Big Government

Three weeks ago, I wrote that most Texas politicians have been falsely claiming they provided $18 billion in tax relief, not the $12.7 billion they actually provided.

Today, I’ll be back in the Texas capitol testifying before the Texas House Select Study Committee on Sustainable Property Tax Relief with evidence to back up that statement and my claim that what the Legislature is doing on property taxes is not working. I’ll get to that in a minute, but first I want to lay a foundation to help us understand why Texas politicians can’t, or won’t, stop making false claims about their work.

Exodus 20:16 gives us the Ninth Commandment: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Christianity has long held this to require more than just not lying about our neighbor.

Question 144 in the Westminster Larger Catechism says that it requires “from the heart sincerely, freely, clearly_, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth.” It supports this exposition with Ephesians 4:25: “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor …” On the negative side, WLC Question 145 says the Ninth commandments tells us we must not “prejudice the truth,” meaning we must not obscure the truth.

With this in place, let’s get back to the details.

In response to rapidly rising property taxes, Texans starting clamoring for property tax relief back in the late 1990s. Since then, property taxes have increased from $18.9 billion (1998) to $82.6 billion. Unless you define property tax relief as meaning property taxes are a little lower than they would have otherwise been, Texas taxpayers have received no relief at all. The chart at the top of this article affirms this by showing the growth of property taxes over the last five years.

This provides the backdrop for why many state leaders and members of the Texas Legislature might want to obscure the truth about property taxes: after almost thirty years of requests from Texas voters, Texas politicians have provided no property tax relief. If Texas voters truly understood this—like they did about school choice and the Ken Paxton impeachment this year, it might be harmful to the reelection efforts of a number of incumbents.

In the testimony I’ll present to the committee today, I quote the first four statements below; I’ll add a couple of more to make sure the Texas Senate is well represented and another one that was just posted on X last night:

"Today, I am signing a law that will ensure more than $18 billion in property tax cuts—the largest property tax cut in Texas history." – Gov. Greg Abbott. 

“The Senate unanimously passed … the largest property tax cut in Texas history, and likely the world.” – Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick

“Providing Texans with the largest state property tax cut in American history.” – Speaker Dade Phelan

“The House has passed … the largest property tax cut in TX history!” – Rep. Morgan Meyer

“We can be proud that … we are … voting on an astounding $18 billion property tax cut, which is the largest in the state’s history …” - Sen. Paul Bettencourt

“The $5.3 billion that is in here for compression … is in addition to previous compression so it actually lowers M&O rates by 10 cents … it is new compression, is that right?” - Sen. Joan Huffman, in a conversation with Sen. Bettencourt, who affirmed her analysis, during a Senate Finance hearing

"In 2023, the Texas Legislature passed $18 billion in property tax relief, the largest cut in Texas history." - Rep. Dustin Burrows

There are two claims made in these statements that obscure the truth because they do not clearly and fully present the truth. The first claim is there was an $18 billion property tax cut. Here is Texas economist Vance Ginn explaining why this is not the case:

$5.3 billion of this $18 billion was in Section 18.79 of the General Appropriations Act (HB 1), passed in the regular session to maintain past property tax relief efforts. This resulted in just $12.7 billion in new property tax relief

To further explain this, what the members of the Legislature did was count funding already in the budget that covered previous tax relief as “new” tax relief. You can see this is what Huffman and Bettencourt are trying to convince the public of in their conversation.

Why did Texas politicians do this? Perhaps one reason is that before the 2023 Legislative session, Gov. Abbott promised Texans he would dedicate half of the state’s $32.7 billion budget surplus to property tax relief. But with legislative leaders only willing to spend $12.7 billion on property tax relief because they had other plans for the rest of the surplus, Abbott would not be keeping his promise his promise if he signed on to that. So, Abbott, Patrick, Phelan, and other legislative leaders came up with a plan: they’d go back and find $5.3 billion property tax relief from 2019 and 2021 and tell voters it was “new.”

In case you are wondering, this is not technical dispute or question of he said, she said. In 2023, the Texas Legislature only dedicated $12.7 billion of spending to provide new property tax relief. The $5.3 billion was paying for previous relief already baked into the system. To make this point clear, the Legislature also provided money for property tax relief in 2015, 2006, and 1997. Why didn’t they go ahead and claim the more than $15 billion from those previous efforts over the last 25 years as “new” relief? Because everyone would have laughed at them. The same thing might have happened with the $5.3 billion if the media had been doing its job, but most of the media were no more interested in Texans getting tax relief than were the politicians.

The next claim made by politicians is that the property tax cut was largest in the state’s history. This is easy to refute because there was no general tax cut. Using the latest data from the Texas Comptroller’s office, I estimate property taxes increased this year by $681 million. Thus, the Legislature’s $12.7 billion effort did not result in lower overall taxes.

To be clear, many if not most homeowners received property tax cuts this year because of the increase in the homestead exemption. But many businesses and apartment dwellers did not. And many, if not most, will see whatever relief they experienced this year swallowed up by a tax increase next year.

When the members claimed they had passed the largest property tax cut in history—Texas, the U.S., the world, or wherever else they might point to, what they meant was the $18 billion was more than the $16 billion the Texas Legislature dedicated to property tax relief in 2006. This provides another reason why many politicians obscured the truth about the $18 billion: while $18 billion is bigger than $16 billion, $12.7 billion is not.

But why did not even the $12.7 billion cut property tax revenue across the board? First, because the $12.7 billion has to pay for property tax relief over two years, so the amount dedicated to reducing property taxes was only $6.35 billion—the other $6.35 billion simply maintains the reduction in the second year. This is a fact legislators routinely fail to inform their constituents of. Second, because the Texas Legislature has refused to do anything about property tax increases by school districts and local governments. Every time the Texas Legislature does something about reducing property taxes, schools and local governments raise taxes and swallow up most savings that should have gone to taxpayers. The members of the Legislature know about this but are unwilling to do anything meaningful about it. The table below shows how much the different local taxing entities increased property tax revenue this year.

Property taxes are not the only way in which Texas politicians attempt to obscure the truth and hide what they are doing from Texas voters. The Texas budget is another area. I won’t go into the details here, but you can rest assured both the size of Texas government and the growth of Texas government are much larger than the Legislature leads us to believe. Here and here are the details.

Wrapping up, the table above shows what priority the politicians placed on tax relief. Not only did tax relief get less than half of the budget surplus funds, it only made up 19% of all new spending approved by the Texas Legislature in 2023. Clearly, while avoiding electoral harm from an electorate upset about property taxes was a political priority of Texas politicians, providing real, lasting property tax relief to taxpayers was not a policy priority. Instead, legislators prioritized satisfying Austin-based special interests who were clamoring for increased spending on their pet projects.

Yet this truth is not what most Texas politicians speak to the voters. Instead, they attempt to obscure the truth with phrases like “the largest property tax cut in Texas history, and likely the world.” And the media helps them cover up the facts by refusing to dig into the details, much like they did with Russia-gate and are doing with the Trump assassination attempts. Our political leaders should look to the Ninth Commandment as a guide for helping them repent of obscuring the truth and of partnering with the media in doing so.

"Nor shall [a ruler] acquire for himself excessive silver and gold." - Deuteronomy 17:17

Yesterday, the Texans for Fiscal Responsibility team, Andrew McVeigh, Vance Ginn, and myself, testified during the Texas Senate Finance Committee’s hearing of property taxes. I want to discuss some interesting points worth noting from the hearing.

Before I get to the hearing, let me point out one thing that underlies the discussions that took place yesterday: politicians cannot stop spending our money. Resistance to lowering property taxes comes from politicians who would rather spend our money on something else than giving it back to us.

As you can see in the above table, appropriations by 2023 Texas Legislature increased by $69 billion over what they did in 2021. Yet only $12.7 billion of that went to property tax relief. Texas’ political leaders were so desperate to spend our money last year—without us knowing what they were doing—that they busted the state’s constitutional spending limit by putting $13.8 billion of spending on the constitutional amendment ballot rather than taking the vote themselves to exceed the limit by $12.2 billion.

Generally, Texas politicians are not obeying Deuteronomy 17:17: "Nor shall [a ruler] acquire for himself excessive silver and gold." While $100 billion plus dollars of our money taken from us each year does not go directly into the pockets of our political leaders, by spending it to benefit their political constituencies in the Austin lobby, the corporate world, and state bureaucrats, our leaders are often able to stay longer in office and have access to income opportunities that are not available to most of us. I doubt most of them think of it in this way or do this intentionally, but it is what happens.

Back to the hearing. The first item of interest is that Texas Sen. Paul Bettencourt seemed very anxious to make sure that what Texas political leaders loudly proclaimed as “the largest property tax cut in Texas history” actually cut property taxes. He tangled with Ginn during the hearing when Ginn said otherwise.

Ginn used data from the Comptroller’s office that showed property taxes actually increased this year by about $165 million dollars despite the $12.7 billion the Texas Legislature devoted to property tax relief. One can see why Bettencourt—and other state and legislative leaders—might not like that public becoming aware of that news; it might be a threat to their job security.

As the Comptroller’s office admitted during the hearing, their data is incomplete. When the final data does become available, the one sure thing is that property taxes will have actually increased or decreased only slightly. The $12.7 billion of taxpayer money bought very little property tax relief for Texans, unless one agrees with the Legislature’s definition of it: “slowing the growth of taxes enough that politicians can claim they cut taxes and/or did something to make housing more affordable.”

