corecard - empower texans · 2015-05-01 · a news magazine for all texans corecard powered by...

A NEWS MAGAZINE FOR ALL TEXANS

CORECARDPowered by

Empower Texans

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWS DIGEST AT www.EmpowerTexans.com

Vol. 1 - Issue 17

AROUNDT E X A S

INSIDE PG 5 PG 5 PG 4Eminent Domain: Opposition in Colleyville McRaven Aids in UT Coverup House and Senate Budget Conference Committee Members Appointed

The latest news content is available at TexasScorecard.com

www.TexasScorecard.com

SEE TAX RELIEF — PAGE 2SEE ETHICS — PAGE 3

BY CARY CHESHIRE EMPOWERTEXANS.COM

BY OWEN STROUD EMPOWERTEXANS.COM

IN T

HE L

EAD

THIS

WEE

K IT HAPPENED IN WISCONSIN, IT CAN HAPPEN HERE TOO. — PAGE 3

The Texas Senate has passed a major ethics overhaul bill, SB 19. Spearheaded by State Sen. Van

Taylor (R-Plano), the initiative carries the endorsement of Gov. Greg Abbott, who labeled ethics reform as one of his emergency issues. The legislation would expand transparency and disclosure requirements for state ethics reports by requiring elected officials and state officers to disclose contracts for goods or services with governmental entities.

State officials’ personal financial disclosure forms would be made available online on the Texas Ethics Commission website (though many already make theirs available on the Texas Tribune). Also, current lawmakers would be prohibited from becoming lobbyists for two years

after they leave office and detail about their retirement income would have to be publicly disclosed—ending the often mentioned “revolving door” in which state officials leave the legislature only to return as lobbyists.

Additionally, state officials and legislators who are convicted of felonies while in office would be forced to resign, and lobbyists would no longer be allowed to split expenses for entertaining state officials to skirt disclosure rules.

“To have the honor of serving today, not only did our constituents give us their vote, they entrusted us to represent them above all else,” stated Taylor. “That’s why this bill is needed. It is an affirmation to the people that our efforts to represent them rise above even the appearance of impropriety or self-service, and that after the dust settles from important policy

Tax relief moved easily through the Texas House on Tuesday, a full month after the Senate passed

their package. Both the House and the Senate are working to implement tax relief, but the two chambers currently differ over the proper method.

The Senate’s $4.6 billion package focused on property tax relief, while the House plan provides for $4.9 billion in relief emphasizing a sales tax cut. Both plans addressed cuts to the state business tax.

House Bill 31 and HB 32, authored by Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R-Angleton), passed overwhelmingly — 141-0 and 116-29, respectively.

HB 31 lowers Texas’ statewide sales tax rate from 6.25% to 5.95%. If enacted, it will be the first measure to have ever decreased the sales tax.

Meanwhile, HB 32 decreases the statewide franchise tax rate by 25 percent, saving certain businesses $2.6 billion over the 2016-17 biennium.

Ethics Overhaul Passes Texas Senate

House Passes Tax Relief Measures

DEADLINE TO REPORT BILLS FROM HOUSE COMMITTEES

TO THE BODY IS MAY 11; SO, WHERE ARE WE ON

SUBSTANTIVE, CONSERVATIVE REFORMS?

FROM THE LEFT:

“There are 35 days left in the session. At this point, every hour is a victory.”

- DANIEL WILLIAMS, EQUALITY TEXAS

FROM THE RIGHT:

“ I need to be frank: This is one of the most difficult legislative sessions we have ever faced. With only 35 more days to go, I need you to know that there has not been a SINGLE Pro-Life bill that has been passed!”

- JIM GRAHAM, TEXAS RIGHT TO LIFE

choose whom we want to govern us…and that people have a say in the process as long as they are willing to participate.”

The fact that he was not of legal voting age didn’t stop him – he began keeping up with current events, attending local Republican Party meetings, and volunteering for campaigns.

Chamales’ campaign experience began when he volunteered for a family friend – current State Sen. Charles Perry (R – Lubbock), who was running for State Rep. in the 2014 Republican Primary at the time. Perry was successful in the primary, however, the resignation of former State Sen. Robert Duncan led to him running for the vacated Senate seat. Chamales’ campaign responsibilities included dispersing yard signs, block walking, and making calls at phone banks.

Following Perry’s successful bid, Chamales moved to other campaigns, such as Rep. Dustin Burrows (R – Lubbock), Comptroller Glenn Hegar, Land Commissioner George P. Bush, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and Gov. Greg Abbott.

In addition to volunteering, Chamales also spends his time reaching out to young people and adults alike through social media—and with impressive reach. For example, his Instagram page, filled with quotes from conservative leaders such as Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan, already has over 2,000 followers. And unlike millions on Hilary’s Twitter account, his followers are real.

