Pages: 1 2
Everything in red is bullshit. They are not punishing Texas. The bailout is not intended mostly to help spendthrift states. The extra strings attached are so that this doesn't happen again:First Paragraph wrote:
When the House convenes today in a special session to vote on a $26 billion package of aid funds for state and local governments, it will have to decide whether to single out one state — Texas — for special treatment. This is not the kind of special treatment that we’re used to seeing in Washington, where senators often secure extra benefits for their states in return for their votes. Instead, Democrats are trying to punish Texas for its fiscal responsibility, above and beyond the punishment inherent in a “state bailout” that is intended mostly to help spendthrift states such as California, but that Texas taxpayers must help pay for nevertheless.
The author even has the balls to defend this massive fuck up by talking up this rainy day bullshit. We took stimulus funds for education, then cut education spending by $3,200,000,000. Words cannot begin to describe what whores pull this shit out of education.article wrote:
Following Perry’s acceptance of stimulus funds for education in 2009, the Texas legislature reduced education spending by $3.2 billion, plugged the hole with federal money, and used the savings to shore up a rainy-day fund.
and then has the balls to sayIt conceded that Texas did not face a shortfall in its education budget and therefore had no need for federal aid. But it argued that, instead of using the money to prepare for future budget shortfalls, Texas should spend it “as the law directs, ‘to provide local educational agencies in the State with subgrants,’” regardless of whether those agencies were facing shortfalls.
So the state is responsible enough to take unneeded money, but the school districts are going to be instantly addicted to the cash influx?This was an obvious attempt to force Texas into future increases in education spending by juicing the local districts with a temporary influx of federal aid and thus raising the amount they expect to receive every year.
making it sound like each of them have more than $550 million, when really it is all five of them combined, and that surplus is about 10% of their combined operating budgets.Sara Talbert of Texas Budget Source recently reported that the five largest districts in Texas are sitting on over $550 million in reserve funds.
hurr durrmcgid1 wrote:
In this case, I can't find any reason that passes the logical-rational test which should result in Texas being treated any differently than any of the other states.
article wrote:
Following Perry’s acceptance of stimulus funds for education in 2009, the Texas legislature reduced education spending by $3.2 billion, plugged the hole with federal money, and used the savings to shore up a rainy-day fund.
Texas is far from the only state to cover costs with federal money while saving its own, yet it is the only state to see these new rules. If the law targeted other states that did the same or similar things with federal money, then there would be no problem, but it doesn't. Is there a logical reason why the federal government can or should tell states how they can spend the stimulus money and what they have to do in order to continue receiving the money? Yes. However, if the feds are going to say you must commit to "x" if you're going to receive "y", then those rules must apply to at least all the states which saved money in their own budgets by using federal funds instead and had a surplus as a result, if not all states. If the law doesn't state that, then what the courts could consider to be a logical reason must be given as to why only that state or select group of states out of all who acted in a similar fashion, in this case Texas, should have these restrictions or commitments. In this case the law doesn't show any reason why only Texas should have these special strings attached when other states have acted in similar a similar manner.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
hurr durrmcgid1 wrote:
In this case, I can't find any reason that passes the logical-rational test which should result in Texas being treated any differently than any of the other states.article wrote:
Following Perry’s acceptance of stimulus funds for education in 2009, the Texas legislature reduced education spending by $3.2 billion, plugged the hole with federal money, and used the savings to shore up a rainy-day fund.
The Democrats should drive to Oklahoma and have their own state legislature in exile thing again. That was groovy the first timemcgid1 wrote:
What's not mentioned in this article is that this is gubernatorial election year in Texas and that Doggett is pulling his usual crap to generate as much bad press against Perry as he can. I will admit that him pulling this on the national stage and in such dramatic fashion is new though. The sad part is that he can go through with this incredibly bad idea without any fear of losing his own election, cause he has no major Democratic or left leaning challengers and Austin will never vote Republican.
As far as the Equal Protection Clause goes, there has to be some logical or rational basis for a group, in this case Texas, to be singled out. In this case, I can't find any reason that passes the logical-rational test which should result in Texas being treated any differently than any of the other states. As stated before, this is a purely political move which will only serve to harm Texas in the long run.