Next, Bettencourt also took issue with something included in my written testimony: “Even last session’s $12.7 billion only reduced school property taxes by $4.1 billion.” Bettencourt, after my microphone had been turned off, claimed my statement was inaccurate because the $12.7 billion figure referred to the amount the Legislature dedicated to tax relief over the two-year fiscal biennium while the $4.1 billion referred to the reduction in school property taxes in one year. Bettencourt is half right here, but the main thing is his statement exposed how he and many other politicians had been doing the exact same thing he accused me off.

Before we get to that, we should note that Bettencourt and most other Texas politicians have been falsely claiming they provided $18 billion in tax relief, not $12.7 billion. Sen. Joan Huffman and Bettencourt tried to make the case for this at a March 15 Finance Committee hearing last year (starting at 22:09). Their point was is that if Texans really understood the complexity of the state budget they would see that the politicians in 2023 should get credit for paying for tax relief given to Texans back in 2019 and 2021. By that logic, they should also be getting credit for tax relief efforts dating back to 1997, long before either was in the Legislature—though they didn’t take it that far. The $18 billion was created using smoke and mirrors. Of perhaps we should use another metaphor: it was an attempt to pull the wool over taxpayers’ eyes. Either way, the number is $12.7 billion.

Getting back to my statement, it is true and does not misrepresent anything. Yes, the $12.7 billion is for a biennium. Yet, as I told Bettencourt in a friendly conversation after the hearing, he and others had been using the $12.7 billion the same way, not telling taxpayers that it would at most reduce their school property taxes by only $6.35 billion, not $12.7 billion—since property taxes are paid annually. The other $6.35 billion would simply pay for that initial reduction in the second year of the biennium, not bringing any addition reductions. Yet they never bothered to explain the biennial/annual difference until it became a threat rather than a benefit.

Here is the main point, though. The Texas Legislature spent $6.35 billion of our money this year to reduce our school property taxes. Yet school property taxes only dropped $4.1 billion, while property taxes overall remained essentially level. Why is that?

It is because the Texas Legislature did nothing last session, and has done little since property taxes became a political issue in 1997, to stop the massive tax increases imposes by schools and local governments on taxpayers to pay for their runaway spending. As a result, most our money spent on property tax relief was gobbled up by school districts and local governments. Yes, some homeowners did get tax cuts this year, and we should be appreciative. But in many cases their taxes will be higher next year than they were last year; in my case, my $900 tax cut this year will be gobbled up by an $1,100 increase next year. Meanwhile, taxes on businesses and apartments when up this year and will do so again next year.

Next, Sen. Charles Perry made the point that if folks come to them saying that property taxes should be cut, we should also come to them with ideas of where local governments could cut spending. Besides the fact that I and many other liberty-minded folks have been doing this for years, I mentioned to Perry (in another friendly post-hearing conversation) that the conversation of where spending can be restrained or cut to provide property tax relief or cuts should actually be taking place between local taxpayers and local politicians. We on the TFR team have provided recommendations that would make that happen: freezing school district property taxes and requiring local governments to ask voter permission to increase their property tax revenue by any amount. That way, if local politicians think they need more money from taxpayers they can make that case. If the politicians fail to persuade the taxpayers, then they can discuss what spending can be cut to ensure that priorities are taken care of.

Finally, many times at the hearing members brought up the fact that it would cost $81 billion to eliminate all property taxes and point to the problems of coming up with that amount of money and what would happen to local infrastructure projects if we didn’t fully replace the property tax funding.

In many ways, this is a strawman argument. The most popular proposals for property tax relief are to buy down school property taxes over about 10 years by restraining spending at the state and local level. Using this method, it doesn’t really cost anything to eliminate school taxes. We would use money that would have otherwise been spent elsewhere to buy down the taxes, while the tax burden is greatly reduced from what it would have been otherwise. But by focusing on the $81 billion needed to eliminate all property taxes at once, legislators can take attention away from the common sense, practical buy down solution funded by spending restraint—something which is anathema to most of them.

Unfortunately, the politicians are aided in this by some advocates who want to eliminate all property taxes at once by increasing other taxes. Some have called for increasing the sales tax to cover this. Discussion at the hearing yesterday suggested out sales tax rate might have to be 21% to cover this. Another group similarly calls for a consumption tax.

I believe it is a serious mistake for anyone to be taking this approach. First, because it provides politicians with political cover for not making serious efforts to provide property tax relief. Second, because eliminating all property taxes will almost certainly require the imposition of some other tax—swapping one tax for another is not tax relief. It will also create a huge, centralized bureaucracy and put the state of Texas in charge of all local finances; if you think Robin Hood property taxes and the state takeover of Texas local school districts has been a mess, you ought to be wary of this.

Instead, we should eliminate the school M&O property tax, freeze all property taxes, allow some limited increases only with voter permission, put strict limits on state and local spending growth, and remove the automatic loss of property for not paying taxes. Taken together, Texans property tax burden will be greatly reduced, the size and scope of government with be reduced, and Texans will once again own their property.

Glenn Rogers is running against Mike Olcott for Texas state representative. Olcott is supported by Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Ken Paxton, and Sid Miller, but Roger’s campaign reports show that he is supported by political and corporate cronies, like Dade Phelan's $55,000 contribution and ...

Austin swamp Crony campaign donors to @RogersForTexas: Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC $5000, Associated Republicans of Texas CF $5,963, @SpeakerStraus’ Texas Forever Forward PAC, $2,500, Linbarger Goggan … LLP $500, Texas Medical Association PAC $27,500 …

Rep. DeWayne Burns is running against Helen Kerwin in the Texas Republican Primary. Kerwin is supported by @realDonaldTrump, @KenPaxtonTX, @GregAbbott_TX, & @DanPatrick. Burns’ campaign reports show he is supported by political and corporate cronies, such as: @DadePhelan Campaign $35,000. And ...

Austin swamp Crony campaign contributors of @Burnsfarms: @DadePhelan Campaign $14,600 (in-kind), Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC $39,600, @TXGOPCaucus PAC $1000, Associated Republicans of Texas Campaign Fund $11,680 (in-kind), Wholesale Beer Distributors of Texas PAC $2000, and

Here are my recommendations on the 2024 Texas Republican Primary Ballot Propositions

1.) Texas should eliminate all property taxes without increasing Texans’ overall tax burden. No. The language here is fraught with loopholes and would not result in lower taxes. It should read, “Texas should reduce our tax burden by eliminating all property taxes using budget surpluses without increasing any existing taxes or creating new ones.

2.) Texas should create a Border Protection Unit, and deploy additional state law enforcement and military forces, to seal the border, to use physical force to prevent illegal entry and trafficking, and to deport illegal aliens to Mexico or to their nations of origin. Yes.

TxLege state Rep. @justinaholland claims he is a “proven conservative.” But his two most recent campaign finance reports suggest that instead he is a proven political and corporate crony. Let’s take a look. …

From July 1 thru Jan. 25, @justinaholland received campaign contributions totaling $507,183. His total political expenditures were $607,628. That is a lot of money. In the next several tweets, we will take a look at where all his campaign money came from. …

@justinaholland Political crony donors: Dade Phelan Campaign, $50,000+$15,475 (in-kind); TLR PAC, $40,000; ART Campaign Fund, $21,517 (in-kind); HillCo PAC, $26,500; K&L Gates Committee for Good Government, $1,000; Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP, $1,000 …

This was originally published in the Dallas Morning News

The United Auto Workers strikes of General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford may bring back unpleasant memories of the 1970s. A similar strike then — and subsequent concessions from the car manufacturers — helped set the stage for the collapse of the American auto industry and economy.

Hampered by high costs and inflexible work rules, the automakers were ill-prepared to meet the onslaught of international competition they faced when Toyota and Honda delivered less expensive cars that were more reliable and achieved better gas mileage.

Perhaps the UAW has not noticed, but their employers still face keen competition, with cars from Japan, South Korea, Germany and other countries flooding the U.S. market. The incipient threats today are Tesla and the other startup manufacturers of EVs, which use nonunion labor and operate factories that are much more mechanized than the production line for a gas-operated car.

However, the boldness of the UAW’s demands may stem not from ignorance but from the Biden administration’s undermining years of economic and regulatory progress that reduced unions’ stranglehold over certain sectors of the U.S. economy. Given that the strike has expanded into parts centers in Roanoke, Carrollton and this week in Arlington’s GM plant, this should be of concern to Texans who are worried about the state’s and nation’s economic health.

(download a .pdf version of the article)

The Texas Legislature has put $13.8 billion in spending on the November 7 constitutional amendments ballot. A vote by Texans to reject eight of these propositions  (see below) would cut Texas’ spending of state funds by $13.8 billion, or more than 6% of projected spending over the next two years. This gives Texans an unprecedented opportunity to reduce the size and scope of Texas government.

Normally, politicians—who love to spend our money—would never give us this opportunity. But Texas politicians had a choice to make this spring. With a record $80 billion of new revenue available, they could either spend the money or give it back to Texas taxpayers in the form of property tax relief. Unfortunately for Texans, for the most part they chose to spend the money.

(download a .pdf version of the article)

On November 7, Texas voters are being asked to approve $13.8 billion in new spending over the next two years proposed by the Texas Legislature. As noted elsewhere, this is because the Texas Legislature wanted to spend more money than allowed by the Texas Constitution. So instead of taking a dangerous political vote themselves to “bust” the state spending cap, Texas politicians decided to pass the buck to voters.