Through his involvement both on and offline, Chamales aspires to, “see the great state of Texas, and even America as a whole, be a city on a hill for liberty and prosperity…to help revive fiscal conservatism and laissez-faire capitalism, our Judeo-Christian values, and American exceptionalism.” Even at a young age, he refuses to be a bystander and take for granted what millions have sacrificed their lives for Americans to have in government– a voice.

Outside of civic engagement, Chamales enjoys writing poetry, hunting big game, reading, running, and photography.

First Amendment Tuesdays

Join us during the 84th Session!

The ins-and-outs of the legislative processHow to effectively communicate with elected officialsHow to testify in a committee hearingWhat bills are (and are not) up for consideration

What can you learn?

Get equipped to participate in the legislative process!

La Quinta-Capitol, Conference Room300 East 11th St, Austin, TX 78701

9 AM - 10 AM

CORECARD WWW.TEXASSCORECARD.COM2

BY LAUREN LAWSON EMPOWERTEXANS.COM

PROFILES IN CITIZEN LEADERSHIP

ALEXANDER CHAMALESSTARTING THE FIGHT EARLY

Although only seventeen years old, Alexander Chamales, a sophomore in Lubbock, TX, has a

passion for politics rarely seen at any age. Since the 2012 presidential election that originally sparked his passion, he has volunteered for seven separate campaigns, is interning for Gov. Greg Abbott, has received the Empower Texans’ Conservative Leader Award, attended the Governor’s Inaugural Dinner, is a member of the NRA, and has shaken hands (and taken a selfie) with the likes of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Commissioner George P. Bush, and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

Following the 2012 presidential race, Chamales’ interest in the political process grew. He said he began to realize “how precious our right as Americans is to

the teamPresident & CEO

Michael Quinn Sullivan

Managing EditorMorgan Williamson

Capitol CorrespondentCary Cheshire

Field CorrespondentGregory Harrison

Metroplex BureauRoss Kecseg

Houston BureauCharles Blain

West Texas BureauLauren Lawson

Budget and Policy Correspondent

Owen Stroud

General CounselTony McDonald

CORECARDPO Box 200248,

Austin, TX 78720 or [email protected]

Texas Scorecard is a general interest news magazine produced by Empower Texans. Unless otherwise noted, the content is the property of Empower Texans and may not be reprinted without permission. Content from Texas Scorecard is available to the public online at TexasScorecard.com.

Entire contents © 2015 Empower Texans. All rights reserved.

TAX RELIEFfrom PAGE 1

Rep. John Smithee (R-Amarillo) offered an amendment that would have increased certain businesses’ franchise tax exemption from $1 million to $4 million. However, the House tabled the amendment 120-16. Speaker of the House Joe Straus (R-San Antonio), who usually abstains from voting, cast a very rare vote against Smithee’s amendment.

CORECARDVOL. 1 - ISSUE 17 - WWW.TEXASSCORECARD.COM 3

BY MICHAEL QUINN SULLIVAN EMPOWERTEXANS.COM


THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECHETHICSfrom PAGE 1

debates they have the confidence to know, in no uncertain terms, that we work for them no matter our party or position.”

Introduced as rather strong legislation, the bill was substantially watered down and weakened in the Senate State Affairs Committee. However, it was then significantly re-fortified on the floor with a number of pro-transparency amendments being offered.

Amendment 9 by State Sen. Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville), requiring drug testing of all candidates for public office, was adopted 22-9. If signed by Gov. Abbott, officials from school board to State Senate would be required to take a drug test at the date of filing. The results would then be made available online with the Texas Ethics Commission.

Also accepted were two more by State Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin) that addressed the linkage between the legislative per diem and the amount that lobbyists can spend wining and dining lawmakers without disclosure, as well as a loophole that allowed them to skirt the rules. Lowering the limit down to $50 and removing the linkage comes as a sharp rebuke to the efforts of the Texas Ethics Commission to butter up

lawmakers’ revenue streams in exchange for a budget increase.

A move backward came in the adoption of Amendment 13 by State Sen. Joan Huffman (R-Brazoria), which reined back language that would have prevented lawmaker-lawyers from collecting referral fees. Instead, they will have to only disclose them on their financial statements. Taylor objected, and was joined by State Sen. Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) and State Sen. Kelly Hancock (R-North Richland Hills), but was outvoted by the body 27-3.

Upon passage of the legislation, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick issued a statement supporting the measure.

“Expanding ethics requirements for our public officers is not only the right thing to do, but it instills public trust,” said Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. “Transparency in state business is a key factor to a sound and limited government.”

This measure comes as an additional step forward in transparency and accountability in state government. As has been the case with the vast majority of conservative legislation this session, attention will now shift to the Texas House, where it will be carried by House Administration Chairman Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth). As always, citizens must remain ever vigilant toward government and demand that true reforms are passed.