Also, Texas politics 101: There's Austin and then there's the rest of Texas. Though Austin is the capital, its citizens almost never go along politically with the rest of the state and are almost always bitching about the guy in the Capitol Building.
Show me where other states took bailout money for education, and then cut education. If you can show me that then I agree.mcgid1 wrote:
Texas is far from the only state to cover costs with federal money while saving its own, yet it is the only state to see these new rules. If the law targeted other states that did the same or similar things with federal money, then there would be no problem, but it doesn't. Is there a logical reason why the federal government can or should tell states how they can spend the stimulus money and what they have to do in order to continue receiving the money? Yes. However, if the feds are going to say you must commit to "x" if you're going to receive "y", then those rules must apply to at least all the states which saved money in their own budgets by using federal funds instead and had a surplus as a result, if not all states. If the law doesn't state that, then what the courts could consider to be a logical reason must be given as to why only that state or select group of states out of all who acted in a similar fashion, in this case Texas, should have these restrictions or commitments. In this case the law doesn't show any reason why only Texas should have these special strings attached when other states have acted in similar a similar manner.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
hurr durrmcgid1 wrote:
In this case, I can't find any reason that passes the logical-rational test which should result in Texas being treated any differently than any of the other states.article wrote:
Following Perry’s acceptance of stimulus funds for education in 2009, the Texas legislature reduced education spending by $3.2 billion, plugged the hole with federal money, and used the savings to shore up a rainy-day fund.
Wow... that's a great way to rape the poor.JohnG@lt wrote:
I think Perry's move was brilliant personally. If the Texas (D)'s had their way, Texas would turn into every other state heavy on government spending which would require a state income tax. I bitched every two years but I liked the way they have the tax system set up down there. To pay for roads they hit you with a $250 or so (it's been a while) registration fee every two years. So, only people who actually drive get hit with the fees to pay for road upkeep. Taxes like that actually make sense, a helluva lot more so than shit that just gets dumped into a general fund.
Does a rich person drive more than a poor person? Is his car heavier (oh wait, that's covered too since the registration fee is based on the size of the vehicle!)?Turquoise wrote:
Wow... that's a great way to rape the poor.JohnG@lt wrote:
I think Perry's move was brilliant personally. If the Texas (D)'s had their way, Texas would turn into every other state heavy on government spending which would require a state income tax. I bitched every two years but I liked the way they have the tax system set up down there. To pay for roads they hit you with a $250 or so (it's been a while) registration fee every two years. So, only people who actually drive get hit with the fees to pay for road upkeep. Taxes like that actually make sense, a helluva lot more so than shit that just gets dumped into a general fund.
In many cases, rich people do drive more -- because they travel more and can afford to pay for more gas.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does a rich person drive more than a poor person? Is his car heavier (oh wait, that's covered too since the registration fee is based on the size of the vehicle!)?Turquoise wrote:
Wow... that's a great way to rape the poor.JohnG@lt wrote:
I think Perry's move was brilliant personally. If the Texas (D)'s had their way, Texas would turn into every other state heavy on government spending which would require a state income tax. I bitched every two years but I liked the way they have the tax system set up down there. To pay for roads they hit you with a $250 or so (it's been a while) registration fee every two years. So, only people who actually drive get hit with the fees to pay for road upkeep. Taxes like that actually make sense, a helluva lot more so than shit that just gets dumped into a general fund.
If I was rich and lived in Texas I would own a private plane to travel around, not drive. Aside from Dallas and Fort Worth (which is like one giant city anyway), the cities in Texas are all about five hours apart from each other. Austin to San Antonio is shorter but still significant.Turquoise wrote:
In many cases, rich people do drive more -- because they travel more and can afford to pay for more gas.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does a rich person drive more than a poor person? Is his car heavier (oh wait, that's covered too since the registration fee is based on the size of the vehicle!)?Turquoise wrote:
Wow... that's a great way to rape the poor.
True, but I still don't think a fee that high is reasonable.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I was rich and lived in Texas I would own a private plane to travel around, not drive. Aside from Dallas and Fort Worth (which is like one giant city anyway), the cities in Texas are all about five hours apart from each other. Austin to San Antonio is shorter but still significant.Turquoise wrote:
In many cases, rich people do drive more -- because they travel more and can afford to pay for more gas.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does a rich person drive more than a poor person? Is his car heavier (oh wait, that's covered too since the registration fee is based on the size of the vehicle!)?
