony, commentaries, podcasts, news coverage, and blog at www.texaspolicy.com.
Yours in Liberty,
Justin Keener
Vice President of Policy and Communications
Pre-Kindergarten Expansion
Legislation to create another state grant program for pre-kindergarten passed the Texas House last week and will be considered by the Senate Education Committee on Thursday May 14th. HB 130 creates a full-day pre-K program at the cost of $25 million which will likely grow in the future. Pre-K advocates claim this program will lower crime and prison costs, as well as decrease the number of high school dropouts, saving much more taxpayer dollars than it costs. As we wrote to the legislature, research and common sense do not support these claims. Full-day pre-K programs are not more effective than half-day programs. An expensive pre-K program will do nothing to improve Texas' struggling middle schools and high schools, magically solve the dropout crisis, or save taxpayer dollars.
CHIP & Medicaid Expansion
HB 2962, which expands the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) from 200 percent to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, is on the House Major State calendar tomorrow. Not only will this have a negative effect on the budget, but extending CHIP to families making up to $66,000 per year morphs the program into an expensive entitlement for the middle class. Expanding this program while 170,000 children projected to be eligible for CHIP are still not participating is a wasteful decision. Additionally, HB 2962 creates a buy-in program for families whose net income is between 300 percent and 400 percent of FPL.
Last week, the House Human Services Committee passed HB 1541, expanding eligibility for the children’s Medicaid program from six months to 12. The Legislature should resist efforts to expand this program as it was intended to provide health care to our poorest citizens, and a six-month eligibility period ensures that the services provided are to the truly needy. Increasing the continuous eligibility period will increase the number of Medicaid recipients by more than 250,000 and cost taxpayers almost $300 million in state funds over the next biennium. The 12-month eligibility proposal will be a significant burden at a time when the state needs to restrain spending ahead of a projected budget shortfall in 2011.
Eminent Domain
The U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo decision essentially changed private property ownership from a fundamental civil right to a privilege granted by the state. Almost four years later, Texans are still subject to Kelo-style takings. The Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom just released two new bill analyses, Senate Bill 18: Texas’ Kelo Problem Still Not Solved and Eminent Domain: SJR 42, to explain why these two major eminent domain bills don’t address the main problem they were originally intended to solve, and how each can be amended to fix our state’s Kelo problem.
On the other hand, HJR 14 by Rep. Frank Corte, which just passed the Texas House, will fix Texas’ Kelo problem by allowing takings for public use “only if the taking, damage, or destruction is necessary for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property or for the possession, occupation, and enjoyment of the property by a common carrier, by an entity providing utility service, by the public at large, by the State, or by a political subdivision of the State.”
Victim-Offender Mediation
The House has passed HB 2139 to create an adult victim-offender mediation program. This is a means for the victim and offender to resolve a matter with a binding agreement for restitution. It means less government is required to do justice. Studies show victim-offender mediation reduces recidivism and improves victim satisfaction. The bill now awaits a hearing before the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.
Tollroad Transparency & Transportation Taxes
An amendment was adopted to the TxDOT sunset bill, HB 300, that made significant transparency progress for regional tollway authorities, but there is already talk around the capitol that the toll authorities are attempting to strip this provision. If this amendment stands, toll authorities will be subject to annual audits by the State Auditor. The toll authorities will also be required to post their check register on their website, with updates at least once a month. The information is to be maintained on the site for at least one year.
Other actions were not so positive for taxpayers. The House Transportation Committee passed out bills that could raise motor fuel taxes by as much as 125% over the next 10 years. HB 9 and HJR 9 provide for motor fuel tax indexing that will automatically increase taxes up to three cents per biennium, if approved by the voters. SB 855 will allow for a 10-cent local option motor fuel tax if adopted by voters. The combined, increased cost to the taxpayers of Texas over a 10-year period – if these options are adopted by all regions and if the inflation factor allows for the 3-cent-per-biennium increase – could be as much as $21 billion. Supporters of the measure argue that because the taxes require voter approval, they should be approved – but we disagree and offered an alternative measure that would give voters a true option to redirect existing taxes towards transportation, allowing regions to build more roads without raising taxes. See the unified opposition to this tax increase from the state’s leading research and taxpayer advocacy groups.
Higher Education Financial Transparency
Despite Texas’ notable transparency achievements, one area that needs improvement is higher education. Fortunately, the legislature has two bills this session that would help begin to shine the light on university spending and educational quality: HB 2504 and SB 174. HB 2504 – which would require all universities to post course budgets, syllabi, and curriculum vitae online for the public – passed overwhelmingly in the House this week. SB 174, which would create resumes for all public universities, has passed the Senate and was recently voted out of the House Higher Education Committee. Publicly posting this information in an easily accessible and understandable format would be a good first step to promote competition and empower students by providing them with the ability to choose which university could provide them with the best quality education for the lowest price. Here is a link to our testimony on HB 2504.
Uncle Sam’s generosity seems to know no bounds these days.
Apparently, Washington policymakers have turned the money spigot full blast as federal funding – both “stimulus” and traditional federal money – pours out of the national treasury and into state coffers.
This is happening to such a degree that federal aid has overtaken state taxes as the single biggest source of income for states, according a new USA Today article.
What’s most unsettling here is not that the federal government is so carelessly lavishing the states with extra funding that it doesn’t have, it’s that Washington is gaining overt control over the purse strings of our state governments and that has the potential to have a very real impact on state and local policy decisions.
There’s a reason our Founders included the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights: it’s so that the principle of federalism could be maintained and the powers of the federal government could be enumerated and restrained. I truly hope Washington hasn’t found a way around that vision under the guise of providing states with “stimulus” in this recession.
Finally, university spending habits are making headlines, as new investigative reporting has uncovered outrageous spending at one of our state’s public universities – the University of Houston.
ABC 13 News in Houston recently reported that administrators at UH were spending millions of dollars on exotic trips, alcohol, and more. And people wonder why tuition has increased so much in the last three decades?
University operating costs have skyrocketed. Between 1991 and 2007, the statewide average operating cost per student increased 64.1 percent. Where is all this extra money going? Well, beyond paying for cushy salaries for university administrators, it’s apparently being used for cocktails in India. How does this frivolous spending help university customers?
Students and parents should demand more accountability for the use of their money. Surely these funds, regardless of if they originate from donations, could be spent better elsewhere.
Similarly irresponsible spending could be occurring at other state universities as well, and Texas needs better transparency measures to keep them accountable.
Senator Dan Patrick is absolutely right when he says, “Universities have to remember that they have customers, and those customers are students and parents.”
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
According to the study, property taxes in Texas could be eliminated completely by simply broadening the sales tax base and adjusting the total sales tax rate. The study offers legislators four options to modify the sales tax:
• 6.5 percent, if the sales tax base is the total value of goods and services in the state’s economy;
• 9 percent, if all the services that are taxed in at least one other state are taxed;
• 12.5 percent, if the current sales tax base is used while levying a tax on property sold; or
• 14.5 percent, if the current sales tax base is used.
Using an expanded sales tax instead of the current property tax system would free Texans from the fear of losing their home due to unpaid property tax bills. It would prevent government from penalizing people who are investing in their homes and businesses. And it would also create jobs.
Across a five-year time horizon, Texas could create between 127,700 and 312,700 net new jobs by replacing our property tax system with an expanded sales tax. These are jobs that would otherwise not be created at all.
The empirical evidence is there: Texas wins with a tax system swap. The next step lies in the hands of the legislature.
Does another occupation really need to be regulated? HB 1854 would expand the scope of government by requiring roofers to register with the state or else they commit a Class C misdemeanor.
Under this legislation, which is pending before the House State Affairs Committee, roofers would be burdened with additional costs. First, they would have to pay a registration fee to be determined by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation. Second, they would be required to purchase a $250,000 insurance policy.
The bill could also limit competition. Roofers must state in their application their number of years of experience in roofing; this could limit the ability of new competitors to enter the field if registration is going to be denied on the basis of inexperience.