Something I learned while we were winning the Texas Speech Fight: an investigator for the Texas

“Ethics” Commission stalked my family, in person and online. They trolled neighborhoods, in hopes of snapping pictures of my wife and kids.

Intimidation, threats and harassment are the hallmarks of those who wish to limit the exercise of Texans’ First Amendment rights.

Something else I learned: efforts to limit political speech and undermine constitutional rights are running rampant around the nation. In state after state, establishment politicians are doing everything they can to silence critics.

So while we won the fight, the war wages on. And we’re not immune from it in the Lone Star State.

It’s not just Democrats like Lois Lerner and Barack Obama who want to use the power of government to bully conservatives, it’s Texas “Republicans” like Charlie Geren, Byron Cook, Dan Huberty and Kel Seliger.

What’s happened in Wisconsin should offer a cautionary tale of where some establishment politicians and

their lackeys in Austin want Texas to go. The so-called “John Doe” case has been written about extensively by the Wall Street Journal and is the subject of a major case pending before the US Supreme Court.

It involved pre-dawn raids on homes, gag orders prohibiting targets from speaking even with their own lawyers, and a courageous whistleblower literally risking his life. All over the question of citizens being engaged in their government. All over free speech.

Angered by “outsider” conservatives exposing the dark underbelly of Wisconsin politics, the prosecutors began a “John Doe” investigation – which is one in which they don’t know what crime has been committed or who the perpetrator might be. In this case, they knew they wanted to silence conservatives for shining a light on the state’s union thugs.

Simply replace the names of Wisconsin political figures with Texans, and you will see just how easily it could happen here. And, as I have seen first-hand, just how anxious some in Austin are to do so.

As for us, we will never back down.

It Can Happen Here, Too

Texas marriage laws could soon change pending review by the United States Supreme Court. On

Tuesday, the Court heard oral arguments on Obergefell v. Hodges. The case’s implications would largely impact the right of states, more accurately the citizens of states, to determine marriage laws. National and state faith leaders and legal experts rallied right outside of the court for traditional marriage—affirming the marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Over 60 organizations including Texas Values, the National Coalition of Black Pastors and Christian leaders, and others submitted legal briefs in support of state sovereignty in regard to marriage laws.

“What is clear from today’s oral

arguments that justices are concerned about threats to religious freedom, polygamy and reversing the course of millennia if the U.S. Supreme Court imposes on a states a sweeping decision to redefine marriage,” said Jonathan Saenz, President and attorney of Texas Values who reviewed the arguments posed by both sides.

Both Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton issued statements highlighting their support for traditional marriage as well. During Abbott’s tenure as Attorney General and Paxton’s current term, both men have defended the Texas Constitution’s defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Approved by voters 10 years ago with a 76% vote, the law has faced legal challenges in federal and state court.

More on the story can be found at TXValues.org.

Marriage Laws Have Their Day in CourtBY CARY CHESHIRE EMPOWERTEXANS.COM


Recently, both chambers of the Texas Legislature each released the names of five members who will

serve on the conference committee for the state budget bill HB 1.

Speaker of the House Joe Straus (R-San Antonio) appointed Reps. John Otto (R-Dayton), Sylvester Turner (D-Houston), Trent Ashby (R-Lufkin), Sarah Davis (R-West University Place), and Larry Gonzales (R-Round Rock) to the committee.

Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick appointed Sens. Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound), Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa (D-McAllen), Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown), Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), and Joan Huffman (R-Houston) to the conference committee. There, they will work with the five House members to produce the final version of the state budget.

Members from each chamber will iron out differences between the House and Senate budgets and then submit the resulting legislation to each chamber for approval. If both chambers accept the bill, HB 1 will head to the governor’s desk. If conflicts remain, the committee will reconsider the legislation.

The Senate passed its own version of HB 1. Differences from the House version include additional funds for border security, franchise tax exemptions for small businesses, the defunding of the Texas Racing Commission, and a $2 billion allotment for statewide property tax relief, among other items.

It is important to note that none of the House appointees are fiscal conservatives. While the four Republican appointees have campaigned on fiscally conservative promises, a quick look at their records

indicates otherwise. In fact, their records earned them each a score of “F” on the 2013 Fiscal Responsibility Index.

The following are specific examples of positions they have taken at odds with conservative Republicans:

• John Otto has opposed school choice implementation, defended corporate welfare programs, and more recently approved $800 million for education on top of what is needed for enrollment growth. He has also used campaign funds to finance his own personal condominium and vacation expenses—a spending record that does little to mollify Texans concerned for fiscal responsibility.

• As a member of the Lufkin Independent School District from 2007 to 2010, Trent Ashby helped increase district spending by nearly $4,000 per child. In 2013, he carried this spirit of educational bureaucracy into the Legislature by opposing school choice programs in the state budget. Ashby’s allegiance to the interests of establishment Republicans does not bode well for HB 1.