The new spending, which is covered by eight propositions on the ballot (see below), is for things like infrastructure, teacher retirement, and parks. While there might be some debate about the merits of these propositions, the primary beneficiaries of the $13.8 billion is seen in the sponsors of the political advertising in support of the spending.

For instance, above are the members of the Texas Infrastructure Coalition, sponsored by the Texans for Opportunity and Prosperity PAC, that are advocating in support of propositions 6, 7, and 8, which would spend $7.5 billion if approved by voters. However much Texans might benefit from the spending, these businesses—and the Texas politicians that have proposed it—would benefit more.

Here is a list of the amendments that would increase state spending by $13.8 billion and benefit special interests and corporations:

The Texas Legislature adjourned May 29 ending its 88^th regular legislative session. In its wake, a lot of bills were sent to Texas Governor Greg Abbott to become law with his signature. Many more bills were not passed or even considered. In this review of the Texas Legislature, we will review the bills that passed and make up the Texas Budget.

The Texas Legislature began its session this year with approximately $70 billion in new funds to spend over what they spent in 2021, including a record $32 billion surplus left over from 2023. Unfortunately, the Legislature decided to spend almost all of the money it could get its hands on.

God's Word provides us with more knowledge than any of us could learn in a lifetime. I'm fact, I'd suggest it provides us with more knowledge than all of humanity could learn throughout eternity. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep mining it for everything we can learn from it. Thus, I'd suggest it would be worth our while these days to dig into Scripture to develop a theology of the Censorship-Industrial Complex (see below for the article by Margot Cleveland at the Federalist). Christians should be leading the way in developing ideas about to deal with this clear and present danger.

Of course, the partnership of government with industry is nothing new; neither it its threat to liberty. President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex in the 1950s; we did not listen very well. The Budgetary-Financial Complex, the partnership between congressional appropriators and Wall Street, has been in place since Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913. And the Regulatory-Rent Seeking Complex, the partnership between regulators and businesses seeking profits through government rather than markets, has been alive and well since the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed in 1890.

Yet Americans--and American Christians--have just sat around watching these partnerships continue as if God has no problem with corruption. Margot Cleveland does a great job of describing the problem of the "public-private" partnerships in her article:

How Trump Derangement Gave Birth to the Censorship-Industrial Complex

by Margot Cleveland

The Biden administration may have abandoned plans to create a “Disinformation Board,” but a more insidious “Censorship Complex” already exists and is growing at an alarming speed. 

This Censorship Complex is bigger than banned Twitter accounts or Democrats’ propensity for groupthink. Its funding and collaboration implicate the government, academia, tech giants, nonprofits, politicians, social media, and the legacy press. Under the guise of combatting so-called misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information, these groups seek to silence speech that threatens the far-left’s ability to control the conversation — and thus the country and the world.

Americans grasped a thread of this reality with the release of the “Twitter Files” and the Washington Examiner’s reporting on the Global Disinformation Index, which revealed the coordinated censorship of speech by government officials, nonprofits, and the media. Yet Americans have no idea of the breadth and depth of the “Censorship Complex” — and how much it threatens the fabric of this country.

In his farewell address in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower cautioned against the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power” via the new sweeping military-industrial complex. Its “total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — [was] felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government.” Replace “military-industrial” with “censorship,” and you arrive at the reality Americans face today.

Origins of the Censorship Complex

Even with the rise of independent news outlets, until about 2016 the left-leaning corporate media controlled the flow of information. Then Donald Trump entered the political arena and used social media to speak directly to Americans. Despite the Russia hoax and the media’s all-out assault, Trump won, proving the strategic use of social media could prevail against a unified corporate press. The left was terrified. 

Of course, Democrats and the media couldn’t admit their previous control over information converted to electoral victories and that for their own self-preservation, they needed to suppress other voices. So instead, the left began pushing the narrative that “disinformation” — including Russian disinformation — from alternative news outlets and social media companies handed Trump the election.

The New York Times first pushed the “disinformation” narrative using the “fake news” moniker after the 2016 election. “The proliferation of fake and hyperpartisan news that has flooded into Americans’ laptops and living rooms has prompted a national soul-searching, with liberals across the country asking how a nation of millions could be marching to such a suspect drumbeat. Fake news, and the proliferation of raw opinion that passes for news, is creating confusion,” the Times wrote, bemoaning the public’s reliance on Facebook.

Read the rest at the Federalist.

This was originally published by the Huffines Liberty Foundation.

Executive Summary

The office of Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar reports that school property taxes in 2022 increased 13.7% over the previous year. City taxes were also up 9.1%, county taxes 12.7%, and special district taxes 9.4%. This adds up to a $8.9 billion property tax increase in the same year that the Texas Legislature’s 2021 property tax “relief” effort took effect.

The 12.17% property tax increase is hard to under-stand given the limits the Texas Legislature put on property tax revenue growth in 2019. For instance, county and city property tax revenue growth is limited to only 3.5% above the “no-new-revenue” rate without voter approval. It turns out, however, that the Legislature’s limits on property tax growth leak like a sieve and allow property taxes to grow much faster than anticipated.

With the Texas Legislature sitting on an unprecedented $64 billion in new revenue, it is possible to provide real and lasting property tax relief for Texans by eliminating the school maintenance and operations (M&O) property tax in as few as 4 years. But in order to do this, the Legislature must use all of the current $32 billion surplus to provide property tax relief and change the current dysfunctional property tax system by taking these steps: 1) limit state spending growth to no more than 5% per biennium; 2) freeze school M&O property taxes; 3) use 90% of future Texas budget surpluses to buy-down M&O property taxes; and 4) require voter approval for local governments and special districts to exceed the no-new-revenue tax rate.

Introduction

One of the problems with unlimited government is how its complexity masks the truth from voters and taxpayers.  One example of this is Texas property taxes. Tex-as politicians for years have been bragging about what a great job they have done providing property tax relief for Texans. For instance, at a press conference on property tax relief and school finance in May 2019, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick declared, “We have had the Super Bowl of legislative sessions in the history of this state, and I think in the history of this country” (The Texan). More recently, Patrick noted that 2022 “was the first time [property owners] saw the benefit of what we did in 2019.” 

However, these claims have been called into ques-tion by data recently released by the office of Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar. According to the Comp-troller’s office, since the Texas Legislature’s Super Bowl session of 2019, the Texas property tax levy from schools, counties, cities, and special districts has increased by $15.4 billion, an average annual increase of 6.3%. More than half of that increase came in the last year, despite the Texas Legislature’s additional property tax relief efforts in 2021.

In fact, the $8.9 billion, 12.2% increase of all property taxes from 2021-22 is difficult to explain even for analysts and agency employees who have been working on these issues for years. As is the $5.3 billion, 13.7% increase in school property taxes. The problem stems from attempting to explain how recent attempts by the Legislature to slow the growth of property taxes failed so spectacularly. If the Comptroller’s data is accurate, however, an explanation is needed, particularly since Texas politicians are trying to determine how much of the $64 billion of new revenue the Texas Legislature has on hand will be used for their third attempt at property tax relief in the last five years. 

The Texas Comptroller’s Data

Figure 2 shows the growth in Texas local government property tax revenue since 2018. The data comes from the Texas Comptroller, though the special district and county figures for 2022 have been adjusted to account for some missing data.

The Comptroller shows a rapid growth of property tax revenue since 2018. The 6.77% average growth in revenue during that period is higher than the average 6.1% growth rate since 1996, despite the Legislature’s attempts in 2019 and 2021 to provide relief. 

There were two approaches to relief during this period. First, in 2019 and 2021, the Texas Legislature spent an extra $3.1 billion annually to “buy down” or compress rates for the school district M&O property tax. Second, the Texas Legislature put limits on the revenue growth from all districts that could only be exceeded through voter approval. These “voter approval” growth limits were 3.5% for counties and cities, 8% for special purpose districts, and approximately 5% for school districts. These limits raise the question that is being asked in light of the Comptroller’s numbers for 2022 revenue growth; how can the property tax levy increase at a rate so much higher than the limits set in state law? The answer, it seems, is that the limits on revenue growth are largely smoke and mirrors designed to make Texas voters believe that Texas politicians are doing something to control runaway property taxes when they are not.

The Leaky, Loophole Ridden Limits on Property Tax Revenue Growth

The current general restriction on the growth of property tax revenue is known as the “voter-approval tax rate.” As the title indicates, a tax entity cannot set a property tax rate higher than the voter-approval tax rate without approval of a majority of voters in an election. 

For counties and cities, the maintenance and operations voter approval tax rate is the no-new-revenue maintenance and operations rate x 1.035. For special districts, it is the no-new-revenue maintenance and operations rate x 1.08. And for school districts it is the “rate per $100 of taxable value that is equal to the district’s maximum compressed rate times $1.00 plus the greater of: the previous year’s enrichment rate or $0.05 per $100 of taxable value” (Texas Comptroller).

Though the language is confusing, the average voter might believe that the limits on the growth of property taxes, without voter approval, range between 3.5% (counties and cities) and 8% (special districts). But that would be incorrect. There are so many exceptions and loopholes to the growth limits above that it is virtually impossible to calculate what the limits actually are. Apparently, though, based on the Comptroller’s numbers, the limits can be stretched to allow school taxes to increase by at least 13% annually and all property taxes by at least 12%. 