Licensing new occupations is proven to reduce employment and increase costs. A University of Minnesota study of occupational licensing found that “occupational licensing reduces employment growth in states that are licensed relative to those that are not regulated.” It found states that licensed dieticians and nutritionists and librarians experienced 20 percent lower employment growth. University of Texas at Austin Economics Professor Dan Hammermesh estimated that the deadweight loss to society from occupational licensing is between $34.8 billion and $41.7 billion per year.
The bill would also limit competition by excluding any person with a felony conviction. Someone with a drug possession conviction could be an excellent roofer. The bill makes any felony grounds for revocation – no matter how old the conviction is.
The bill won’t guarantee quality roofing. A bad roofer could still successfully register. There is no attempt made in the legislation, and it would be impractical for the government, to assess the quality of each roofer’s work. Therefore, consumers are better off using word of mouth or a review service to pick a roofing contractor. If Texas has a problem with bad roofers, this bill won’t solve it.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
The informed participation of citizens is vital to the success of any democracy.
Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s founders and author of the Declaration of Independence, understood this concept well. He once remarked that America should “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people, as they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
However, research shows that Americans are remarkably inept when it comes to knowing our civics.
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) recently conducted a “civil-literacy survey” which tested U.S. political, historical, and economic basics. Below are just some of the startling results garnered from this survey:
• Seventy-one percent of Americans failed the survey, with an average score of 49%. Just 2.6% scored B’s, and 0.8% earned A’s.
• Only 49% were able to identify the three branches of government.
• Forty percent of college graduates do not know that corporate profits equal revenues minus expenses.
• Just 24% of college graduates know that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the establishment of an official U.S. religion.
• Self-identified elected officials scored worse on the test than did average Americans, averaging 44%. Thirty percent of them didn’t even know that the Declaration of Independence promotes “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
As evidenced above, Americans are completely unaware of how our nation became what it is today, leading me to question our ability to carry on our country’s legacy of freedom and liberty.
To combat this reality, universities should strengthen their curricula to address their students’ lack of civic knowledge. Every college student should have a solid background on the tradition of Western Civilization that influenced the actions of the American Founders.
It truly is frightening when you realize that the fate of our nation lies in the hands of an uninformed majority. Thankfully for the U.S., more Americans vote in American Idol than in the presidential elections.
Last week, the Senate Education Committee passed SB 2206 by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, a bill establishing reciprocity for teachers certified in math and science by another state. Brooke Terry, the Foundation's education policy analyst, testified in favor of the bill. The committee made a wise choice in light of the current shortage of qualified teachers in the fields of math and science, especially at the secondary level. For example, 17% of high school math teachers are teaching outside their field of expertise. The case with science is worse with 34% of science teachers (roughly 3,200) lacking a science certification. SB 2206 addresses this problem.
Clearly, there shouldn’t be roadblocks for certified teachers from out-of-state quickly transitioning into schools that need them immediately. Lisa Gardner, who testified before the committee, was already certified in New Jersey when she moved with her husband to Texas in June. Because her Texas teacher’s license was not processed and approved until August 24, she missed the hiring cycle for the current school year. After serving as a long-term sub for a school in Round Rock for seven months, that same school finally hired her full-time on March 3.
The House companion, HB 4152 by Rep. Patrick Rose, is scheduled for floor debate tomorrow. Hopefully the Texas Legislature will follow through and remove this barrier so that qualified teachers who are ready to step in can provide quality instruction for Texas students.
There has been a lot of talk about the rising cost of tuition this legislative session. Some point to tuition deregulation as the sole cause of this phenomenon, but many have never heard the facts about the increased operational costs at Texas universities.
State appropriations dedicated to higher education have kept up with both inflation and enrollment growth. However, in 1991, the statewide average operating cost per student was $10,665; by 2007, this number had increased to $17,506. In 16 years, the operating cost per student has increased by 64.1%. With spending increasing so dramatically, one wonders where all this money is going – and after last week’s story on Dallas/Fort Worth’s CBS 11, one would expect a lot more people to be asking.
Universities in Texas are subsidized with taxpayer dollars and have access to additional billions through tuition, fees, donations, grants, and the Available University Fund. Furthermore, higher education institutions are not constrained by any rules for how government money must be spent. For these reasons, universities must be held accountable for their spending.
This session, Representative Kolkhorst authored HB 2504 in an effort to improve transparency in higher education. HB 2504 would make course budgets, curriculum vitae, and syllabi available online to students, parents, and the general public.
Making course budgets public would give taxpayers and students much needed insight into how their money is being spent, as well as encourage universities to spend in a more fiscally responsible manner. In addition to improving fiscal transparency, HB 2504 would also enable students to make more informed decisions when choosing professors and deciding in which courses to enroll.
This bill is a necessary step in the right direction and, if passed, would go a long way to shed light on university spending.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Pilot programs to divert youth from the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) hang in the balance as the legislative session hits the home stretch. Under these pilot programs, youth who would otherwise be sent to TYC would instead be handled on juvenile probation. The Senate budget includes funding for pilot programs in Dallas, Austin, and South Texas. The House budget did not include any pilot funding, but the House version of the sunset bill calls for a statewide pilot program.
Dallas County has taken the lead in demonstrating how it could take advantage of a pilot program. Dallas County Juvenile Probation Director Mike Griffiths has developed a plan under which his department could serve the 236 youths per year other than Title V youths – the most seriously violent youths – that the County currently commits to TYC. The youths would be served for a total of 20 months, approximately the average length of TYC commitment, including 12 months of placement in a residential facility or intensive home-based services. The estimated cost would be $35,953 per year, compared to $99,000 per year at TYC.
Now Harris County is offering the Legislature a pilot proposal under which they would cut the number of youths they send to TYC by 25 percent in exchange for $40 million to support local juvenile justice community-based programs. By diverting 319 youths who otherwise would have gone to TYC, the pilot program in Harris County would result in net savings to the state of $11 million.
It is not just about saving money. Studies have shown that outcomes are better for most youth when they are kept closer to their homes. Ohio’s RECLAIM program that is similar to the proposed pilot programs has demonstrated this. The recidivism rate for moderate risk youth placed through RECLAIM was 22 percent, compared with a 54 percent rate such offenders in state lockups, which is comparable to TYC’s 52 percent rate.
Ideally, the opportunity to participate in the pilot project should open to all counties that wish to participate so Texas can maximize the savings to taxpayers and public safety benefits.
Senate Bill 855, the local option transportation tax bill adopted by the Senate last week, would allow local communities to call an election to raise taxes and fees to pay for light rail, roads, and hike & bike trails. One modification to the bill, which was praised by several newspapers, was a provision that requires counties that implement these new taxes and fees to “establish an exemption, waiver, or partial reduction for individuals of low or moderate income who demonstrate significant financial hardship.” This would apply to four of the proposed six new revenue mechanisms, including the emissions fee, driver’s license fee, mobility fee, and new resident fee.
According to this language in the bill, it appears to be the case that you won’t have to pay these fees unless your income reaches a certain threshold. This is a progressive income funding structure that has many of the elements you would see in conventional income taxes, and passage of this could create in statute a mechanism and precedent for such taxes.
By tradition, our system for financing roads has come through taxes, fees, and tolls, which are more or less proportionate to one’s use of that infrastructure. But if the fees in SB 855 are adopted in local communities, one of two people making equal use of the infrastructure would pay the government while the other would not, based on their income. That injects a means test into our public finance system for roads, which is quite a departure from Texas’ historical rejection of finance structures that are similar to a progressive income tax.
This is a slippery slope. Anyone who has spent time around the Capitol knows what would happen after this is passed. Candidates for election will play class warfare and fight to shift even more of the burden off one preferred demographic and onto another that is disfavored. Additionally, when future tax measures are debated, progressive income tax advocates will point to this mechanism as a precedent for shifting the tax burden.
For evidence of the harm in unhooking swaths of the public from the responsibilities of paying for government services, look to New York, a prime example of a state caught in a fiscal death spiral. And there is an abundance of research, including our own, that has established that Texas’ economic dominance over other states is due in large part to the fact that we don’t tax citizens based on their income. Will our legislators heed these lessons?