• Sarah Davis’ website may describe her as a “conservative voice in Austin,” but her voting record suggests otherwise. Since her election in 2013, Davis has supported corporate welfare slush funds, Medicaid expansion, mandatory insurance coverage, increases in bureaucratic power, and tax hikes for small manufacturers. Her blatant opposition to small government and conservative values renders her unfit to help determine the finances of the state of Texas.

• In 2013, Larry Gonzales vigorously defended the provision of $51 million in taxpayer money for the Texas Moving Image Incentive Program. Along with Sarah Davis, he has also violated the Taxpayer Protection Pledge by voting to increase taxes. The state budget is already

characterized by a bevy of miscellaneous earmarks; with his enthusiasm for taxpayer subsidies, Gonzales should be right at home on the conference committee.

Soon after the House announced their appointees, the Senate released the names of its five members who will serve on the conference committee for the state budget.

Patrick’s appointments are generally satisfactory, as opposed to Straus’ discouraging, albeit unsurprising picks. While they may not be the most fiscally conservative members of their chamber, the Senate conferees are much more likely to work in the interests of taxpayers than those from the House.

• This session, Jane Nelson has been instrumental in pushing very fiscally conservative legislation, such as property tax relief and tighter spending cap measures, through the Senate. She also launched a scathing attack on the Texas Racing Commission and other state agencies that have acted outside lawmakers’ expressed content on their appropriations. However, she did support the retroactive SB 293, which increased the number of events eligible for the Major Events Trust Fund. Nevertheless, Nelson will bring her expertise as the Senate Finance Chair to the conference committee, and may likely end up as one of its most conservative conferees.

• Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa was the highest-scoring Democrat on the 2013 Fiscal Responsibility Index, even outscoring three Republicans. At the end of the day, he’s still a Democrat, but to his credit, Hinojosa has done some good work this session—supporting steps towards transparency and fiscal responsibility on issues such as ballot transparency and local debt. While Hinojosa obviously will not be as conservative as his colleagues across the aisle, he is likely the best Democrat that could have been appointed.

• Charles Schwertner has a slightly mixed record. Falling roughly in the middle of the Republican pack last session, he has made some marked

improvements. Though he has supported some expansions of health care spending, Schwertner has been one of the leaders in rejecting Medicaid expansion. This session, he has also introduced measures to rein in higher education costs, supported school choice in SB 4, and ardently defended his franchise tax proposal to help small businesses against critics. Schwertner was also one of only three senators who voted against the unconstitutional SB 293.

• Winning a special election in December, Lois Kolkhorst is new to the Senate, but brings much experience from her time in the House. It was in that chamber two years ago that then-Rep. Lois Kolkhorst joined two-dozen conservatives in opposing the 2013 budget. This session, Kolkhorst has been rather tepidly inching toward the right. Though avoiding most of the spending and tax fights, focusing instead on eminent domain, Kolkhorst has authored SB 759 to eliminate a slew of petty taxes. Kolkhorst’s conservative inclination renders her a favorable appointment to the conference committee.

• This session, Joan Huffman has authored SB 1968 to oppose public-sector unions, as well as SB 10 that would move the scandal-ridden Public Integrity Unit to the Attorney General’s Office. While she has not necessarily been a strong advocate for much of the conservative legislation that has passed, she has been a “team player.”

As previously mentioned, the Senate Republican conferees are reasonably good selections. Arguably, they are a rather strong representation of the will of the Senate chamber. They may not be the strongest fiscal conservatives, but their tendency to stand for low taxes and limited government should inspire a degree of cautious optimism in Texas taxpayers.

Now that both the House and Senate have announced their appointments, the entire conference committee will set to work determining the future of HB 1 and the fate of Texans’ tax dollars.

BY OWEN STROUD EMPOWERTEXANS.COM

House and Senate Budget Conference Committee Members Appointed

BIGANNOUNCEMENT

We will be giving out two grants related to First Amendment Tuesdays.

The first grant will be $500 and an engraved cavalry

sword to the individual who attends the most Tuesday trainings.

The second grant will be $500 for the organization with the most member check-ins at the La Quinta for training over the course of the legislative session.

So come for the training, and return for the prizes! But stay involved to ensure that liberty flourishes in the Lone Star State!

The Senate Republican conferees are reasonably good selections. Arguably, they are a rather strong

representation of the will of the Senate chamber. They may not be the strongest fiscal conservatives, but their tendency to stand for low taxes and limited government should inspire a degree of cautious optimism in Texas taxpayers.


BY ROSS KECSEG EMPOWERTEXANS.COM

BY ROSS KECSEG EMPOWERTEXANS.COM

BY CHARLES BLAIN EMPOWERTEXANS.COM

Newly minted Chancellor William McRaven has officially joined the political establishment scurrying

to cover-up corruption at the University of Texas.