The following are some examples of the loopholes to the limits on property tax growth. They are not exhaustive, but they do offer some insight into the fact that the Texas Legislature has made property tax limits so complex and confusing that most Texans cannot understand them:

No-New-Revenue Tax Rate: This rate does not actually result in no new revenue for a district. Instead, it provides for no new revenue from properties that are in the same condition in the new year as they were in the previous year. But taxing entities can still increase property tax revenue from “new development.” For instance, Harris County adopted a no-new-revenue tax rate this year. Yet the rate provided Harris County with $66 million in new revenue this year, an increase of 3.3% (8, Huffines Liberty Foundation).

Unused Increment Rate: This rate allows districts to “bank” unused increases from the previous two years. As an example, since Harris County used none of its voter approval 3.5%increase for 2022, the county could raise it taxes by 7% over the now-new-revenue rate in 2023 without voter approval. If the county experiences growth this year similar to last year, property taxes in Harris County could jump by more than 10% in 2023 without the voters having any input.

Debt Rate: The 3.5% limit in voter-approval tax rate does not include growth in property taxes used to pay debt. For the most part, debt must be approved by voters in a bond election. But often deception is involved in these elections as well. Last year, Ft. Bend I.S.D. asked voters to approve a property tax increase of 7.5% above the no new revenue rate. In trying to gain ap-proval for the increase, the district told voters that the new tax rate would be the same as the previous year’s without mentioning that the district’s revenue will increase by $47.66 million and homeowner’s tax bills will increase 7%(4, Huffines B) because of growth in property values.

Tax Rate Compression: In 2019, the Texas Legis-lature passed HB 3, which, among other things, forced districts to compress their M&O tax rates by an amount depending on the district’s prop-erty value growth above 2.5%. However, the complexities of the compression requirements, differing tax rates, and widely ranging growth in property tax values across districts have allowed districts to increase revenue far above the 2.5% generally portrayed as the limit.

Conclusion

The Texas Legislature currently has the largest bud-get surplus in state history at about $32 billion. Add to that projected revenue for the next two years, Texas politicians are sitting on about $64 billion of new revenue. Yet they have said they would use only about $10 billion for property tax relief this session. Unless the Legislature at least triples the amount of property tax relief and makes significant changes to put school M&O on the path to elimination, the results this year will mirror what we have seen before; more spending on education with only minor and temporary property tax relief. 

It is possible, though, to bring permanent property tax relief for Texans by eliminating the school M&O property tax. Here is how:

Limit State Spending Growth

Limiting state spending growth to no more than 5% per biennium (~2.47% annually) will provide adequate state revenue to eliminate the M&O portion of school property taxes within 10 years.

Freeze School M&O Property Taxes

Eliminating the ability of school districts to in-crease M&O property taxes by freezing school property taxes at the current level stops school districts from interfering with a buydown.

Use 90% of Current and Future Texas’ Budget Surpluses for the Property Tax Buydown

Fiscal discipline at the state level will provide enough funds to eliminate the M&O property tax in 10 years (or less) only if 90% of the surpluses generated are used for the buydown.

Require Voter Approval for Local Governments to Exceed the

No-New-Revenue Tax Rate

Cities and counties constantly undermine proper-ty tax relief by rapidly filling in the gap created by reduction in school property taxes. They should be required to ask voters for permission if they want to keep doing so.

Texas’ school M&O property tax, about 43% of the current $76.4 total property tax levy, can be eliminated in as little as six years without raising any existing taxes or creating a new tax.

Yet, for 25 years Texas politicians have been unsuccessful in their attempts to reduce the heavy burden of property taxes on Texans. Five major reform efforts took place in 1997, 2006, 2015, 2019, and 2021. All of these efforts have three things in common.

First, they failed. Only the 2006 attempt resulted in even a minor reduction in the property tax burden—and that was temporary. In all cases, the efforts failed to stop the rapid increase in property taxes. In 1996, the total property tax levy in Texas was $16.8 billion. In 2021, it was $73.5 billion.

I recently spoke to the Brazos Valley Republican Club about the problem with Big Government. We focused on the problems with Texas' budget, property taxes, and electric grid.

While there are a lot of problems in Texas that Christians and conservatives need to deal with, such as election integrity, Democrat chairs in the Texas House, further protecting unborn babies, the sexualization and mutilation of Texas kids, the invasion of Texas' border, parental rights in education, and gun ownership, I'd suggest the primary issue we need to deal with is shrinking big government. As I told the great group of folks in College Station, we can’t stop Big Government from taking away our God-given unalienable rights. Our only successful path to Liberty is to turn Big Government into Little Government.

You can download my PowerPoint presentation here.

It is no secret that Big Tech and conservatives aren’t close friends these days. Responding to this concern, Republican House members last year assembled a Big Tech Censorship and Data Task Force to hold Big Tech accountable for anti-conservative bias and censorship. 

Now, however, Republicans in Congress are taking things too far by partnering with Democrats to deal with the Big Tech censorship issue with a barrage of antitrust legislation.

Of particular concern is Republican support for “The American Innovation and Choice Online Act,” which would give unprecedented authority to bureaucrats at the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, allowing them to decide what is lawful, who those laws apply to, and what the penalty for breaking the law will be. 

States compete using various means to attract new businesses and residents to drive economic growth. For instance, CNBC ranks America’s Top States for Business with criteria such as Cost of Doing Business, Infrastructure, Business Friendliness, and Technology and Innovation. It also includes criteria that are more focused on residents, including Life, Health, and Inclusion and Cost of Living. Getting under the hood on these categories, it seems as if the primary factor in CNBC’s rankings is a state’s willingness to spend taxpayer money to the benefit of business.

The Rich States, Poor States ranking by the American Legislative Exchange Council takes a different approach. Its ranking criteria include Top Marginal Income Tax Rates, Property Tax Burden, Public Employees Per 10,000 of Population, Right-to-Work State?, and Tax Expenditure Limits. While both rankings take into account costs on businesses, Rich States, Poor States places greater value in factors that move a state toward “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” such as lower government spending, less regulation, and economic liberty.

In his book, The Tyranny of Experts, Dr. William Easterly explains there are two different approaches to economic development. One is authoritarian development, a technocracy in which “well-intentioned autocrats advised by technical experts” focus on technical solutions to economic development while ignoring the “rights of real people” (p. 5). The second approach he calls “free development,” which gives free individuals with political and economic rights “the right to choose amongst a myriad of spontaneous problem-solvers, rewarding those that solve our problems”

An examination of Texas from these two perspectives yields the conclusion that Texas is double-minded. On the one hand, Texas ranks 47^th in state spending per capita, does not have a personal income tax, and has relative strong property rights protections. On the other hand, Texas’ spending jumps to 36^th when local government spending is accounted for. It also has numerous taxpayer-funded giveaways to attract businesses, including the Texas Enterprise Fund and local property tax abatements such as Chapter 313 for school districts and Chapter 312 for local governments. Texas’ economic development policy appears to be unstable, “like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.

A prime example of Texas’ partial embrace of authoritarian economic development policies is Texas’ elected officials support of high property tax rates for most Texans while offering tax abatements to politically connected businesses. This approach allows Texas’ schools and local governments to keep spending at relatively high levels while using the tax abatements to keep the state “business friendly” enough to keep the economy growing--and business off the backs of the politicians. Figure 1 shows how Texas property taxes have skyrocketed since 1996, the year before the Texas Legislature began a long string of failed attempts to relieve Texas' property tax burden. Figure 2, which compares Texas property tax rates to other states, confirms the heavy property tax burden imposed on Texans because of Texas’ approach to economic development.

The reason that Texans have high property taxes is very simple: Texas' statewide elected politicians and members of the Texas Legislature politicians prefer high property taxes to low property taxes. Because if they actually got serious about reducing property taxes, they'd have to restrain spending by local governments. And they have decided it is better, since they have bought off big business with tax abatements, to deal with complaints by Texas voters over high property taxes than it would be to deal with complaints from city councils, county commissioners' courts, and school boards upset about not being able to build more bike paths, homeless shelters, and football stadiums. After all, why should Austin politicians worry about voters when big business and local governments are going all out to keep their benefactors in office? Texas' voters only hope of getting politicians to do anything meaningful to reduce or eliminate property taxes is make them start worrying about us.

It was not that long ago that property tax abatements were illegal in Texas because they were
considered to be theft.

The market’s job was to create jobs and grow the economy. The government’s job was to
ensure a level playing field for all market participants through efficient civil and criminal justice
systems and limited regulation.

Acknowledging the ethical and economic problems with the government giving taxpayer money
to individuals or businesses, the Texas Constitution contained what is known as the Gift Clause,
which prohibited the “grant[ing of] public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual,
association or corporation.”

Then in 1987, the Legislature sent a constitutional amendment to Texans allowing the “creation
of programs and the making of loans and grants of public money … for the public purposes of
development and diversification of the economy of the state, the elimination of unemployment
or underemployment in the state.” It passed by the narrow margin of 51.7 percent of the
popular vote.

Romans 13 tells us to "be subject to the governing authorities."

Yet the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, from Luther and Calvin to Knox, Rutherford, Junius Brutus, and others, had a problem: the rulers they were supposed to be subject to were trying to, or actually did, murder them. To understand what the Bible taught about this, they spent the better part of 200 years studying and writing about it.