Last week, I had a chance to attend the Texas Charter School Conference in San Antonio and show the amazing award-winning education documentary, “Flunked.”
The film was produced by our Washington state counterparts, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. It has won several awards, including best documentary at the San Fernando Valley International Film Festival in Los Angeles and best educational documentary at the Bayou City Inspirational Film Festival in Houston. It was also nominated for best documentary at the Burbank International Film Festival.
Washington state is unusual in that it is one of the 10 states without a charter school law and therefore without charter schools. The Evergreen Freedom Foundation wanted to show the need for change and that just throwing more money at the problem was not going to fix a broken education system.
This film gives an honest assessment of the current education system’s problem, and then profiles inspiring stories and solutions in both traditional public schools and public charter schools. The film has hit a chord and now the Evergreen Freedom Foundation is looking at starting a “Flunked” TV series.
Check out this amazing film by attending one the screenings around the country or order a copy of the DVD for yourself by going to http://www.flunkedthemovie.com.
A Legislative Update from the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Dear Friend,
Yesterday’s Tea Parties provided a stark visual of taxpayers’ frustration with runaway government spending. While many in the media were joined by big-government advocates in denouncing the activities as fringe, I saw with my own eyes that those in attendance cut a swath across all demographics, from soccer moms with their children, to veterans and average working Joes. The hundreds of thousands of people who gathered in communities large and small all across America had a message that was delivered loud and clear – that government has grown too big.
It’s easy to look at Washington as the symbol of tax and spend excess – with its trillions spent on bailout and stimulus packages that reward bad behavior and punish financial responsibility. But taxpayers also need to pay close attention to the work underway in our own state’s Capitol for examples of misplaced priorities that could result in even greater tax burdens.
At several Tea Party events, speakers shared their frustration about a bill that appears headed for passage – Senate Bill 855 – that could result in billions of dollars in new taxes to build light rail, hike & bike trails, and roads. At the state Capitol, the crowd of thousands burst into chants of “no new taxes” after hearing about this bill.
This legislation is a prime example of the type of legislative activity that has played a role in taxpayers’ frustration boiling over into public protest. For years, the legislature has diverted billions of transportation taxes to non-transportation purposes – taking gas tax revenues and giving it to the Arts Commission, the Historical Commission, and the Department of Public Safety, to name a few. Now legislators are surprised they’re running out of transportation money, and within a week of adopting a budget that continues to divert more than $1.3 billion of transportation taxes, they adopt a new tax scheme for even more transportation revenue.
Even worse, this bill includes a provision so that only high-income earners pay several of the proposed fee increases. That sounds awfully similar to an income tax.
Unfortunately, if you spend enough time in Austin, you’ll hear all sorts of excuses to raise taxes rather than fix a broken system – in this case, ending transportation funding diversions. Supporters of this bill criticize our stance on the bill, simply because the bill requires voter approval. That’s nonsense. A tax bill should be the most difficult type of bill to pass, and taxpayers assume that legislators are asking the tough questions before ballot measures are put in front of them.
It’s time for our elected officials – especially those in Washington, D.C., and Austin, Texas – to heed the strong and united voice of their taxpayers: Don’t raise taxes on businesses and hard-working families when we can least afford it.
The pace of the 81st Texas Legislature has quickened since the last “Voice of Liberty,” and as you can see below, our policy analysts are involved not just in the debate over taxes but also many of our state’s most critical issues. We invite you to follow these efforts through these emails, and by visiting our website where you can visit our blog, request a speaker, and sign up to receive information about recently released publications and upcoming events via our e-newsletter, TPPN.
Yours in liberty,
Justin Keener
Vice President of Policy and Communications
House to Debate Budget
On Friday, the House is scheduled to debate its version of the state budget. It currently sits at $178.4 billion and is $4 billion less than what was adopted by the Senate. More than 400 amendments have been pre-filed for consideration. Amendments to the amendment, which do not require pre-filing, could easily double that number, which will mean an extremely long day on the floor. By calendar rule, adopted by the House, any amendment that costs money must find money elsewhere in the budget to pay for it. If the debate goes as usual, there will be numerous attempts to redirect the Texas Enterprise funds from the governor’s office to a variety of uses. Expect significant debate over the use of stimulus funds, and whether or not incentive and merit pay for teachers should be replaced with smaller, across-the-board pay raises for everyone regardless of performance.
Teacher Pay
There are several amendments to the budget that will be debated tomorrow on teacher pay. One amendment gives all teachers, nurses, librarians, and counselors an across-the-board pay raise of $1,000. Research clearly states that across-the-board pay raises do not lead to higher teacher quality. In fact, across-the-board pay raises give all teachers a pay raises regardless of their effectiveness in the classroom and actually encourage ineffective teachers to continue teaching. We urge Texas lawmakers to put the needs of students first and vote to keep incentive pay funding that has already led to higher academic gains in school districts.
Texas and the Federal Stimulus Funds
Last week, the Foundation was joined by several legislators in releasing our research that examined the national and statewide economic effect of the recently passed federal stimulus package. Our research demonstrated that the growth in government will crowd out private sector growth, resulting in more than 130,000 jobs lost in Texas and 1.7 million lost nationwide.
Unnecessary Regulations Preventing Access to Health Care
On Tuesday, the House Public Health Committee heard Rep. Wayne Christian’s House Bill 1107 that would allow licensed advanced practice registered nurses to diagnose patients and prescribe medications, within their education and training. The Foundation provided testimony on a viable solution to the lack of physicians in regions across the state, by allowing health care providers other than physicians to meet the basic health needs of residents in these regions, as done throughout the nation in other states. Repealing the restrictions on APN prescriptive authority will provide Texans with more affordable options.
Windstorm Insurance
It wasn’t that long ago during the mold crisis when homeowners were hard-pressed to find insurance coverage at any price. Reforms have greatly increased the availability of homeowners insurance and brought down prices, but the future of those reforms is at stake in legislation currently being considered by the Texas Legislature. The proposed sunset legislation on the Texas Department of Insurance – heard in the House Insurance Committee on Tuesday and awaiting floor action in the Senate – would further enhance those reforms, but attempts are being made to roll back the clock to the days of high prices and scarce availability. Legislators have a choice to make: let market competition fully unfold and flourish, or revert to heavy regulation and subsidies.
Statements from the White House, cabinet secretaries, congressional leadership, and mainstream media declare that man-made global warming is a planetary emergency Right Now! These most senior policymakers claim aggressive carbon mandates are necessary regardless of cost. With straight faces, United Nations officials, European Union technocrats, and President Obama’s climate czar, Carol Browner, chat about appropriate global governance structures to combat a near-term global catastrophe. The President’s Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, recently said earth’s climate system is reaching an irreversible tipping point unless drastic measures are taken.
What part of the U.S. population believes these dire pronouncements? Apparently, not that many Americans buy this apocalyptic scenario or support “economy transforming” controls on energy.
A March 2009 Gallup survey found the highest level of skepticism about man-made global warming in more than a decade. Of those polled, 41% thought the threat of global warming was exaggerated, compared to 28% who found the threat to be underestimated.
In two other national polls, voters ranked global warming the least important issue confronting the country. In a January 2009 Pew Research Center poll, global warming was ranked 20th of 20 issues. The economy, jobs, and terrorism were the top three issues for more than 80% surveyed. In the American Climate Values survey conducted by Eco-America in January 2008, only a small minority (18%) believes climate change is harmful and caused by mankind.
A May 2008 Wilson Research poll found a huge 91% of voters don’t want to pay for even the lowest cost estimates of carbon caps. And 71% responded that they are unwilling to pay more for electricity or gasoline to fight global warming.
So if you have not concluded that the planet is at the edge of a climatological precipice caused by human activity, you are not among a minority of deluded “climate deniers.” Even the sustained and elaborate global warming campaigns have not cracked the basic common sense of the majority of Americans who vote! Please awaken, sleeping giant.