Despite facing intimidation, censure, impeachment and even indictment by state legislators seeking to silence him, UT Regent Wallace Hall obtained the necessary votes from his colleagues to request information related to the Kroll investigative report.

It vindicated Hall (for the second time) and confirmed what his original investigation and others uncovered—political influence corrupted the admissions process at UT and UT Law School, allowing the admission of under-qualified applicants with political connections.

McRaven blatantly refused to grant the Regent’s request.

The Dallas Morning News recently quoted McRaven, “If you want to reopen all the information that we got from the Kroll report and take a look at all that

data, I’m not inclined to go there,” he said. The DMN says they’ve also requested related documentation.

McRaven joins a long line of politically connected insiders obstructing the review of documents related to several scandals, including House Speaker Joe Straus and State Reps. Dan Flynn (R-Canton) and Carol Alverado (D-Houston), who initially led the unwarranted attack on Hall.

They hope Texans will simply move along and forget what has already been exposed, including Hall’s disgraceful persecution.

But more importantly, they aim to stop the release of public information substantiating the Kroll report’s findings, the details of which are vital in answering several key questions still looming.

Which legislators played a role in corrupting the admissions process, and to what extent? Who else inside the University is responsible for enabling political corruption?

McRaven’s obstruction is offensive. But even more troubling is the fact that Texas lawmakers have all but brushed the admissions scandal at UT under the rug. Their deafening silence is shameful—it also speaks volumes about the depths of the problem.

McRaven Aids in UT Cover-Up Criticism of municipal regulations in Texas usually centers around Austin and San Antonio, while

Houston is often praised for its zone-free model and relaxed land use regulations. Houstonians appreciate the absence of zoning restrictions that allow developers to quickly respond to housing and shopping demand, but many overlook the burden of parking minimums.

Developers, however, pay close attention. Parking minimums may seem inconsequential when compared to Houston’s large-scale problems, but meeting such requirements can restrict the size, scope, and location of intended developments. Effectively, they serve as an indirect form of zoning. For a developer that can’t meet the city’s mandate for a specific number of parking spaces, whether because of the cost or limited space, they are left with few options.

While Texas is a state that prides itself on “not being California,” these ordinances are often stricter in cities such as Dallas and Houston than they are in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

As the chart shows, even though Los Angeles has a considerably higher population than Houston, Houston’s minimums in some developments are as

much as nine times higher than that of L.A.

Houston’s parking minimum is in direct contrast with their newly created “Houston Plan.” The plan calls for, “walkable neighborhoods,” and goes on to advocate for convenient and accessible public transportation. Why is a city whose goal is to discourage personal transportation, enforcing parking restrictions on economic development?

These regulations are especially restrictive to existing developments that are forced to adjust when cities increase the minimums. They are left with the choice to pay fines, apply for exemption (only available in some cities), or be forced out of business. Developers wanting to break ground on a new project will alternatively choose to build in Houston suburbs because there just isn’t enough space for onsite parking inside the city.

This regulatory scheme is preventing redevelopment inside Houston’s city limits. Houston politicians pay a lot of lip-service to the need for economic development. Instead of handing out subsidies with taxpayer money, they should be doing everything in their power to reduce arbitrary obstacles that would help create an economically sound environment that attracts development instead of pushing it away.

The Burden ofParking MinimumsHomeowners in Colleyville

facing the threat of alleged eminent domain abuse are

fighting back against politicians they say are not listening. In an attempt to stop a divided council from moving forward with controversial roadway redevelopment along Glade Road, a local petition drive has placed the decision before voters on a May 9th ballot referendum.

The city originally proposed using eminent domain to take the private property of homeowners along Glade, planning to add sidewalks, hiking trails, and a new drainage system along the corridor. Both the scale and mechanics of the proposal have drawn concerns from homeowners who support alternative solutions.

Proponents of the ‘Protect Glade’ referendum say that road improvements can be made in a fashion that is better for affected residents and relieves traffic congestion. They support a plan that can be accomplished over a shorter period of time and for less than half the cost, all

Opposition in ColleyvilleEMINENT DOMAINwithout taking private land or removing mature trees. If passed, improvements at key intersections and the addition of turn lanes would still be allowed.

City officials have so far refused to properly address their concerns, instead offering unsubstantiated safety claims and dubious legal arguments to counter residents opposing the use of eminent domain.

A video interviewing citizens was recently released by sitting councilman and vocal taxpayer advocate, Chris Putnam. It aims to explain why the “Protect Glade” ballot referendum is so important both to Glade homeowners and Colleyville residents at large.

