PLEDGE TO CONSTITUENTS
Many special interest groups have developed litmus tests of allegiance in the form of legislative scorecards or pledges in support of a specific policy position to the exclusion of all others. In the interest of finding common ground to promote positive change, I have chosen to make my pledge to the people of House District 48.
“As your state representative, I promise to put the interests of my constituents above all else and to listen to your comments, concerns, and suggestions. I promise to learn all I can about the issues and how they impact our community so I can advocate for solutions that promote responsible government, healthy families, and equal opportunities for all Texans.”
_____________________________________________________________
- The 82nd Legislative Session began with the state facing a $27 billion shortfall stemming from 3 main sources.
- The large drop in sales tax collections caused by the downturn in the economy. (The state sales tax accounts for more than half of all General Revenue tax collections.)
- The loss of the $13 billion of one-time federal stimulus dollars, approximately $8 billion of which the Comptroller reports went to recurring expenses.
- The so-called structural deficit that resulted from the 2006 school property tax compression that reduced local school property tax rates leaving a $14 billion hole to be filled with state revenue. Part of the hole was plugged with surplus funds as well as additional monies brought in via a revised franchise tax (the margin tax) that has consistently underperformed by about $4 billion a year.
- HB 1, the General Appropriations Act, cut $15 billion from current services. When you have a budget where roughly 42% goes to public education, 28% to health and human services, and 15% to higher education large cuts in spending inevitably hit these areas hardest.
- Far too often conversations about the budget focus solely on whether we need to spend more or less. It’s time for a broader discussion about how to spend responsibly which will allow Texas residents to voice their opinions on what services they want government to provide and how they want to pay for them.
- Spending decisions must also include a review of ALL the options available for balancing the budget – cuts, new revenue sources, Rainy Day funds, etc… – in order to help identify and fund priorities. Yet the state’s leadership prevented any meaningful dialogue; dictating that cuts were the only solution on the table.
- In short, we need a budgeting process that is open, transparent, and ensures the money we appropriate goes to its intended purpose, and a budget that reflects our economy and reflects the state’s current financial status without sacrificing investments necessary for long term economic prosperity.
For a more in-depth look at the budget, please visit our
_____________________________________________________________
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Coming Soon...
_____________________________________________________________
- Efforts to meet "Closing the Gaps" benchmarks have resulted in significant increases in attendance rates across ethnic groups, however, our work is far from over. We now need to focus our attention on ways to significantly improve completion rates. Though UT and A&M have six-year graduation rates of 83%, six-year graduation rate at all public universities for students who entered in Fall 2003 was only 55.9%. In addition, Texas currently ranks in the bottom 5 states in numbers of adults with baccalaureate degrees.
- Funding for tuition assistance programs must be restored and expanded as this is critical to ensuring access as well as persistence, especially for high-demand degrees.
- Innovations in delivery of instruction as well as expansion of career and technical training programs must be developed to meet the needs of a diverse student population, to ensure necessary workforce production, and to provide cost effective investments in higher education.
- Accountability must be tied to appropriate milestones/benchmarks that reflect the mobile student population and the unique experiences at the various types of institutions, i.e. community colleges and four-year institutions.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
- Addressing current and future water needs requires regional efforts that take into account the multiple demands placed upon this finite natural resource. In the event of severe drought conditions, the state would face an immediate need for additional water supplies of 3.6 million acre-feet per year - 86% for irrigation and 9% for municipal water users.
- The first statewide water plan was approved in 1997 and most recently updated in 2012. As part of the update, regional planning groups recommended 562 unique water supply projects, costing a total of $53 billion, to address needs during a drought. Municipal water providers are expected to need nearly $27 billion in state financial assistance to implement these strategies. Yet, the 2012-2013 budget includes only enough money to finance $100 million worth of selected projects through General Obligation bonds.
- Economic losses resulting from a failure to meet water supply needs could cost approximately $11.9 billion per year if current conditions approach the drought of record. The question of how to reliably fund water infrastructure must be addressed to ensure implementation of our state water plan.
- Decisions regarding energy production must be made collaboratively between state agencies to ensure water impacts are taken into consideraton.
- The governance structure of the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) must be changed to provide local accountability. I have introduced legislation to reduce the number of LCRA board members appointed by the Governor from 15 to 5 with the remaining 10 appointed by the County Commissioner Court of each of the 10 counties within the LCRA service area. This would provide increased local input when decisions must be made that impact differing needs along the Colorado River corridor.
_____________________________________________________________
- Funding for transportation projects has dwindled to almost nothing at both the federal and state level. For example, the federal gas tax rate has remained at 18.4 cents/gallon since 1993 while the state gas tax rate of 20 cents/gallon has not been increased since 1991. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, the revenues generated by these motor fuels taxes declines.
- The state, mainly through regional mobility authorities, has increasingly relied on issuing bonds and private investments to finance transportation infrastructure.
- In fact, for the first time, the debt service to repay the bonds ($1.7 billion) exceeded the money appropriated for new road construction ($1.13 billion). Even though the price of paying off our debt is the equivalent of raising the gas tax by more than 10 cents a gallon, this funding mechanism allows lawmakers to claim that they did not raise taxes.
- I support ending this shell game and taking real action to address the ever-increasing congestion we face in Central Texas. We need to enact a reasonable increase to the state gas tax rate and dedicate the additional revenue it generates solely to transportation projects. (Currently only about half of all gas tax revenue goes to fund transportation while the other half goes to fund the Department of Public Safety and public education.)
|