Fed up with taxes unfairly levied from thousands of miles away, hundreds of colonists stormed British ships docked in the harbor and poured loads of tea overboard in an act of defiance that would echo for generations to come.
Fast forward 236 years and the same American spirit that refused to accept tyrannical governance and oppressive taxation is still alive and well. And much like before, people’s voices are growing louder – albeit in a somewhat more civil tone this time around.
People from all across the nation gathered today for the National Tea Party Day in an effort to our country’s leaders that federal, state, and local government tax and spend policies have veered off course and we won’t take it lying down.
In Texas, tens of thousands of citizens gathered in virtually every major city and dozens of local communities throughout the state.
If anything, this act of peaceful protest should serve as a wake-up call for those in public office – we are mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it anymore.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
However premature, the legal hardware for federally mandated carbon cuts is just about in place: the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, President Barack Obama’s budget, U.S. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s massive bill, and negotiations for a binding Kyoto Treaty II. The President, congressional leadership, and the United Nations propose the most expensive, ambitious, and enforceable carbon mandates to date.
Once regarded a barrier to immediate carbon cuts, the recession is now used to justify expanding federal control of energy and generating “climate revenue.” The Senate Majority Leader claims carbon tax revenues are necessary to pay for universal health care. Redistribution of energy income and central energy planning meet the light of day. Energy independence now means the end of oil.
Before decision makers take the final steps, and thus rupture the fossil fuel-based energy system on which modern prosperity hinges, how about some cogent answers to fundamental questions never answered by the climate alarmists?
In what sense is the science of man-made global warming “beyond dispute?” I thought no genuine science was beyond dispute; such is the domain of dogma. What is the relative certainty of this science? Is this science, as based on correlations and physical chemistry spun into complex models, solid enough to justify an “end to the era of fossil fuels”? Why not first refine the emerging empirical science from NASA satellites actually measuring the function of CO2 in the upper atmosphere? Initial data indicate minimal to no “temperature-forcing effects” from CO2. Observational measurement inherently trumps speculative models.
Climate alarmists declare that the scientific debate is settled beyond dispute. In fact, alarmists have prevented any policy debate about scientific integrity. Voters must question the quality of science driving our government’s decision. Before weak and exaggerated science transforms our country, have the courage to ask the questions.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
The Legislature is considering several measures that would benefit Texas crime victims. All of these measures incorporate the important principle that the victim is first and foremost harmed by property and violent crimes and should therefore be permitted to play a significant role in the resolution of the case.
First, HB 2139 by Representative Ruth McClendon would allow counties to set-up victim-offender mediation programs. The bill is similar to legislation last session that passed out of committee but did not reach the House floor. Eligibility is limited to low-level property offenses. The mediation must be chosen by the victim and the defendant and the case referred by the District Attorney. A written agreement is reached that typically requires restitution and community service.
Studies have shown mediation increases victim satisfaction and restitution collection rates while reducing recidivism. One study found 79 percent of victims who participated in mediations were satisfied, compared with 57 percent of victims who went through the traditional court system. A meta-analysis found that 72 percent of victim-offender mediation programs reduce recidivism.
Another positive bill for crime victims is HB 1228 by Rep. Jim Jackson. For the first time, Texas would confer rights on victims of property felonies. Currently, Texas’ victims rights statute defines victim as someone harmed by a violent crime. Other states provide rights to victims of property crimes. This legislation would extend victims the right, upon request, to be informed of relevant proceedings, attend those proceedings, and express a preference to the prosecutor on the type of punishment.
Finally, HB 167 by Rep. Elliott Naishtat, and its companion, SB 57 by Sen. Judith Zaffirini, would allow victims to give an oral impact statement before sentencing. This would give victims an opportunity to discuss the impact of the crime and have that taken into account by the court.
Lawmakers should seriously consider these bills that would empower and restore Texas crime victims.
A recent article about the current economic meltdown on Mises.org opened with the claim, “Far from being prosperous, our America is now being buffeted by the worst financial tsunami in generations.”
The folks at Mises don’t usually travel along with the mainstream media, but in this case they did. Sensational claims that things haven’t been this bad since the Great Depression are being commonly made. But this just isn’t the case. We only have to go back to the early 1980’s to find times that are much worse than today.
It was only in December that unemployment rose above 7%—the first time it reached this level in over 15 years. Back in 1980, unemployment crossed the 7% mark in May; however, it had been above 7% as recently as 1977—a respite of only three years.
And once over the 7% mark in 1980, unemployment didn’t stop rising until it registered 10.8% in November and December of 1982, and didn’t fall below 7% to stay for a while until November 1986. So during the recession on the early 1980s, unemployment stood above 7% for 76 of 78 months, or six and a half years.
Today, we’ve been over 7% for only three months. The unemployment rate in February was 8.1%.
Inflation was no better n the early eighties. It moved into double digits in March 1979, reached 14.76% in March 1980, and didn’t get back to single digits to stay until October 1981—32 months later. Contrast that to this year, with inflation in February at less than one percent, after averaging only 3.85% last year.
The misery index (unemployment plus inflation) in January 1980 was 20.21%. In September 1982 it still stood at 15.14%. In February it was 8.34%.
So while times are hard, they don’t yet compare to the pain of the early 1980s. And remember, the 1980’s didn’t start out bad on their own. The tough times were a result of the bad public policies of the 1970s.
So there is hope ahead. We can reject the big spending, big government ways that hurt so many people almost 30 years ago. By reducing government mandates that increase consumer costs, rejecting uncontrolled spending, and opposing high taxes, we can give the decade beginning in 2010 a fighting chance to start out better than the 1980’s.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Texans tired of paying high electricity prices may be tempted to blame big business. However, government intervention in the energy market is the main culprit. Some of these unnecessary interventions include unnecessary mandates that drive prices higher.
One example is the Natural Gas Energy Credits program that requires that 50% of all new electricity generating capacity in Texas is fueled by natural gas. This policy may have seemed advantageous a few years ago when natural gas prices were low, but the recent increase in prices shows the folly in government-picked fuel sources.
However, the folks in Washington must not have been paying attention. On March 20, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) approved a loan guarantee of $535 million in order to help with the startup costs for a solar panel fabrication facility. Solyndra – a company which produces photovoltaic cylindrical solar cells for commercial properties – was the first company to receive such a loan from the DOE.
Even though the government has often been proven wrong in picking technologies, it is still gambling taxpayer money in these risky schemes. In the 1980’s, the government started the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation to create alternative fuels with the goal of lowering prices. The venture tanked in six years, wasting a chunk of taxpayer money.
By funding a new facility for Solyndra, the government is not only choosing unproven technology but also the particular company to develop it. If this solar power technology turns out to be faulty, inefficient, or expensive, it will not be a viable alternative to other energy sources, and even more taxpayer money will be lost.
For Texans, this problem hits close to home. Numerous bills (including HB 4261, HB 4309, and SB 975) have been introduced in this legislative session, which allow state and local governments to guarantee loans for renewable energy startup expenses. Government hasn’t been able to successfully predict which energy sources will be both efficient and cost effective in the past. Why should we trust it now?
With these three new drilldown features, users can easily compare what an agency thinks it will spend versus what it actually does, so as to better gauge where an agency’s spending priorities lie.
These tools are invaluable as an educational resource, but they also have a practical purpose: opening up opportunities to save tax dollars.
The Comptroller’s prior transparency work has already proven that the technology can be leveraged to reap financial benefits. In fact, the $300,000 initial investment has now produced benefits totaling $8.7 million from such simple things as eliminating duplicative services, consolidating contracts, and canceling unused pagers.
With these new additions to the Where the Money Goes site, taxpayers can be all but certain that new opportunities exist to identify additional savings.
However, if the Comptroller’s efforts to make government more transparent are to come to full fruition, Texas local governments are going to have to step up to the plate to a greater degree.
A Legislative Update from the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Today brings several committee hearings that will influence decisions on both the House and Senate floors in the weeks to come on several major issues, including four we highlight here – teacher incentive pay, eminent domain, consumer-directed health care for state employees and the budget.