“Property rights and fiscal responsibility matter,” Putnam stated. “But even more importantly, the way government works with and treats residents affected by its policies also matters. ‘Protect Glade’ is about more than just one road project…it gives residents an opportunity to send a message to city politicians who’ve been unwilling to even listen to their own citizens, let alone compromise.”

SEE COLLEYVILLE — PAGE 7

MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS

*Despite my repeated calls to both the zoning and planning departments of Dallas, they were unable to answer my simple question about parking minimums for restaurants. If it is this difficult for me to obtain answers for research, imagine how frustrating it must be for businesses who need these figures to move forward with development.


Two long-time incumbents at the Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) are facing stiff

competition from challengers Craig Bickley and Michele Von Luckner. Both are committed to buck the local political establishment by subjecting the agency to greater scrutiny, financial disclosure, and public accountability.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and other citizen groups have joined reform-minded board member Mary Kelleher in endorsing both Bickley and Von Luckner.

The TRWD has faced a barrage of criticism from local activists. It began in 2005, when State Rep. Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth) quietly carried HB 2639 through the legislature, allowing the water district to create the Trinity River Vision Authority (TRVA). The TRVA is a non-profit, government-run corporate subsidiary in partnership with Tarrant County, the City of Fort Worth, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

By helping to expand the TRWD’s mission to include economic development, Geren enabled the district to use eminent domain for non-essential purposes. Interestingly, the board still claims the TRVA is related only to flood control and recreation. But if that were true, then Geren’s bill would not have been necessary, as the TRWD already held such statutory authority. And levies

already exist to prevent flooding.The truth is, the district needed firm

legal footing on which to stand. Without explicit authority to create the TRVA, the agency would have endangered their boondoggle with legitimate legal challenges, eminent domain disputes, and greater public scrutiny.

Following the TRVA’s inception, the TRWD board quickly appointed J.D. Granger, the son of Congresswoman Kay Granger, to head the subsidiary alongside an unelected board of other government insiders.

As a result, the TRWD now diverts up to 70% of its general fund (over $50 million annually) away from water district operations towards “economic development.” After nearly ten years and approximately $243 million in spending, the TRVA finally announced detailed redevelopment plans to redirect the Trinity River and create Fort Worth’s own “mini-Manhattan” island.

According to TRVA staff, a football-size model costing $1.7 million was built nearly ten years ago. Unfortunately, it never made it to the United States, as it was designed, built and warehoused in Vancouver, Canada prior to being disassembled. It’s unclear if any taxpayers ever laid eyes on it. It also raises questions as to why the TRVA waited ten years to make public details of the development project.

Since 2003, the total cost of the TRVA

has grown in both size and scope, from an original estimate of $200 million to nearly $1 billion today. Although half of the funding will allegedly come from federal earmarks that have not been obtained by Rep. Granger, local governments rushed ahead and poured millions into the subsidiary.

To date, it’s uncertain exactly where the $243 million has been spent. The TRVA recently announced a new phase of construction with the Texas Department of Transportation —$66 million in bridges that cross the proposed river-bypass. That’s right; the TRVA wants to create a water obstacle that doesn’t currently exist, only to spend $66 million on three new bridges to allow access to the man-made island. Again, levies built over seventy years ago already exist to prevent flooding.

If successful in their races, Bickley and Von Luckner will have an ally in Kelleher on the five-member board. First elected in 2013, Kelleher garnered the most votes of any candidate in the history of the district. To stifle her effectiveness, the board quickly changed their own rules to prevent any single member from unilaterally adding items to the meeting agenda.

Kelleher is the only member to vocally demand pro-taxpayer reforms, questioning the agency’s ethics policies, use of eminent domain, nepotism, alleged conflicts of interests, failure to disclose

public documents, details of financial contracts, and other information related to the TRVA. As a result, she’s been censored, threatened, and publicly ridiculed.

Kelleher has good reason to ruffle feathers.

Over the last ten years, water rates paid by residents have increased 67%, despite successful conservation efforts to reduce water usage and a four-fold increase in General Fund revenue.

Even before Kelleher’s arrival, Geren helped extend the terms of TRWD board members on two separate occasions over fears that voters may upset the agency’s power structure. The board has a long history of alleged TOMA violations, nepotism, and refusals to fully comply with records requests by residents, Kelleher, and several state legislators.

Last year, the run-away district was caught ignoring complaints by forty-three landowners in an eminent domain dispute. Documents detailing four years of communication suggested TRWD staff lied to residents who were promised their property would not be condemned. The district temporarily halted condemnation proceedings the week after Empower Texans broke the story. The fate of the landowners remains unresolved.

The TRWD saga provides another glaring example why local elections matter. Early voting began on Monday April 27th, and continues through Tuesday, May 5th—

Election Day is Saturday, May 9th. Eligible voters can vote for two candidates.

