Constitutional Amendments

Early voting on 10 amendments to the Texas Constitution starts today. Among the amendments is Proposition 4, which creates a constitutional ban on an income tax in Texas. There are a number of things wrong with this amendment.
First, Texas has a provision in Article VIII, Taxation and Revenue, that requires a vote of the people to approve any creation of a tax on the income of "natural persons." It also specifies that the proceeds from an income tax will be dedicated to reducing the local property tax for education (two-thirds of the proceeds) and to support education (one-third of the proceeds). This has been a part of the Texas Constitution since 1993. Although it does not prohibit an income tax, it specifies that the people of Texas will decide whether an income tax, if enacted by the legislature, is needed.

Second, and more importantly, the wording of the amendment is troublesome. It bans an income tax on income of "individuals." Amendments to the bill were offered during its debate on the House floor to substitute "natural persons" for "individuals," but they were rejected. Why would the author, Representative Leach, not accept the amendments? Mike Collier, Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 2018, offers an answer, with which I whole-heartedly agree. Think about the motives of Representative Leach. Have Republicans not railed against the franchise tax? Have they not tried to eliminate it?

Mike Collier's video:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more