It’s worth a comment on the pace of the legislature. Monday was the halfway mark for the 140-day session. As of today, more than 7,000 bills have been filed. The Senate had passed 81 bills as of yesterday, while the House takes up its first bills today. Last session, a total of 6,190 bills were filed; by this point, the House had passed 328 bills and five constitutional amendments, while the Senate had approved 423 bills and three constitutional amendments.
While the media and some pundits decry the slower pace, the truth is that less is typically better – for taxpayers – because legislators attempting to “fix” problems typically do so by limiting freedom, redistributing hard-earned money and expanding government programs, or simply making it more difficult to earn an honest living. If Texas is to recover from the economic downturn, government needs to stay out of the way, rather than stepping in and making things worse.
We invite you to follow these efforts through these emails, and by visiting our website where you can visit our blog, request a speaker, and sign up to receive information about recently released publications and upcoming events via our e-newsletter, TPPN.
Yours in liberty,
Justin Keener
Vice President of Policy and Communications
The State’s Budget
On Monday, the Senate Finance Committee completed the mark-up of the budget (SB 1) by voting 13-1 in favor of incorporating the stimulus money into Article XII. With so many unanswered questions still surrounding the stimulus package and the details of how it can be spent still being written by the federal government, it is concerning that Sen. Jane Nelson stood alone in her "no" vote.
But there is still time for our lawmakers to carefully consider how the stimulus money will affect Texas’ long-term fiscal position. Hopefully, they’ll remember Sen. Nelson's admonition that “there is no such thing as a temporary entitlement.” A rush to judgment on how and where stimulus money should be spent before understanding its true nature should sound the alarm that more information is needed before the money is accepted. The question raised by this one “no” vote deserves an answer before we proceed.
Teacher Incentive Pay
The House Appropriations Committee will meet at 8 a.m. today to vote on appropriations for the Texas Education Agency (TEA) as well as many other agencies, which will be submitted to the entire House for consideration. Unfortunately, the House Education Appropriations Subcommittee adopted the base budget that included $343 million for incentive pay, but moved TEA’s request for an additional $342 million from Article 3 (Education) to Article 11 (the “wish list”). The Foundation supports incentive pay as part of a broader solution to promote free-market principles in teacher compensation that provide schools with maximum flexibility to reward excellence in teaching and that help fill teaching shortages in critical subject areas.
Private Property Rights
Eminent domain abuse is alive and well in Texas, and the House Land and Resource Management Committee meets at 8 a.m. today to hear several bills on eminent domain reform. Two of these bills are HB 4 and HJR 14. Limiting what is called a ‘public use’ – the purpose for which a person’s land can be taken using eminent domain – is at the heart of the solution, and HJR 14 does this well. And though HB 4 is currently silent on public use, its author says that a definition will soon be included. Our recent research How to Fix Texas’ Kelo Problem provides legislators with clear guidance and language on fixing this problem.
Consumer-driven Health Care for State Employees
At the House Pensions, Investments & Financial Services Committee hearing today, members will hear testimony on Rep. Myra Crownover’s voluntary consumer-directed health plan for state employees, HB 1176. The bill allows for the creation of a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) and Health Savings Account (HSA) option for all state employees eligible for coverage under the Texas Employees Group Benefits Act. The state currently pays for 100% of individual state employee premiums and half of the dependent’s premium. To control state spending and preserve a quality benefit for state employees, Texas should allow state employees an option between the current basic care plan and a consumer-driven plan. The creation of an optional HSA plan will create competition among the plans and provide state employees with more choices and a more affordable monthly option.
Tomorrow, the Texas State Board of Education has scheduled six hours for public testimony on the K-12 science curriculum.
Many individuals from all over Texas will testify on whether or not evolution should be taught in science classes in Texas public schools. Parents, engaged citizens, scientists, teachers and their associations, and others will continue to spend an enormous amount of time and energy battling this issue.
The battle between evolution and creationism has been waged for decades during curriculum rewrites, at school board meetings, and in science classrooms of government schools. Whatever the outcome of the SBOE’s vote, this controversy is not going away and will probably continue to cause social conflict for decades to come.
The same goes for sex education. Should government schools teach abstinence-only sexual education, or should the curriculum discuss birth control methods? Many individuals base their view on the best way to teach health in government schools on their moral values and religious beliefs.
And then there is the war over school prayer. Obviously, both sides feel very strongly about religious expression in government schools and have committed substantial resources in legal battles to protect their view.
What you won’t hear in any of these debates is that none would occur if parents had choice.
Unless a parent can afford to send their child to private school or home school their child, they are stuck with the school assigned by the government. But if tax dollars followed the student to the school of their choice, parents could pick a school with the curriculum they feel most comfortable.
The CATO Institute’s recent study Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict documents more than 150 incidents of social conflict in the 2005-06 school year. CATO author Neal McCluskey says to end the fighting, “we should transform our system from one in which government establishes and controls schools, to one in which individual parents are empowered to select schools that share their moral values and educational goals for their children.”
Choice is better for students, for parents, and for society as a whole. Everyone’s time is much better spent helping students learn than waging this trench warfare.
The Texas House of Representatives recognized the accomplishments of the Texas Public Policy Foundation on the occasion of its 20th anniversary with its passage of HR 943 this morning.
The resolution by Rep. Brian McCall states, among other things, that, "the Foundation has played an integral role in the Texas legislative process by providing principled and independent research and recommendations, and educating elected leaders without regard to their political affiliation or philosophical viewpoint."
It also notes that "implementation of the Foundation’s research recommendations has contributed to the great state of Texas’ economic successes, as this great state now leads or ranks near the top in the nation in the number of Fortune 500 companies, overall job creation, state financial condition, and proudly ranks almost last in per capita General Revenue tax burden."
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Justin Keener appeared on this morning's edition of "Good Day Austin" (FOX 7) to provide an update on the 81st Texas Legislature. To watch the interview, please click on the clip below.
Rep. Bill Callegari has a solution to control the increasing number of Texas workers that must obtain a license from the government do their job. Texas regulates 514 types of occupations – even sports referees – representing the jobs held by nearly 2.7 million Texans, or nearly one-third of the state workforce. That is more than the 28 percent of workers nationally that are subject to regulation. Moreover, it is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail to violate any occupational rule.
Callegari's HB 1543 builds on the Government Reform Committee's interim study. First, the Sunset Advisory Commission would be instructed, as part of its process of reviewing state agencies, to examine whether the licensing of an occupation by that agency remains necessary. Among the factors that the legislation instructs the commission to consider is whether the goals of regulating occupations currently under its purview could be achieved through market forces or private certification programs.
Second, the sunrise portion of the legislation would allow a person to request that the commission study the necessity to license a new occupation when legislation is introduced. Any individual could submit the proposed legislation to the commission for a review, which would be completed by the next legislative session. Washington, Minnesota, and Maine have stronger sunrise provisions that actually require new licensing proposals to be submitted for review.
HB 1543 would chip away at licensing excesses. A University of Minnesota study of occupational licensing found that "occupational licensing reduces employment growth in states that are licensed relative to those that are not regulated." For example, states that have licensed dietitians and nutritionists, respiratory therapists, and librarians experienced 20 percent lower employment growth in these fields. UT-Austin Economics Professor Dan Hammermesh estimated that the "deadweight loss" to society from occupational licensing is between $34.8 billion and $41.7 billion per year.
With Rep. Callegari's legislation, Texas lawmakers can remove some of this dead weight – or at least prevent it from continuing to grow.
Fourteen pieces of legislation have been filed this session that would restrict, inhibit, or even collapse segments of the short-term credit market. No doubt these bills are motivated by genuine concerns for consumer protection. However, it may be prudent to look at some of the unintended consequences that could occur from banning small, short-term lending practices.
Many people, regardless of their income level, find themselves in need of short-term cash liquidity. For people with limited incomes or credit, there is often little recourse at traditional banks or credit unions. People with humble means of collateral often find it beneficial to enter into a smaller, short-term loan collateralized by a personal, post-dated check; or a motor vehicle title loan collateralized by a personal vehicle.