The result is today the body of work we call Protestant Resistance Theory. By far the best and most accessible modern book I've read on this is Slaying Leviathan by Glenn Sunshine.

“The conventional approach to economic development … is based on a technocratic illusion: the belief that poverty is a purely technical problem amendable to … technical solutions.” ~ William Easterly

Under significant political pressure from the left and the right, the Texas Legislature last year let expire the Chapter 313 "economic development" program that allows Texas school districts to offer property tax abatements to politically connected businesses. Now, big business interests are joining with many of those politicians to bring the program back to life, despite evidence of the great harm it has caused.

According to Dr. William Easterly, programs like Chapter 313 are economically and ethically flawed. In his book, The Tyranny of Experts, he explains there are two different approaches to economic development. One is authoritarian development, a technocracy in which “well-intentioned autocrats advised by technical experts” focus on technical solutions to economic development while ignoring the “rights of real people” (p. 5). The second approach he calls “free development,” which gives free individuals with political and economic rights “the right to choose amongst a myriad of spontaneous problem-solvers, rewarding those that solve our problems” (p. 6). Here, I'll refer to them as technocratic development and free-market development.

Last Thursday I spent 11 hours at the Texas state Capitol in Austin. The occasion for all the fun was a hearing by the House Ways and Means committee on issues related to property taxes. 

It was pretty amazing to watch the proceedings. One of the biggest problems we have in America today is that our various governments take far more of our money than they are entitled to and then spend it on things they do not have authority to spend it on or give it to people they do not have authority to give it to. This is certainly the case when it comes to property taxes in Texas.

Yet throughout the day, most of the discussion from both House members and those who testified was focused on how to make Texas' property tax system more efficient or to use it to give big tax breaks to big business. Nobody on the committee seemed concerned that property taxes in Texas are driving people out of their homes, being spent to groom our children to ignore God and instead live a life serving Marxist and gay ideologies, and being used to attract renewable energy generators who are wrecking our electric grid.

This commentary originally appeared in the Dallas Morning News.

In his farewell address delivered just over 60 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Critics of the high-tech industry consider companies such as Amazon, Google and Apple to have misused market power and harmed competition. It certainly is true that those firms have a significant advantage because they effectively own and operate online marketplaces that have come to be used by hundreds of millions of shoppers. Third-party online retailers or app developers that use these platforms have the challenge that, in addition to competing against each other, they also have to compete against Google, Apple and Amazon.

It was not that long ago that property tax abatements were illegal in Texas because they were considered to be theft.

This historic and biblical perspective was embedded in the Texas Constitution. Acknowledging the ethical and economic problems with the government giving taxpayer money to individuals or businesses, the Constitution contains what is known as the Gift Clause, which at one time prohibited the “grant[ing of] public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association or corporation.” This provision helped Texas avoid the corruption inherent with private citizens getting rich at the expense of taxpayers and reduced the transfer of wealth from productive Texans to those who were less productive but more politically connected.

Property tax abatements under Chapters 312 and 313 of the Texas Tax Code allow counties, cities, school districts, and special purpose districts to reduce the amount of taxes paid by favored businesses that locate or expand within their geographic boundaries. They are used by renewable energy developers in concert with state and federal subsidies to turn a profit on what would otherwise be an unprofitable investment in highly inefficient renewable energy.

Exemptions from Texas’ Open Meetings and Public Information Acts means that negotiations between the taxing entities and private businesses usually take place behind closed doors.

These exemptions mean that most public input into the process will take place after the governing bodies have negotiated with the business seeking the abatement for months and essentially decided to move forward with the abatement.

“The conventional approach to economic development … is based on a technocratic illusion: the belief that poverty is a purely technical problem amendable to … technical solutions.”     ~William Easterly, The Tyranny of Experts

There are two different approaches to economic development, according to Dr. William Easterly. One is technocratic or authoritarian development, a technocracy in which “well-intentioned autocrats advised by technical experts” focus on technical solutions to economic development while ignoring the “rights of real people” (Easterly 2013, p. 5). The second approach he calls “free development” which gives free individuals with political and economic rights “the right to choose amongst a myriad of spontaneous problem-solvers, rewarding those that solve our problems” (Easterly 2013, p. 6). In this paper, we’ll refer to them as technocratic development and free-market development. 

Following his recent speech to the Texas Oil and Gas Association, Rep. Dade Phelan, speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, tweeted that the Texas Legislature is “developing a program to replace Chapter 313,” the soon to be defunct provision in the Texas Tax Code that allows school districts to give property tax breaks to businesses.

Members of the Legislature are attempting to do this now because last year Texans all across the political spectrum sent them a clear message that it is wrong for Texas school districts to give multi-million dollar property tax breaks to big business while average Texans’ property tax bills are skyrocketing.

Toward the end of the 86th Texas Legislature’s regular session in 2019, some of Texas’ leading politicians couldn’t stop congratulating themselves on the success of their efforts to provide property tax relief.

“We are making tremendous strides to provide long-awaited relief to Texas homeowners and businesses,” said Gov. Greg Abbott in a press release. “Our goal was not to simply mask the problem of skyrocketing property taxes, but to make transformative changes that would provide meaningful and lasting reform.”

Not to be outdone, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick spiked the football, the San Antonio Express News reported: “We said we were on the five-yard line about a month ago. Now we have a touchdown, we have had the Super Bowl of legislative sessions in the history of the state.”

What all the buzz was about was that Abbott, Patrick and former Texas House Speaker Dennis Bonnen had pushed a plan through the Legislature that they claimed would solve Texas’ biggest problems by boosting education spending by $4.5 billion and allocating $5 billion to tamp down property tax bills.

However, recent property tax data from the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts shows that Texans got a poor return on their $9.5 billion. Texans have not seen transformative changes or tremendous strides. Instead, their property taxes have continued to rise.

I've been a fan of Ted Cruz long before he ran for office. We first met about 2008 when he was an attorney in private practice. He would give occasional luncheon speeches for my employer, the Texas Public Policy Foundation. I was amazed. As I told my wife at the time, every word that came out of his mouth sounded like it had been planned 10 minutes earlier. He knew not only exactly what he was saying, but also exactly why he was saying it. And he had a very good grasp of how his words would be taken by his audience.

That is why I was so astounded when I heard him call the January 6 break-in at the U.S. Capitol a violent terrorist attack. It simply made no sense. Senator Cruz is simply not someone who "misspeaks." What, then, could he have been thinking?

I'm not the only one who had the same reaction. Here is part of an excellent piece on this by another Ted Cruz fan, Roger Kimble:

I was appalled. Nor was I the only one. The Trump-friendly commentariat erupted in outrage. Tucker Carlson, a longtime admirer of Cruz, excoriated him on his show. Both in response to Carlson and in a public announcement, Ted Cruz endeavored to backtrack. “It was a mistake to say that yesterday,” Cruz plaintively insisted. By “terrorists” he meant not the protesters but “the limited number of people who engaged in violent attacks against police officers.”

Carlson wasn’t having it. A thug who attacks a police officer is a criminal who should be arrested, indicted and jailed. But he is not a “terrorist.” There was also the whole tenor of Cruz’s remarks — the invocation of a “solemn anniversary,” praise for the Capitol police, many of whom behaved very badly that day (remember Ashli Babbitt? She was the unarmed woman who was shot by a Capitol Hill police officer). In brief, Ted Cruz implicitly bolstered the false Democratic narrative about January 6. Why he did this is a mystery.

I do believe that Tucker Carlson was right when he observed that no one chooses his words more carefully than Ted Cruz. He must have known what the rhetorical effect of his words would be. I suspect he now rues what he said. But that does not excuse it. I wish he hadn’t given such aid and comfort to the people posing the real threat to what Nancy Pelosi likes to call “our democracy.”

I don't usually find a lot worth quoting in the mainstream media. But the Houston Chronicle as been on a bit of a rampage of late against corporate welfare in the form of Chapter 313 property tax abatements offered by Texas school districts to big businesses--especially renewable energy wind and solar farms:

"As millions of Texans struggle with the economic devastation of COVID-19, the biggest corporate tax giveaway in Texas has helped businesses cut more than $10 billion from their property taxes — and there are no limits on the program’s exponential growth.

"The gusher of tax incentives is flowing to firms ranging from petrochemical plants on the Gulf Coast to sprawling wind farms in the Panhandle. Companies are saving billions by promising to bring their business to Texas — even if evidence suggests some never would have gone anywhere else.

"Meanwhile, nothing has changed during the pandemic for Texas homeowners who must pay their property tax bills on time or face stiff penalties." - Mike Morris, John Tedesco, Stephanie Lamm.

You really ought to go play their Billion Dollar Texas Tax Giveaway. It is brilliant in the way it lays bare the lies behind the myth of government "economic development" programs. 

Chapter 313 is scheduled to expire in 2022. Proponents, like Rep. Jim Murphy, had intended to renew and expand it this session. However, Murphy's bill got shot down in the Texas House, while a simple two year extension failed to make it out of the Texas Senate. However, 313 abatements are not dead yet. Governor Greg Abbott has already promised to call a special session in the Fall. If he decides to put it on the call, Chapter 313 may still have a chance. Let's pray Abbott is somehow persuaded not to do this.

by John Hinderaker

The Wall Street Journal notes that, as the coronavirus disappears in the rear-view mirror, two Americas are emerging:

The unemployment rate in April nationwide was 6.1%, but this obscures giant variations in the states. With some exceptions, those run by Democrats such as California (8.3%) and New York (8.2%) continued to suffer significantly higher unemployment than those led by Republicans such as South Dakota (2.8%) and Montana (3.7%).