Tarrant County Establishment Faces ChallengersBY ROSS KECSEG EMPOWERTEXANS.COM


With a majority of Texans dissatisfied with the burden of property taxes, House

members are working to sell a sales-tax-cut plan to taxpayers. Meanwhile, the media is pushing an “analysis” alleging that the highest paid Texans would benefit if the sales tax rate were reduced.

The charge against the proposal by liberals, using data from the Legislative Budget Board, is that 40 percent of the House tax cut would go to “highest-paid fifth of Texans.” This criticism, however, is reflective of the fact that Texas’ sales tax is actually fairly “progressive,” in that life essentials — such as medicines and unprocessed groceries — are not taxed. The wealthiest Texans also pay the highest

HOUSE GOP Sales Tax Cut ‘Compelling’share of the sales tax, so a tax cut would follow the same pattern.

HB32 by State Rep. Dennis Bonnen (R-Angelton) would reduce state revenues by $4.9 billion, compared to the $4.6 billion in tax relief found in the Senate’s property-tax-focused plan. (Both plans include a reduction in the state’s business tax, though in slightly different ways.)

In an open letter to taxpayers, signed by 90 House Republicans, the GOP caucus says Bonnen’s “tax cut plan is compelling and worthy of your support.” Their letter praises the sales tax cut as “permanent – it can’t be taken away by local government or an appraiser, only by a vote of a future legislature.”

This is an allusion to state-pushed property tax rate reductions in the past having been unraveled by higher

property valuations or local government rate increases.

It is also a none-too-subtle swipe at the Senate’s plan, which focused on reducing property tax burdens. The Senate passed with more than super-majority support in late March.

Unlike previous property tax reduction efforts, which the House caucus letter mentions, the Senate’s plan would double the homestead exemption and then allow the exemption to rise with inflation.

It should be noted that the Republican Party of Texas’ platform calls for the “abolishment” of property taxes, but the House is not currently slated to debate any legislation addressing the burdensome system.

Some policy proposals in the past have called for abolishing the property tax by putting greater reliance on the sales tax. Cutting the sales tax now limits the likelihood that a near-future legislature would seek to raise that tax for any reason.

Currently, the public politics favors the Senate plan. No one ran a campaign on sales tax relief, while property tax relief was the hallmark of Dan Patrick’s upset victory over incumbent David Dewhurst in 2014. In Greg Abbott’s 2015 State of the State address, he called for the business and property taxes to be reduced, but did not mention cutting the sales tax.

Texans have a clearly-expressed disdain for the burden of property taxes. A recent poll conducted by the University of Texas and Texas Tribune found 54 percent of Texans were dissatisfied with the property tax burden. The same poll found that an even larger percentage of Texans were satisfied with the sales tax burden.

Texans would see the sales tax relief in pennies every time they make a purchase, while the Senate’s property tax relief measure would be seen as a single large amount when property tax bills come due.




BY JIM GRAHAM TEXASRIGHTTOLIFE.COM

There are many measures by which this legislative session will be judged, but no measure is more

important than their success in reforming the very operating systems of government in Texas.

As the great Sam Houston put it, “A leader is someone who helps improve the lives of other people or improve the system they live under.”

By that measure—improving “the system” under which the people live —the Texas House is poised to fall well short of success.

After all, no reform is more impactful than constitutionally limiting the growth

of government. That is why it is embedded in the Republican Party of Texas’ platform. That is why 94 percent of Republican primary voters supported the measure on their May 2012 ballot.

It is a reform that Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick championed in their 2014 campaigns. And it is a reform that the Senate has successfully passed in the form of Senate Bill 9 by State Sen. Kelly Hancock of Tarrant County.

SB 9, like so many other reform measures passed by the Senate, is gathering dust on the desk of House Speaker Joe Straus. He is refusing to do his job and refer the reforms to committees for public hearings and votes.

Joe Straus is obstructing the one

Obstructing Real Reforms

By April 27 of this 84th Session of the Texas Legislature, which began on January 13th and will

end on June 1st:• the Texas State Senate had passed

378 bills;• the Texas State House had passed

314 bills; but• neither chamber had passed ONE

Pro-Life bill!REPEAT: Not ONE Pro-Life bill has

been passed by either chamber—despite overwhelming Republican Pro-Life majorities in both the State Senate and the State House.

In fact, a battle erupted on Thursday, April 23 when two Pro-Life amendments inspired a protracted fight on the House floor involving heated debate, points of order, and the pulling down of the entire bill (House Bill 2510).

Representative Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) passionately defended his amendments to protect life. One amendment would have simply required abortion statistics to be reported as meticulously as are required of abortion clinics in the city of New York. NEW YORK CITY has stronger abortion reporting requirements than Texas, and

reform that conservatives agree would most positively improve government.