Legislation that restricts consumer choice in the short-term lending market will ultimately do more harm than good. According to a study conducted by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Chapter 7 bankruptcies and bounced check rates went up after state legislatures in Georgia and North Carolina passed legislation that limited consumer options in the short-term lending market.
The reality is that the demand for short-term loans won't stop just because certain short-term lenders are put out of business. By shrinking this market, policymakers run the risk of driving borrowers into risky or illegal arrangements with underground lenders or loan sharks. The unintended consequences that have resulted in other states from restricting lending options can help us understand what is best for Texas consumers.
Texas does not need 7,144 new laws. Our legislators know that it is logistically impossible to read – let alone properly consider – 7,144 new laws in 140 days. But that reality didn’t stop them from proposing 7,144 new laws before last Friday’s bill filing deadline, a total 21% higher than last session’s record. Most Texans would consider that excessive; now they have at least one senator who is willing to publicly agree.
“The idea of thousands of bills being filed is ridiculous,” Sen. Kevin Eltife told the Austin American-Statesman. “I’m here to block bad legislation,” pass a budget, “and get out of Dodge.”
Toward the end of my college years, I attended a symposium sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute on the topic “Freedom and the Law.” Much of the discussion involved the overgrowth of statutory law at all levels of government.
Eltife suggested to the Statesman one of the remedies we discussed that weekend – limiting the number of bills a legislator is allowed to file each session. If you allocated 10 bills to each House member and 25 to each senator (give them more since they represent much larger constituencies), you’d be looking at a maximum of 1500 bills in the House and 775 in the Senate – 70% fewer bills than today.
Legislators would have to set priorities and apply greater attention to detail – after all, who wants to see one of their scarce bill numbers wasted on a ridiculous idea or get sniped on a routine paperwork error. Members would also have an incentive to collaborate more – instead of 50 bills to expand the same program or 120 bills to create local water districts, those members would have good reason to work together on a single bill.
More importantly, the public gains because winnowing the volume of legislation would allow greater attention and scrutiny to the remaining bills, and because a more limited government would be less likely to interfere in their livelihoods and personal dealings.
Another idea we discussed – harder to implement but I think I like better – is to require that any law that adds new statutory language must also repeal an equal or greater amount. You want to pass a law that adds 20 pages to the Government Code? Find at least 20 pages from it to cut.
Texas statutory law – and the legislative process that continually expands it – has become unwieldy, contradictory, and impenetrable to the average citizen. Texas needs to put the shears to both.
TexasBudgetSource.com has just completed its quarterly update to bring you the most up-to-date data on Texas government transparency. While all the data has yet to be crunched, I am happy to report that since the project began last spring, TexasBudgetSource.com has seen a growing number of Texas counties add check registers to their financial web pages. Thanks to the visionary leadership of Judge Keith Self, Collin County became the first county in America to post its register, as part of a comprehensive Financial Transparency Project. The two latest counties to post their check registers online are Coryell and Guadalupe counties in Central Texas. We congratulate them and taxpayers should appreciate their willingness to embrace financial transparency and accountability. Click here to see the full list of Texas county check registers on TexasBudgetSource.com.
As newspapers nationwide commemorate “Sunshine Week,” we want to highlight the need for more government transparency in your neighborhood school’s spending. Making state and local government spending information more readily available to taxpayers has long been a goal of the Foundation.
Rep. Mark Strama has filed HB 1314, which requires Texas public school districts and charter school districts to post detailed quarterly financial statements prominently on their websites. HB 1314 has been referred to the House Public Education Committee.
This and similar legislation will improve public awareness of the cost of education by providing taxpayers access to a wealth of information without having to file an open records request. This bill also encourages more informed public debate at school board meetings and PTA meetings, and has the potential to increase efficiencies and reduce the cost of public education.
The cost per Texas student has almost doubled over the last 11 years – growing from $5,282 per student in 1995-96 to $10,162 in 2006-07 – with little to show for it in student achievement gains and high dropout rates in many urban schools. As property taxes – the primary form of financing public schools – continue to increase and burden Texas homeowners, taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent by their local schools.
Information and technology continues to revolutionize the way we live, think, access information, and govern. These changes enable greater access and visibility of financial information to taxpayers.
Moving forward, taxpayers deserve to see school districts post online their check registers and the details of all contracts for goods and services, including the winning and losing bids. It is vital that taxpayers have the ability to see where their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent, and we hope HB 1314 and other state and local government transparency bills will become law.
A Legislative Update from the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Last Friday was the bill filing deadline for the regular session of the 81st Texas Legislature. According to the TELICON legislative tracking service, more than 7,100 bills were filed before the deadline, a 21% increase over last session’s all-time record. While those numbers would indicate that some of our legislators see a need for more intrusive and expansive government, the Texas Public Policy Foundation continues to raise the standard for a limited government, in our state’s grand tradition.
The Foundation is actively engaged in two of this session’s highest-profile debates: whether to accept the federal stimulus funds for unemployment insurance (and the attached strings), and whether to allow metropolitan regions to impose massive local transportation taxes. While these may seem esoteric on first read, they go to the core of our state’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and a vibrant private sector. But we are also involved on other important topics, ranging from educational quality and competition to consumer issues, energy policy, criminal justice, and health care.
We invite you to follow these efforts through these emails, and by visiting our website where you can visit our blog, request a speaker, and sign up to receive information about recently released publications and upcoming events via our e-newsletter, TPPN.
Yours in liberty,
Justin Keener
Vice President of Policy and Communications
Rejecting the Stimulus
Following Governor Perry’s fiscally responsible rejection of federal unemployment insurance stimulus funds, the House Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding held a public hearing in Arlington, where a handful of legislators told a crowd of taxpayers that Texas should disregard the governor’s rejection and lower its unemployment eligibility standards in order to receive the money. However, what taxpayers should know is that the $555 million being offered to Texas doesn’t come close to the actual price tag. According to estimates from the Texas Workforce Commission, it will cost Texas employers and the state a minimum of $750 million over a ten year period. It’s no wonder the state’s two largest business associations support rejection of federal stimulus funding. Alternatives are available to the state that would not cede control of our unemployment eligibility standards to Washington, D.C.
Tax Increases
The Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee will hear at least two bills, SB 855 and SB 942, that would create a mechanism whereby local taxes and fees could be raised significantly by DFW and San Antonio communities in order to pay for transportation projects. Potential tax increases include up to a $250 new resident fee, up to a 10 cent per gallon tax increase, a $60 mobility fee, and more. We recently participated in a phone call with the author of SB 855, at his request, in which he shared his intent in carrying the legislation, and allowed the Foundation to respond with our concerns as outlined in this letter. Here is a link to our commentary published in the Dallas Morning News about this proposal.
Educational Accountability
The Senate and House education committees conducted hearings on Tuesday on the education accountability changes in SB 3/HB 3. This legislation seeks to completely revamp the public school accountability rating system, set postsecondary readiness as the goal, and include a measurement for student educational growth. However, the bill has several items that we believe need to be addressed in order to accomplish these goals, as outlined in our testimony.
Reforming Insurance Regulation
Bill Peacock, Director of the Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom, testified on SB 1001 before the Senate Government Organization Committee this week. This bill would continue the Office of Public Insurance Counsel for another 12 years. OPIC is supposed to represent consumers in matters before the Texas Department of Insurance, but the Foundation has recommended its abolition. Our belief is that consumers don’t need a “representative” in the regulatory process. Instead, what we need to do is to change the regulatory process so that it is consumer friendly so that consumers can represent themselves—by switching to another insurance provider if they don’t like the prices or products.
Climate Change Bills
This session has multiple bills to address greenhouse gases (GHG). TPPF believes these bills—regulatory and non-regulatory—are premature, unnecessary, and harmful to Texas. The Senate Natural Resources Committee held a hearing this week on SB 184 and SB 608. These bills would create misguided Texas GHG-reduction programs. SB 608 would create a new entity to transition Texas business to a “carbon constrained” world—an inappropriate role for state government (see TPPF Commentary: Carbon Audacity). The U.S. Congress and Texas should support further refinement of this empirical global warming science before enacting GHG laws.