It’s rare to see differences that are so stark based on party control in states. But the current partisan differences reflect different policy choices over the length and severity of pandemic lockdowns and now government benefits such as jobless insurance.

Nine of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment rates are led by Republicans. The exception is Wisconsin whose Supreme Court last May invalidated Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’s lockdown. The unemployment rate in Wisconsin is 3.9%—the same as Indiana—compared to 7.1% in Illinois whose Gov. J.B. Pritzker has been slow to reopen.

Do Takems Have the Upper Hand?
The people of Sunderland in England have been building, or making, ships on the River Wear as far back as the 14th century. Since that time, their neighbors to the north in Newcastle upon Tyne have been taking the ships from Sunderland and using them to ship goods from the Port of Tyne.

Somewhere along the way the relationship between these good-natured rivals was captured by the term of mackems and tackems, or makems and takems. Each sees their role as superior; but the key point is that these roles take place voluntarily in a free market. When we look at these terms, however, in the context of what is happening in the United States today, they take on a much darker meaning.

What has set the United States apart from every other nation in the history of mankind is that the liberty afforded Americans created a country of makems. The Pilgrims overcame near starvation on their way to making a new life in cold, hostile environment. Later, other pioneers made their way into the wilderness to expand the boundaries of the colonies. The work ethic empowered by liberty kept on for over two centuries as America made itself the world’s greatest economic power.

Economic development means a lot of things to different people.

One fairly common definition comes from the International Economic Development Council: “Typically economic development can be described in terms of objectives. These are most commonly described as the creation of jobs and wealth, and the improvement of quality of life.”

What it really is, though, is a way to line the pockets of big government and big business at the expense of the liberty of average Texans. A bill recently filed in the Texas Legislature will help ensure the pillage continues.

It was not that long ago that economic development was in the domain of the private sector. The government’s job was to ensure a level playing field for all market participants through efficient civil and criminal justice systems and limited regulation.

Texas Scorecard, one of the most important organizations fighting for liberty in Texas, has several principles which guide their operation. One of those is don't make it personal.

Michael Sullivan, Texas Scorecard's CEO, applied this principle to how citizens should approach politics in a recent commentary:

We need to step back, for the sake of our Republic. We must dial down the emotion in our reckoning of political actors’ official actions. Citizens must approach government professionally, even if the politicians do not. We need to stop personalizing our relationship with the elected officials whose names appear on our ballot – even if we actually do know them personally.  And we must never take personally their unwillingness – or inability – to deliver on our expectations.

Despite the focus on not making it personal, Sullivan's group does not hesitate to talk critically about individual politicians:

In this sense alone, SD 30 is a massive loss to Austin’s swampy, lobbyist-controlled culture. It revealed that the citizens were not interested in what they were being told to buy. The lobby-favored candidate, of course, was State Rep. Drew Springer (R-Muenster). His most notable achievement to date had been (unsuccessfully) helping a Chinese drone manufacturer. Under the Capitol dome, he’s most known for doing what he’s told by whoever happens to be in power.

Yet, there is no conflict here.

Sometimes when I look around at what Republicans are doing, I don't really know what to do with myself.

Just think about how Republicans were in charge of the U.S. Senate and House and the White House for two years of the first two years of President Trump’s term. What did they accomplish? Not much.

Then, what about the last, what is it now, 17 years of Republicans being in charge of all Texas government; the Texas Senate, the Texas House, the Texas Supreme Court, the governor’s office, all the state agencies? I mean, it is all Republicans running the state yet the accomplishments that have taken place are just not where they ought to be. And you have to ask yourself why.

I think we can find a partial answer to this in an article I ran across the other day about the threatened veto by President Trump on the defense bill. He has said he’s going to veto the defense appropriations bill unless Congress puts a provision in it taking away the liability shield from all these high tech companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, that have been seeking to undermine our elections, laws, and democracy.

On Tuesday, Reason.org reported on the latest U.S. Supreme Court decision:

This morning, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, striking down Montana's state constitutional Blaine Amendment, which forbids state aid to "any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination." The decision overrules a Montana Supreme Court decision striking down a state school choice program that had provided tax credits on an equal basis to students attending both religious and secular private schools. Today's ruling is an important victory for religious freedom, specifically the principle that government policy should not discriminate between private organizations and individuals on the basis of religion.

Blaine amendments rose out of an attempt by President Ulysses S. Grant and Rep. James Blaine and other advocates of public schools to amend the U.S. Constitution to keep government funds from going to private religious schools. When the effort failed, the campaign moved on to the states, where many states did put Blaine amendments into their state constitutions.

by Michael McHaney

On May 22, Clay County, Illinois judge Michael McHaney ruled that Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s stay-at-home order could not be enforced against Republican state Representative James Mainer and his business, HCL Deluxe Tan. His temporary restraining order is in force until June 5, when the judge will hold a hearing on Mainer's request for a permanent injunction. Gov. Pritzker filed an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling last week. Here is McHaney's opinion:

Before I rule, I'm advising everybody in this room, no public outbursts or displays. The court is still in session until you are told otherwise.

Since the inception of this insanity, the following regulations, rules or consequences have occurred: I won't get COVID if I get an abortion but I will get COVID if I get a colonoscopy. Selling pot is essential but selling goods and services at a family-owned business is not. Pot wasn't even legal and pot dispensaries didn't even exist in this state until five months ago and, in that five months, they have become essential but a family-owned business in existence for five generations is not.

A family of six can pile in their car and drive to Carlyle Lake without contracting COVID but, if they all get in the same boat, they will. We are told that kids rarely contract the virus and sunlight kills it, but summer youth programs, sports programs are cancelled. Four people can drive to the golf course and not get COVID but, if they play in a foursome, they will. If I go to Walmart, I won't get COVID but, if I go to church, I will. Murderers are released from custody while small business owners are threatened with arrest if they have the audacity to attempt to feed their families.

These are just a few of examples of rules, regulations and consequences that are arbitrary, capricious, and completely devoid of anything even remotely approaching common sense.

Doctors and experts say different things weekly. The defendant cites models in his opposition. The only thing experts will agree on is that all models are wrong and some are useful. The Centers for Disease Control now says the virus is not easily spread on surfaces.

The defendant in this case orders you to stay home and pronounces that, if you leave the state, you are putting people in danger, but his family members traveled to Florida and Wisconsin because he deems such travel essential. One initial rationale why the rules don't apply to him is that his family farm had animals that needed fed. Try selling that argument to farmers who have had to slaughter their herds because of disruption in the supply chain.

When laws do not apply to those who make them, people are not being governed, they are being ruled. Make no mistake, these executive orders are not laws. They are royal decrees. Illinois citizens are not being governed, they are being ruled. The last time I checked Illinois citizens are also Americans and Americans don't get ruled. The last time a monarch tried to rule Americans, a shot was fired that was heard around the world. That day led to the birth of a nation consensually governed based upon a document which ensures that on this day in this, any American courtroom tyrannical despotism will always lose and liberty, freedom and the constitution will always win.

by Ryan McMaken

This article originally appeared on Mises.org.

Media pundits and politicians are now in the habit of claiming it was the pandemic itself that has caused unemployment to skyrocket and economic growth to plummet. The claim is that sick and dying workers, fearful consumers, and disrupted supply chains would cause economic chaos. Some have even claimed that economic shutdowns actually help the economy, because it is claimed allowing the spread of the disease will itself destroy employment and economic growth.1

Leaving aside the fact that there's no evidence lockdowns actually work, we can nonetheless look to past pandemics—where coercive government interventions were at most sporadic—we should see immense economic damage.  Specifically, we can look to the the pandemic of 1957–58, which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far. We can also look to the 1918–19 pandemic. Yet we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government-mandated lockdowns. This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction, and that the virus itself is the real culprit.

Economic Reactions in 1957–58, and in 1918–19

The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19. Adjusted for population size, that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million.

This is (so far) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic. In that pandemic, it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died. Yet, the US population was much smaller then, totaling only 175 million. Adjusted for population size, mortality as a result of the "Asian flu" pandemic of 1957–58 was more than 660 per million.

This article originally ran in The Texan.

On Saturday, Central Texans and others from around the state attended a rally on the steps of the Texas Capitol in Austin calling on state leaders to end the government-mandated shut down of the Texas economy and restore citizens’ freedoms.

Speakers at the rally included grassroots activists, current and former legislators, candidates for elected office, and Shelley Luther, who recently made headlines defying authorities in opening her hair salon in Dallas. 

“You guys are so awesome. I am so proud of you for standing up for what you believe in,” Luther told the crowd of about 200.  

“I think instead of keeping Austin weird, we should keep Austin open.”

In keeping with Luther’s problems of re-opening her business, several speakers called for a rapid opening of the state.  

“We want this state to open 100 percent, not 25, not 50, and we want it opened now,” said Kevin Witt of the Texas Freedom Coalition, which organized the rally.

But the more prominent theme was concern about the state’s actions restricting the freedom of Texans. 

“You’re here because you have these freedoms,” said Allen West, former Florida congressman and current candidate for chairman of the Republican Party of Texas. “You’re here because you have these liberties. And even still today, there are men and women standing on freedom’s ramparts so that you can have victory.”

by Mario Loyola

For better or worse, the people will ultimately decide how to strike the balance of public safety and convenience.