Want to eliminate the burdensome franchise tax or property taxes? Limit the growth of government and use surpluses to “make up the difference” on tax elimination, or return that money to taxpayers. Want to ensure dollars are being used for the most efficient and effective programs? Limit government so programs must compete for available funds.

Some House members will say the current budget comes in under the “population and inflation” measurement. That may or may not be true; the budget will not be finalized for several weeks.

Even then, the reform championed by conservatives is not about a particular budget; it is about reforming the approach of government to its size and scope. It is about limiting government, and freeing the citizens.

Limiting the unchecked growth of

government in the years ahead? That appears to be a bridge too far for Straus and his grow-government cronies. Since he became speaker in 2009, Straus has refused to allow public debates and action on these reforms.

With 36 days left in the legislative session, members of the Texas House have a simple choice: will they be remembered as either obstructing or aiding the most significant and lasting governance reform supported by a generation of conservatives.

By obstructing debate and hearings on SB 9, Straus is making it difficult for taxpayers to ascribe to House members the virtue Sam Houston described.

The successful legacy of this legislative session will be determined in large part by the willingness of lawmakers to deal not only with temporal concerns, but implement forward-looking reforms restraining government and expanding liberty.

still, Representative Schaefer faced opposition to mere data collection.

More sickening was the debate on killing unborn children with fetal abnormalities. In another amendment, Representative Schaefer moved to close this barbaric language from current law so that unborn children who are suspected to be ill or disabled are not subjected to abortion. Texas law currently does not protect these babies, and Representative Schaefer and Texas Right to Life find this offensive.

Republican In Name Only (RINO) JD Sheffield (R-Gatesville/Stephenville) joined the Democrat party leadership arguing for the right to abort babies with fetal abnormalities who are past the 5-month development mark in the womb. Those are big, fully formed unborn babies!

As one who announced that he has delivered hundreds of babies, Sheffield angrily claimed parents should be able to kill some babies who just aren’t perfect who won’t live for very long anyway…and “have to be dealt with.”

“DEALT WITH?” These are children,

the most vulnerable among us—and they have to be “dealt with?”

Texas Right to Life has a full team in Austin for every day of the 20-week 84TH Texas Legislative Session, and only 5 weeks remain.

We don’t enjoy the ideological fights on unrelated bills, but we have no choice to pass policy through amendments on such bills because Republican Senate and House committee chairs are stalling the real, free-standing Pro-Life bills.

We have few options remaining to protect the 120,000 unborn Texans who will die in abortion clinics before the next legislative session starts in 2017. We cannot walk away from their silent cries—especially the ones who are rendered less than perfect—because of political games.

Last week’s hostility demonstrates a painful example of why the Republican-led Texas Legislature has not passed one substantial Pro-Life bill through the regular process of a regular session of the Legislature since 2003. (Both the 2011 Sonogram Law and the 2013 HB 2 passed because Governor Perry granted these measures status that cleared procedural hurdles, rendering these bills immune from games and stall tactics.)

RINOs like JD Sheffield must be stopped.

Fight the Establishment, while we still can.

Opposition to the ‘Protect Glade’ ballot referendum has come primarily from city officials, including incumbent Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor, who’s been at odds with Putnam (and taxpayers) on TexRail and a number of other issues. On February 3rd, 2009, a unanimous Colleyville City Council (including Mr. Taylor) passed a resolution to support a legislative effort to create new county vehicle registration fees, fuel excise taxes, mileage fees, driver’s license and roadway impact fees…all to fund government-run light rail.

Taylor faces an opponent on May 9th, Bobby Lindamood, who Texans for Fiscal Responsibility has endorsed. TFR has also endorsed Elizabeth Zetlin who’s running for an open seat on council. Both Lindamood and Zetlin have articulated their support for the ‘Protect Glade’ ballot referendum and alternative redevelopment proposals.

Colleyville citizens will have an opportunity to weigh in on the Glade referendum on May 9th. Regardless of its outcome, had city officials made a concerted attempt to address local concerns regarding the use of eminent domain, it’s likely the “Protect Glade” petition and resulting ballot referendum would not have been necessary in the first place.

COLLEYVILLEfrom PAGE 5RINO legislator says disabled preborn

babies should be “dealt with”


INSIDE

ON THE SCORECARD THIS WEEKPrsrt Std

U.S. PostageP A

I DSan A

ntonio, TXPerm

it No. 244

PO Box 200248

Austin, TX 78720

CO

RE

CA

RD

PG 6

PG 6

ALEXANDER CHAMALESStarting TheFight Early

Tarrant County Establishment Faces Challengers

House GOP: Sales Tax Cut Compelling

PG 2 THE BURDEN OF PARKING MINIMUMS

IN T

HE L

EAD

THIS

WEE

K

— PAGE 5

IT HAPPENED IN WISCONSIN, IT CAN HAPPEN HERE TOO. — PAGE 3