Health Care Mandates
This session, several new mandate bills have been filed to cover things like depression (HB 868), eating disorders (HB 2967 and HB 1418), and mandatory HIV/AIDS testing during regular checkups (SB 877 and HB 1379) that will continue to make Texas health insurance more expensive. What happened to the original Texas Consumer Choice Benefits Bill passed in 2003? The 78th Texas Legislature recognized the need for health plans that were more affordable and flexible than what the market offered at that time. The Texas Consumer Choice Plan allowed health insurance providers to offer customers plans that did not offer or provide state-mandated health benefits. Over the past few sessions, the Consumer Choice plan has been forced to add back on many of the mandates, making the plan a less viable option for many people. The legislature should instead remember the original goal of the Consumer Choice Bill and allow insurance companies to develop new and innovative products tailored to the individual and designed as valuable investments. This will encourage healthy competition among insurers that will inevitability drive prices down and will allow more Texans to gain access to affordable coverage.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Tired of big government assuring you it can save the day by increasing taxes and wasting your hard-earned money? So are John Stossel and Drew Carey.
Tonight, ABC’s "20/20" will feature a special by Stossel produced in partnership with Drew Carey and Reason.tv to document the overreach of government. The special, entitled "Bailouts, Big Spending and Bull," will cover issues such as government bailouts, property rights, transportation, and universal pre-k.
The show airs tonight at 9 p.m. Central time on your local ABC affiliate.
Have you noticed that fossil fuels are getting short shrift in the Obama Administration’s policies? Energy independence remains a frequent refrain, but apparently only through renewable sources. Good luck!
If we were to double solar energy next year, 0.2% of electric generation would come from solar sources. By the general election campaign – with swelling outcry for “Drill Here, Drill Now” – then-candidate Barack Obama advocated energy diversity, or “all of the above.” And diversity certainly included expanded development of domestic fossil fuel resources.
But since inauguration day, the Obama Administration has taken numerous steps to halt or retard development of oil or coal, while heaping financial incentives on renewable energy.
The Department of Interior recently blocked plans for off-shore oil and gas development made possible by expiration of a 30-year congressional moratorium. Instead of oil development, DOI will accelerate plans for off-shore wind. The stimulus bill threw billions on renewable energy. And now, the President’s budget would eliminate $3.5 billion in tax deductions and impose new taxes for off-shore oil and gas development.
The most revealing proposal in the budget was for the 100% auction of carbon allowances, the most expensive method of CO2 reduction. This policy recalls a recorded interview about” bankrupting” coal power. Then-candidate Obama said he would not ban coal-fired electricity outright, but the cost of carbon allowances would “bankrupt” coal, now the cheapest means of generation.
With only renewable energy and punitive sanctions on fossil fuels, energy independence (an economically naive goal to start with) is impossible – as is an adequate, reliable, and affordable energy supply.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Nearly $17 billion is headed for Texas courtesy of the federal government and making sure that that money isn’t wasted won’t be easy, but thanks to the Comptroller’s newest site, Tracking the Texas Stimulus, taxpayers will at least have another tool in their arsenal.
Launched late last week, the website lists “the provisions of the federal stimulus bill, estimates of federal spending and the amounts Texas might expect to see” although it should be mentioned that the figures are subject to change pending guidance from Washington on how and where the funds should apply.
And yesterday, Rep. Jim Dunnam, chair of the House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding, launched http://www.txstimulusfund.com, a website that compiles the documents obtained through his committee’s research.
Whatever dollar amount finally reaches Texas, transparency and accountability are going to be critical in the months and years ahead to ensure this money is spent properly. These two new websites are a good step in that direction.
Conservative legislators are being reminded about a pledge many of them took not to raise taxes. Americans for Tax Reform today came out strongly against Senate Bill 855 by Sen. John Carona and House Bill 9 by Rep. Vicki Truitt – legislation that would create the potential for a massive web of tax and fee increases to fund a regional rail network in the DFW Metroplex. Supporters of the measure argue that since the tax increase would go before the voters, it is therefore worthy of passage. Not so, says ATR president Grover Norquist:
“Tax and spenders try to claim that putting a tax increase on the ballot is giving people a choice. This is patently false. Putting both a tax cut and tax increase on the ballot, now that is a real choice. HB 9 and SB 855 simply attempt to shove a sizable tax hike down voters’ throats.”
In addition to ATR’s words of caution, we continue to urge legislators not to abandon the fiscal discipline that has allowed Texas to weather the national economic crisis better than others. The Wall Street Journal today published an editorial on the effects of governance on our national economy. Our state legislators would do well to remember this advice:
“…The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.”
On this Texas Independence Day, the Texas Public Policy Foundation introduces its new legislative update, The Voice of Liberty. Its purpose is to provide an inside look at some of the
daily struggles at the State Capitol to preserve and protect the ideals that have made Texas so great: individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, private property rights, and limited government.
The biggest battles this legislative session will focus on the economy. The federal government is continuing its pattern of borrowing from future generations so that it can spend today, adding $787 billion in "stimulus" spending to an existing record budget deficit of almost $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of our GDP. Will the Texas Legislature follow suit, or will it continue to exercise the fiscal restraint that has made Texas our nation's economic engine?
As of now, the answer is unclear. While some of our state officials call for holding steady, there is a growing chorus that Texas should abandon such discipline and significantly raise taxes – something even the U.S. Congress and the new federal administration haven't done, yet.
While the economy and our state budget steal the headlines, other topics are just as important. We are working to address the growing dropout crisis in our public schools, end eminent domain abuse, demand better results from our corrections system, improve our transportation system, and preserve and promote a greater free market in the delivery of health care, electricity, and homeowners insurance.
You are encouraged to follow these efforts through these emails, and by visiting our website where you can visit our blog, request a speaker, and sign up to receive information about recently released publications and upcoming events via our e-newsletter, TPPN.
Yours in liberty,
Justin Keener
Vice President of Policy and Communications
Tracking the stimulus
Comptroller Susan Combs has launched "Tracking the Texas Stimulus," a new web page that will provide current information on Texas' portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. To see the Comptroller's interpretation of the impact it will have on Texas, go to www.window.state.tx.us and click on "Texas Stimulus." You can also sign up for email alerts to receive new information as it is developed.
Appropriating the stimulusFiscal prudence obligates Texas to not spend federal stimulus money for anything but one-time expenditures that create no future financial burden. All eyes will be on the first hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Federal Stimulus, chaired by Rep. Myra Crownover, where Texans will begin to see what path legislators choose. This hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday in the Texas Capitol Extension, Room E1.030.
Raising your taxes
No state has ever taxed itself to prosperity, and our research shows that low-taxing states (as Texas currently is) attract jobs away from states that raise their taxes. SB 217 by Sen. John Carona would increase gas taxes not just once, but potentially increase them every year by linking the tax rate to inflation. SB 855 by Carona and HB 9 by Rep. Vicki Truitt create a mechanism where anyone living in or moving into the D/FW Metroplex could be required to pay upwards of $500 or more in taxes and fees for transportation – just in one year.
Helping schools help students
Last week, the Senate Education Committee heard two bills that give public school districts more local control and flexibility. SB 300 by Sen. Dan Patrick removes unnecessary mandates and gives school officials more flexibility in meeting the mandated 22:1 class size ratios. SB 398 by Sen. Kel Seliger gives school districts without a salary schedule more flexibility in implementing state teacher pay raises. See this paper for information to understand the pitfalls of using a teacher salary schedule.
Improving juvenile corrections
The House Corrections Committee will hold a hearing at 8:00 a.m. Thursday in Capitol Room E2.010 to hear testimony on the Sunset Commission's report on the Texas Youth Commission. Several of the proposals recommended in our submission to the Commission were incorporated into the Commission’s decisions. Among them is a community justice pilot program that will allow counties to choose to keep youths that would otherwise be sent to TYC in the community. As referenced in our research, a similar initiative in Ohio resulted in lower recidivism and significant cost savings. The Commission's decisions are currently being drafted into the sunset bill.