Shocked by the large numbers of people congregating on California beaches, Governor Gavin Newsom recently decided to shut some of them down altogether. Large numbers of people then congregated at the beaches in protest, and the beaches have since been reopened, for exercise at least. Earlier this week, a top public-health official in Los Angeles announced that stay-at-home orders might be extended through the summer. An uproar ensued, and Mayor Eric Garcetti almost immediately walked backed the announcement.

Similar “orders” across the country are now prompting reactions like this tweet, which captures the situation facing public officials:

Haha, nope. Entering stores is one thing but no one is putting on a mask to take out their trash or walk their dog or whatever. https://t.co/yuXMMAYh9I

— Rachel 🐶💙🇺🇸 (@RaychelTania) May 14, 2020

COVID-19 is an extremely dangerous virus. It will almost certainly be one of the top five leading causes of death in the United States this year, and may remain in the top five for years to come. But people are reaching the ends of their tethers with lockdowns. Amid the most massive job losses since the Great Depression, people sense that some draconian health measures aren’t worth the squeeze. Mass protests and noncompliance may be rare for now, and the lockdowns continue to enjoy substantial support in principle. But opinion varies widely from region to region and between rural and urban areas. As Scott Rasmussen has pointed out, a large majority of people think that every business that establishes safe social distancing should be allowed to reopen. Public officials struggling to find the right balance of health measures need to realize that the public will soon start making those choices for them.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has said that the virus will determine the timetable for reopening, but that simply cannot be true. Rates of infection, mortality, and immunity are of course crucial factors in getting the policy right, but the most crucial factor of all is public choice. It is people who will decide when to reopen, what safety measures are reasonable, and what risks — to themselves and others — are worth taking. Government officials face a difficult set of incentives. They are held responsible for the impacts of both the virus and the measures taken in response to it. Their interest in political survival will make them increasingly sensitive to popular sentiment. It is worth asking whether public opinion should have such a decisive impact on health policy. But it does, whether we like it or not.

The reason that many states’ highway speed limit is 65 mph is not that some transportation expert decided that is the ideal speed limit from a risk–benefit point of view. People simply won’t accept a lower speed limit on the interstate, even if it would save 20,000 lives a year. On the other hand, most people agree that driving 100 mph is excessively dangerous. The moral of the story is that people need and want a lot of things; balancing those priorities is what sets the bounds of “reasonableness.” And as it turns out, people think it’s perfectly reasonable to do lots of things that put both themselves and others at risk.

Read the rest on National Review Online.

by Jacki Deason

Ezekiel Emanuel, adviser to presidential candidate Joe Biden and Obamacare architect, just called for a 12-to-18-month lockdown to battle COVID-19, asking us to abandon our livelihoods, religious services, and “contact with friends and extended family.” He claims we have “no choice” and that the alternative is hundreds of thousands of deaths.

He has also said that COVID-19 is a “great argument for universal health care coverage.” His plan is politically motivated — and deadly.

When President Trump expressed concerns about the shutdown, his critics presented a false choice between mitigating deaths and the economy. In reality, a great number of the most vulnerable American lives will be lost from economic shutdown, and Emanuel makes it clear that we have reached the moment where we must plead their case.

 A prolonged shutdown could bring tens of thousands of deaths through spikes in rates of suicide, heart attack, missed cancer diagnoses, domestic violence deaths, substance abuse, and more. We have evidence that these deaths are coming, and the shutdown is only a month old.

A suicide spike is almost certain. One study in Taiwan indicated a 10% increase in the unemployment rate yielded approximately 30,000 suicides annually. Another global study linked the 2008 recession to a 20% to 30% increase in the relative risk of suicides.

 We already had a suicide epidemic in this country before the virus, with nearly 50,000 Americans taking their own lives, and an additional estimated 1.4 million attempting to do so, in 2018 alone.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis estimates over 52 million will be laid off just by the second quarter of 2020, for a 32.1% unemployment rate, far higher than Great Depression estimates of 20% to 25% unemployment. Should these predictions materialize, and if history can be our guide, we are going to lose tens of thousands of American lives to suicide ... or more, if these impacts of a three-month shutdown were extended to realize Emanuel’s plan of 12-18 months of shutdown.

Jacki Deason is host of "The Jacki Daily Show" on TheBlaze.

Read the full article on RealClear Politics.

My church decided to have gathered worship this past Sunday in Austin, Texas, after being prohibited from worshiping and enjoying the Lord’s Supper together for more than a month.

During a discussion about whether our worship would be in violation of the city of Austin’s and Travis County’s shelter-in-place orders, which they recently extended through May 30, a friend wrote:

“Austin is a home-rule city and can adopt whatever laws it wants to protect public health and safety. The only limitation is that an ordinance cannot be inconsistent with the Texas Constitution and statutes (or federal law).”

This statement is based on two concepts. The first is “police power,” the ability of a government to “adopt whatever laws it wants to protect public health and safety.” More on this below.

Gregg Jarrett on Fox News:

The collusion house of cards has finally and fully collapsed.

In a stunning turn of events Thursday, the Justice Department dropped its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Exculpatory documents concealed by the FBI and federal prosecutors for more than three years showed that the retired Army lieutenant general never lied or committed a crime.

The FBI knew Flynn did not collude with Russians. He is a patriot, not a traitor.

The Texas Supreme Court ordered the release this morning of Shelly Luther after Dallas area state District Judge Eric Moyé had ordered her jailed for seven days on Tuesday for refusing to close her salon.

Moyé had suggested he would lighten her sentence "If you would ... take this opportunity to acknowledge that your actions were selfish, putting your own interest ahead of those in the community in which you live."

Luther refused his offer, saying "I have to disagree with you sir, when you say that I'm selfish because feeding my kids is not selfish. I have hairstylists that are going hungry because they'd rather feed their kids. So sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed then please go ahead with your decision but I'm not going to shut the salon."

Some have claimed that Judge Moyé was just doing his job of upholding the law when he sent Shelly Luther to jail for operating her salon open in defiance of the orders from Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

This article originally ran on Texas Scorecard on April 29.

Diners at Gloria’s Latin Cuisine in Colleyville were the subjects of a photo spread at Dailymail.com after Mayor Richard Newton authorized patio service in area restaurants in a “controversial” proclamation. According to the MailOnline, these patrons engaged in shocking behavior when their “masks … came off once food became available for consumption.”

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is also taking some heat. CNN led off its coverage of Georgia’s partial reopening with comments from “concerned mayors from across the state [who] pointed to the rise in coronavirus cases in their cities—both urban and rural—as evidence it’s too soon to return to some semblance of normal.”

Even President Trump weighed in with comments critical of Gov. Kemp, a reversal from earlier support, apparently after Dr. Deborah Birx questioned the move.

What is not being questioned, however—at least in the mainstream media, is whether the government actually had the authority to shut down the economy in the first place.

The article originally ran in The Texan on April 29.

Café Medici is a locally owned coffee shop operating three cafes in Austin. That number used to be six, though, before the COVID-19 shutdown.

“We had to close three of them; one for good,” said owner Michael Vaclav, who founded the company with his wife Alison in 2006. “The 2nd and Congress location won’t reopen.”

Vaclav is one of many employers in Texas who are struggling with how to deal with the changes brought about through the response to the current pandemic. 

Headquartered in San Marcos, Heldenfels Enterprises is facing a different set of challenges. Since it qualifies as an essential business and many of its contracts come from state and local governments, there hasn’t been much of a slowdown. 

“For us, [the pandemic] has made us focus on simple hygiene and simple disinfectant, paying attention to more spaces and surfaces than we did before,” said Fred Heldenfels, the president and CEO. “We are also recognizing social distancing.”

Conservatives have long questioned whether welfare is the best way to help the least fortunate among us. More recently, the debate has shifted to a different type of welfare. Conservatives today are challenging whether "corporate welfare" achieves its stated goal of boosting economic growth. And, as in the case of traditional welfare, the debate extends beyond the effectiveness of corporate welfare to the effect it has on the principles on which this country was founded--particularly that of liberty. The Texas Public Policy Foundation's Policymakers' Guide to Corporate Welfare examines numerous examples of corporate welfare in Texas in light of liberty and the Texas Model that has made Texas the nation's economic leader. It is available on Amazon from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for 99 cents.

During its 1980's resurgence, the Texas band ZZ Top released its Eliminator album, which contained the hit single, Give Me All Your Lovin'. The chorus went like this:

Gimme all your lovin', all your hugs and kisses too,
Gimme all your lovin', don't let up until we're through.

Reviewing the song's lyrics as I write this, I can't tell what the song is about, though am pretty sure I don't want to know. The one thing that is obvious from the chorus, though, is that someone needs to give up all of something he/she has for someone else.

Welcome to the world of progressive liberalism!

Just like with ZZ Top, progressive liberals demand that others give up all of something that they have. The difference with between ZZ Top and the progressives, however, is that the progressives know exactly what they want--our wealth, possessions, and families:

Gimme all your money, all your land and children too,
Gimme all your money, we won’t let up until we're through.

Not that this should be a surprise; God told the Israelites through Samuel this is what kings would do about 3,000 years ago:

These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. (1 Samuel 8:11–15 ESV)

There is more, but I am sure you get the point.