Besides, they'll more than likely have more than a single vehicle to register, no?
Makes perfect sense.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does a rich person drive more than a poor person? Is his car heavier (oh wait, that's covered too since the registration fee is based on the size of the vehicle!)?Turquoise wrote:
Wow... that's a great way to rape the poor.JohnG@lt wrote:
I think Perry's move was brilliant personally. If the Texas (D)'s had their way, Texas would turn into every other state heavy on government spending which would require a state income tax. I bitched every two years but I liked the way they have the tax system set up down there. To pay for roads they hit you with a $250 or so (it's been a while) registration fee every two years. So, only people who actually drive get hit with the fees to pay for road upkeep. Taxes like that actually make sense, a helluva lot more so than shit that just gets dumped into a general fund.
Also, older vehicles get a discount. Who drives older vehicles?Turquoise wrote:
True, but I still don't think a fee that high is reasonable.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I was rich and lived in Texas I would own a private plane to travel around, not drive. Aside from Dallas and Fort Worth (which is like one giant city anyway), the cities in Texas are all about five hours apart from each other. Austin to San Antonio is shorter but still significant.Turquoise wrote:
In many cases, rich people do drive more -- because they travel more and can afford to pay for more gas.
Besides, they'll more than likely have more than a single vehicle to register, no?
In NC, you pay a % based on the value of each vehicle. That makes a lot more sense.
You neglected to mention that earlier.JohnG@lt wrote:
Also, older vehicles get a discount. Who drives older vehicles?Turquoise wrote:
True, but I still don't think a fee that high is reasonable.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I was rich and lived in Texas I would own a private plane to travel around, not drive. Aside from Dallas and Fort Worth (which is like one giant city anyway), the cities in Texas are all about five hours apart from each other. Austin to San Antonio is shorter but still significant.
Besides, they'll more than likely have more than a single vehicle to register, no?
In NC, you pay a % based on the value of each vehicle. That makes a lot more sense.
Ahh, well first you have to live in a state where it is mandatory to disclose how much you paid for what you bought. That's a hurdle in many ways...Turquoise wrote:
True, but I still don't think a fee that high is reasonable.
In NC, you pay a % based on the value of each vehicle. That makes a lot more sense.
Well, admittedly, NC will rape you on gas taxes. We have some of the highest in the country.Pug wrote:
Ahh, well first you have to live in a state where it is mandatory to disclose how much you paid for what you bought. That's a hurdle in many ways...Turquoise wrote:
True, but I still don't think a fee that high is reasonable.
In NC, you pay a % based on the value of each vehicle. That makes a lot more sense.
BTW, it's $43/vehicle in this town. And that's for City use only, not state. But I know that there's a gas tax to help state highway funding. Other states do it differently.
Same with the drinking age I think.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The Fed and congress punish states all the time?
They cut funding to the federal roads(rt 80, rt 95, and alot of others) if the states don't bend to what the federal government want the laws to be. Example the no smoking in bars is more or less a fed law, and they back up the failure to pass them by cutting the federal funding.
Yep, they took away Louisiana's highway funding until they raised their drinking age from 18 to 21.ghettoperson wrote:
Same with the drinking age I think.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The Fed and congress punish states all the time?
They cut funding to the federal roads(rt 80, rt 95, and alot of others) if the states don't bend to what the federal government want the laws to be. Example the no smoking in bars is more or less a fed law, and they back up the failure to pass them by cutting the federal funding.
It's basically a lesson in federalism. For a state truly to be free to make its own policies, it has to become self-sufficient and not dependent on federal funding.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yep, they took away Louisiana's highway funding until they raised their drinking age from 18 to 21.ghettoperson wrote:
Same with the drinking age I think.cpt.fass1 wrote:
The Fed and congress punish states all the time?
They cut funding to the federal roads(rt 80, rt 95, and alot of others) if the states don't bend to what the federal government want the laws to be. Example the no smoking in bars is more or less a fed law, and they back up the failure to pass them by cutting the federal funding.
Pages: 1 2