Protecting private property
In its 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that governments can take private property for nearly any stated purpose. While many bills have been filed in the Texas Legislature to correct this injustice, only a few would fully protect private property rights by defining public use, ending broad "blight" designations, and/or ending government real estate speculation through takings. These are: HB 37 by Rep. Frank Corte, HB 402 by Rep. Beverly Woolley, HB 417 by Rep. Bill Callegari, HB 1389 by Rep. Yvonne Davis, HB 1432 by Rep. Jim Jackson, HB 1483 by Rep. Jim Pitts, and SB 18 by Sen. Craig Estes.
Taxing Texas energy
The "climate revenues" section of the Obama Administration's budget proposal poses a grave risk to Texas. The proposed 100% auction of carbon allowances is effectively a $300 billion tax on carbon, which would be America's largest tax increase since World War II. Because Texas fuels the nation, such a measure would dramatically increase energy prices and manufacturing costs, hurting all Texans and driving jobs out of our state.
Why we’re here
If you don't already do so each Texas Independence Day, I encourage you to read Lt. Col. Travis' letter from the Alamo where he made an impassioned call for help while under siege. The ultimate sacrifice made by Travis and other brave defenders gave birth to a battle cry and resolute spirit that lives today.
Commandancy of the Alamo
Bexar, Fby. 24th, 1836
To the People of Texas & all Americans in the world Fellow Citizens & Compatriots
I am besieged by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man. The enemy
has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise the garrison are to be put to the sword if the fort is taken. I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the walls. I shall never surrender nor retreat.
Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, & of everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five
days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country.
Victory or Death
William Barret Travis
Lt. Col. Comdt.
P. S. The Lord is on our side. When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn. We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels & got into the walls 20
or 30 head of Beeves.
Travis
I went to the Capitol last Thursday to testify at one of the House Appropriations subcommittees. I was there to testify on some budget recommendations we had made for a state agency. The subcommittee met all day long, from 8 a.m. until after 6 p.m., with a short break while the House of Representatives was in session. It took testimony from state officials and employees throughout the day on different agencies and their budgets.
However, the public wasn't allowed to testify at the time when an agency was examined by the committee. Instead, the public was allowed to testify only at the end of the day after all of the "official" testimony was completed on all agencies. It didn’t matter if a citizen wanted to testify on the Racing Commission that was examined at 8 a.m.; she had to wait until the end.
No wonder that when the end finally came at 6:17 p.m., there was only one member of the public who stayed to testify. This is open government at work.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
There is no denying that our health care system – both in Texas and the nation as a whole – is in need of substantial reform. But expanding the SCHIP program is a big step toward universal health care – the wrong direction.
When President Obama reauthorized the SCHIP program, he allowed for states to expand their eligibility requirements from 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level to up to 300 percent. Expanding any government health care program increases the financial obligations of the state of Texas, not to mention the federal government’s control over your health care.
Extending CHIP benefits to families that make up to $66,000 per year would morph the program away from its original purpose – providing health insurance to children of the working poor – into an expensive entitlement for the middle class. Later this spring, our legislature will consider bills that would implement that expansion in Texas. Such an action would be a costly mistake.
Texas’ Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins testified recently that expanding CHIP eligibility will require an additional $127.6 million in state funds over the next biennium. Not only will costs rise for this program but so will the caseloads. Rather than expanding eligibility, the legislature should focus on enrolling children who are already eligible. This year, more than 170,000 children projected to be eligible are not covered.
Texas legislators should hold true to their values and convictions. Instead of putting more Texans onto taxpayer-funded programs like CHIP, they should instead look for other ways to provide access to health care. Increasing competition to provide more accessible choices to Texans is a better option than expanding a governmental program. Our legislature needs to be mindful of our state’s long-term budget picture and their principles of limited government when this issue comes to a vote in the coming months.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
In the many debates about whether the federal stimulus bill will, indeed, stimulate the economy or merely increase government spending, there is agreement on one issue. To offer any stimulative effect to the increasing economic malaise, the spending needs to be swift and economically strategic.
Consider to whom this task of rapidly spending almost a trillion dollars of taxpayers' money goes: massive, chronically inefficient, and slow-moving federal bureaucracies. The scale of the purely administrative task is unprecedented. The entire plan hinges on unwieldy bureaucracies turning on a dime to approve contracts and grants.
Consider the scale of the challenge for only one agency: Department of Energy (DOE). This agency's total annual budget is now $25 billion. The portion of the stimulus bill going to DOE is $40 billion. Among federal agencies, DOE is known for exceptional delays and cost overruns. The Government Accounting Office has DOE on its "high risk" list for waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Most of DOE's current budget goes to oversight of the nation’s nuclear stockpile and research. Now it is to be a shrewd money manager.
The new Secretary of the Department, Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu, recognizes the stakes of DOE’s new challenge. He was recently quoted as saying its new role necessitates a radical transformation of the agency. "We've got to do it. Otherwise it's just going to be a bust," he recently commented. Not comforting!
Hell, in fact, will freeze over before huge government bureaucracies act quickly, decisively, and prudently as wise investors of taxpayers' money. Giving these bureaucracies billions with the directive to spend fast is a recipe for waste at best and fraud at worst, whereas tax reduction is immediately stimulative and requires no "assistance" from bureaucracies.
Love it or hate it, Washington’s $787 billion plan (and I use that word loosely) to save the economy is here to stay.
Today, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law, ratcheting up the 2009 federal deficit to a total of $1.6 trillion and guaranteeing the largest expansion of government in a generation.
With gobs of money gushing from Capitol Hill, one might ask just how much can Texas state government expect? About $15.8 billion, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
But here’s the rub: If Texas decides to accept every bit of money that Washington is offering, the state stands to lose a good deal of its autonomy.
Federal funds almost always come with strings attached. One of those strings is often the requirement that the state match a portion of the federal funds its receiving meaning Texas government would have to spend more to get more.
More importantly, when the federal stimulus funds run dry, Texas government will have to replace those lost dollars with money from its own coffers – meaning either higher taxes in the future or a cut in existing government programs.
The responsible thing for Texas to do – since Gov. Rick Perry has officially put an outright boycott of any federal funds out of the question – is for the state to only accept federal money to pay for one-time expenditures. At least in that way, Washington’s “free money” won’t end up costing Texas too much in the long-run.
"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary on today's most important issues featuring Justin Keener, the Foundation's Vice President of Policy and Communications. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:18 a.m., 8:15 a.m., 10:20 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 5:15 p.m.
Last week, the Austin American-Statesman commented on a report done by the Cities Aggregation Power Project (CAPP). “A History of Electric Deregulation in Texas” provides selective data to support the claim that deregulation has hurt consumers rather than helped them.
For example, the CAPP report states that the average residential price of electricity increased from 7.55 cents in 1999 to 12.41 cents in 2007. However, the Texas retail electricity market did not begin the transition into deregulation until 2002, and full deregulation only took place as of January 1, 2007. So the data provided by the CAPP report is mostly from a period of time where deregulation had not yet begun or had not taken full effect. Additionally, this is 2009, not 2007. The report relies on data more than a year old and totally ignores more recent changes in prices.
Although electricity deregulation has not contributed to an increase in prices, it has contributed to an increase in consumer choice. In January of 2002, there were about “17 rate plans offered by four retail electric providers.” By January of 2007, consumers could chose between about 100 rate plans and 28 providers. This competitive Texas electricity market has not only given consumers more choices, but it has also released them from a monopoly-dominated market with only five electric providers.
Yes, Texas electricity prices are high, but prices are high everywhere. Texas is among the five largest states in America; we rank in the middle of that group in average residential retail electricity prices. Overall, deregulation has helped Texas electricity consumers by opening the market up to competition, boosting consumer choice, and at least holding the line on prices.