David Cassidy, my church's former pastor and a godly man, and I had a brief conversation on Facebook a while back. I thought I'd re-post it here:

Cassidy: Pastors are not on the job to 'Save America'. We are here to announce its eventual demise, conquest, redemption, and replacement with something that is already here and growing ever more powerful in this world every day - the Kingdom of God. Capitalism and Socialism are just labels for power centers that will fall. The flags of men will be folded up before the unfurled banners of Christ the King. That's what pastors announce. Christian faith is not an exercise for weekend warriors. If anyone expects their pastors to simply affirm them in their marginalizing of reality, all in the name of the so-called real and relevant, they either have the right pastor for their pipe dream, or they are quietly being served by someone who actually loves them as he patiently subverts their false hope. There. You've been warned.

Peacock: Capitalism is corrupted today by humans, but it's foundations in the ownership (God's) and stewardship (humans') of property (the Earth and its fruit) are scriptural and will never go away. As long as the heavens and earth exist - which will be for eternity, we will be called to be stewards of God's private property. The best way to do that today is through the ownership and free exchange of private property. All this can be found in Scripture, starting with Genesis 1.

In 1 Samuel 8:10-18, Samuel warns the people of Israel. He is warning them because they sinfully want to replace God with a human king: God says "they have rejected me from being king over them." One thing to keep in mind is this is really God's warning to the people; Samuel is just passing it along. And God is warning His people that if they replace Him with a human king here, the human king is going to do BAD things to them. The human king is going to do things that He, a just and righteous King, had not done and would not do.

Matthew Henry explains this: "Samuel does not speak of a just and honest right of a king to do these things, for his right is quite otherwise described in that part of Moses’s law which concerns the king’s duty, but such a right as the kings of the nations had then acquired." Samuel's, or God's, closing admonition that "you shall be his slaves" helps put this in context. I think we can all agree that making people slaves is bad. And there is no indication that everything else in the passage shouldn't be seen in the same light as the making of slaves.

In my last article, I made the case that the welfare state is unbiblical.

I built my argument on three premises: that the welfare state 1) is a form of theft, 2) destroys charity, and 3) harms everyone associated with it--funder, deliverer, and recipient. Let's take another quick look at this.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:10, Paul writes, "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." Is Paul saying that one who is not willing to work is commanded by God not to eat? Surely not. Calvin suggests that

When, however, the Apostle commanded that such persons should not eat, he does not mean that he gave commandment to those persons, but forbade that the Thessalonians should encourage their indolence by supplying them with food.

In other words, we are forbidden from continuously giving food to those unemployed by sloth. These are hard words, but not harsh. In fact, they are just the opposite. In other parts of Scripture, we learn why:

You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you. - Psalm 128:2

A slack hand causes poverty, but the hand of the diligent makes rich. - Proverbs 10:4

Those who "earn their own living" are blessed, and those who "walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies" are cursed. Food continuously given to people even though they are not working out of sloth is cursing them, not blessing them.

What do we do when we realize the welfare state isn't working? 

Well, for a lot of Evangelicals, the trick is actually getting to that point. Many appear content with government welfare programs as a means of assisting the poor; some even seem to think that we are sinning by not spending enough money on them. 

The welfare state potentially encompasses a lot of different government programs and concepts, but most of us would think of cash payments to the poor, free medical care, subsidies for housing, and food stamps. Why should Christians be upset about these things?

Well, for starters, they are a form of theft. 

The United States of America spends over $1.8 trillion each year on welfare programs and public education systems that consign millions of people to lifetimes of ignorance and poverty, provide substandard housing and medical care, separate fathers from their families, and lead many young black men to prison or an early death.

The federal government joins with state and local governments to take more than $100 billion of dollars each year from American taxpayers and give them to the wealthy executives and stockholders of U.S. and multinational corporations with multi-billion dollar market caps.

Laws that mandate minimum wages, force unions on employees and employers, and make it illegal for consumers to purchase many goods and services hamstring the American economy, put millions of Americans out of work, and reduce the quality of life for millions more.

Bring up the injustice caused by big government through these and other interventions in our lives in many churches and you'll hear crickets. However, throw out a few choice phrases like white privilege, the oppression of women and LGBTQ+ Christians, and social injustice and you'll get a firestorm of outrage calling for the heads of the most convenient perpetrators; most recently a few Catholic high school boys.

Why is this?

Christian Liberty

Ever since the fall of man in the garden, natural man has been a slave to sin:

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. (Romans 3:10-12 ESV)

Jesus Christ came to set us free from the bondage of our sin:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound.” (Isaiah 61:1 ESV)

This liberty in Christ, however, is not licentiousness; it has a purpose:

“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. … For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:1, 13 ESV)

The English poet John Milton described Christian liberty this way:

Christian Liberty means that Christ our liberator Frees us from the slavery of sin and thus from the rule of the law and of men, as if we were emancipated slaves. He does this so that, being made sons instead of servants and grown men instead of boys, we may serve God in charity through the guidance of the spirit of truth.

Christian liberty is just like Christian worship; it cannot be confined to the inner, personal realm. It is part of every aspect of life, and must inform our considerations of the more public arenas of government, markets, and civil liberty.

Imagine the government personified. Not a bunch of people trying to meddle in our lives, but just one. That is what the Independence Insitute has done with Lov Gov, two great series of videos highlighting what a mess government really is these days. Watch Lov Gov 2 Episode 1 above.

Welfare harms the people the money comes from and the people the money goes to. Here's an excerpt from John Cogan's new book, The High Cost of Good Intentions, that helps make this case:

The book’s central theme is that the creation of entitlements brings forth relentless forces that cause them to inexorably expand. These liberalizing forces are inevitable and inseparable from the entitlements themselves. They originate from a well-meaning human impulse to treat all similarly situated people equally under the law. When first enacted, entitlement laws, for policy or fiscal reasons, confine benefits to a group of individuals who are deemed to be particularly worthy of assistance. As time passes, groups of excluded individuals come forth claiming that they are no less deserving of aid. Pressure is brought by, or on behalf of, excluded groups to relax eligibility rules. The ever-present pressure is magnified during periods of budget surpluses and by public officials’ imperative to be elected and reelected. Eventually the government acquiesces and additional claimants deemed worthy are allowed to join the benefit rolls. That very broadening of eligibility rules inevitably brings another group of claimants closer to the eligibility boundary line, and the pressure to relax qualifying rules begins again. The process of liberalization repeats itself until benefits are extended to a point where the program’s purposes bear only a faint resemblance to its original noble intentions.

Read the rest of chapter 1 of Cogan's book at World Magazine.

Do you think the Republicans will ever learn?

Here is the portrait of a dysfunctional party: On Tuesday (June 19), the House Republicans revealed a budget that set a goal of spending cuts totaling $6,454 billion. On Wednesday, Senate Republicans defeated legislation to cut spending by $1 billion. On Thursday, House Republicans voted to renew $20 billion per year in farm subsidies.

The 2018 GOP talks like Barry Goldwater and spends like Lyndon Johnson.

Start with the House budget resolution. It promises to balance the budget by 2027 by: 1) cutting spending $6.5 trillion over the decade; 2) assuming $1.7 trillion in automatic savings from faster economic growth than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects; and 3) assuming much of the recent tax cut expires after 2025. That final assumption contradicts stated Republican policy, which does not matter because none of this is real.

Read the rest of the article on National Review Online.

I like the Acton Institute and I like Rush Limbaugh, and here I get both in one article.

Rev. Ben Johnson of Acton uses a quote from Limbaugh to talk about how many in the modern church, Catholic and Protestant, have abandoned the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the social gospel:

For too many, the siren song of a redeemed Messianic state proved irresistible. They began extolling the righteousness of wealth redistribution via the state. And soon, they found that the provision of government services and the fervor of Christian belief are inversely proportional. In the spiritual life, abandoning any part of the commandments affects obedience to the rest, among clergy and laity alike.

In a recent post, I noted how Idaho is "the national leader in bringing sanity to our health care system."

Some conservatives, though, appealing to the rule of law, have objected to Idaho's efforts because they are illegal under ObamaCare.

Best I can tell, though, Idaho has done nothing to violate federal law. They have simply “proposed offering a stripped-down, cheaper version of health coverage.”

Idaho appears the national leader now in bringing sanity to our health care system. Not that you would know it from the many complaints about what they are doing, as seen in the article in The New York Times:

Some groups representing patients, including the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association and the lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society, have denounced Idaho’s plans, saying they fear that some people will actually end up paying more. The new, cheaper plans would appeal to the healthiest people, they said, leaving less healthy people in a shrinking pool of people seeking coverage that meets the Affordable Care Act standards.

“A.C.A. premiums would increase, and options for individuals with pre-existing conditions would narrow,” the American Academy of Actuaries, a nonpartisan professional group in Washington warned in a letter to the Idaho Department of Insurance.

Sanity, of course, is exactly what these folks are objecting to. Because if people could actually see the world through a scriptural, i.e., accurate, perspective of reality, they would instantly see the folly of having the government provide health care to anybody. More on that later.

The public outcry over the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London at least equaled that over the more recent cases involving ObamaCare (Sebelius) and gay marriage (Obergefell).

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas explained the reason behind the public's dismay:

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”

The deferential shift to which he referred could be seen that even though the liberal majority of the court determined, “The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a ‘public use’ within the meaning of the Takings Clause,” it noted that “this ‘Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.’ Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.’”

This is a world turned upside down.