The shrewd math of Perry's tax-relief proposal

Governor Perry’s State of the State Address delivered Tuesday focused heavily on our fiscal state, including how to continue Texas’ race to the bottom of the tax burden. “We've never bought into the notion that if you collect more, you need to spend more,” Perry told the Legislature during the speech. “Today, I'm calling for a mechanism to be put in place so when we do bring in more than we need, we'll have the option of returning tax money directly to the people who paid it.” While this sounds like something most citizens could get behind, the reality of what such a refund would look like has even some Republican allies sounding doubtful.

First of all, Perry’s statement assumes that “need” is something everyone can agree on, which has not historically been the case in the Texas Legislature. In the last session, in 2011, the Lege approved $15.2 billion in spending cuts, or 8.1 percent in cuts across all funds, which the Texas Tribune called “a modern record.” Among the areas hit hardest were Health and Human Services, which sustained more than $11 billion in cuts, and public education, where legislators slashed more than $4 billion. Both moves inspired large protests, heated legislative debates and lawsuits against the state. Compounding education and health advocates’ frustration was the knowledge that the Economic Stabilization Fund (a.k.a the Rainy Day Fund) held at least $6 billion at the time, which could have softened the budgetary blow. At the time Perry steadfastly resisted tapping into the fund at all, although he and other lawmakers did eventually sanction using nearly a third of the funds to close the budget deficit at the end of the 2011 session.

Now with the Rainy Day Fund projected to boast $8.1 billion tiny umbrellas by August 31, and more than $11 billion by the end of FY 2015, in addition to an expected higher general revenue collection, doling out some of that largesse is starting to look more appealing to everyone.

Jade Esteban Estrada interviewed District 3 Council candidate Rebecca Viagran this week at El Sol Mexican Restaurant. Look for the full GP profile next week.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it @glitterpolitics @PlazaDeArmasTX

It has been almost a year since Michael Cuellar was asked to resign from his job as a contract coordinator with the San Antonio Fire Department, and he has not yet found full-time work. But he is dressed for an office job when we meet at the Jim’s on Ramsey in a pale button-down shirt, his hair neatly trimmed. He has two glasses of soda in front of him, which he proceeds to drink in order as we talk about his pending civil-rights lawsuit against the City of San Antonio. He rests his hands on the table when he’s not using them to make a point.

Cuellar was one of two recipients of criminal-trespass warning letters issued by the City in recent years. Cuellar’s letter forbids him from entering San Antonio Fire Department and Public Safety Buildings, City Hall and Municipal Plaza until he’s notified otherwise – preventing him from attending City Council meetings or appearing at Citizens to be Heard, and creating the impression that he is a potentially dangerous man. PdA first wrote about the letters in late October, without naming Cuellar because the letters – which are issued without any due process or opportunity for appeal – are extremely prejudicial. Since then, he’s appeared in the pages of the Current, and on Texas Public Radio – which have treated him sympathetically – and several times in the daily, where the coverage, intentionally or not, tends to reinforce the City’s message: don’t trust this guy.

Texans generally know the importance of water to our future. We have been in the midst of a severe drought for the last several years. The future of our water supply is one of the major topics expected to be addressed by the Texas Legislature this year. At least one bill has been filed that would authorize using part of our “rainy day” fund to pay for new water projects, and Governor Perry has made water resource planning part of his legislative agenda. All of this planning however may be derailed by the fallout from a recent Texas Supreme Court decision that addressed the ownership of groundwater and by a series of cases winding through our state court system.

Based on media reports and early noise from the two parties, Texas elections are going to be a battleground in 2014. From House races all the way down to dog catcher – if we actually elected that position – the two parties are staking out their territory and drawing battle lines for a showdown that could forecast the future of politics in Texas. The real question is whether this is more hype than hope. After all, as one of my Facebook friends commented last week, “These ‘battleground’ plans have been cooked up before. I truly hope it works this time.”

That comment was made in response to a Politico article about a plan conceived in Washington to turn Texas blue. Founder Jeremy Bird told Politico the new initiative will be “a grassroots organization that will make Texas a battleground state by treating it like one.”

It’s interesting that Democrats have had to resort to outsiders to change the face of politics in Texas. Bird comes from Obama’s community organizing project, where he served as field director, but reading his bio, it doesn’t look like he’s ever worked a Texas race. But maybe an outsider’s perspective and optimism is exactly what’s needed to energize the base in Texas.

I believe the City’s recent ethics controversies, while painful and embarrassing, may afford us the opportunity to build more transparency into our city government and to create meaningful changes in our ethics policies. But to be successful, I believe we must embrace a comprehensive strategy that includes a thorough review of our current policy. We must make use of expert opinions, best practices, and ensure the process take place in an open, inclusive environment with plenty of public input.

We should be wary of proposals conceived and developed behind closed doors and pushed quietly through without public discourse or debate. This path can be interpreted as a strategy to deflect, rather than seriously address, the problem. The Mayor’s proposals may or may not have merit once they're properly vetted, but I have serious concerns about the unintended consequences and the potential for abuse of authority, particularly regarding the creation of an ethics auditor.  

Regardless, the current proposal should only be an initial discussion point in a much larger ethics conversation. Let’s look at the missteps that led the Mayor to make these proposals.  A senior City official stumbled badly on a basic ethics question. Those in a position to do something said nothing. Adding more rules to an increasingly complex 50-page ordinance will not solve this particular problem or other issues at City Hall. Creating another layer of bureaucracy does nothing to address the underlying issues within the City’s organizational culture.  

I think it is also important to understand that the process itself in fact worked. As with problems in the past, this ethics transgression was discovered and brought to the light of day. Complaints were filed and the Ethics Review Board held hearings. The board ruled that yes, indeed, a violation occurred and issued a letter of admonition, which is one of the punishments it is authorized to carry out. The system worked, yet the public is still angry. Why?  They are concerned that the behavior occurred in the first place; they have a nagging suspicion that this incident may not be an anomaly; and there were few repercussions, which reinforces the first two concerns. Finally, they know that ethics are about right and wrong, not rules. There are hundreds of ways to circumvent doing the right thing. The fix cannot be adding hundreds of new rules.  

If we are serious about ethics in our local government, it is time for a major overhaul of our policies. Our current ethics ordinance focuses almost exclusively on guiding individual behavior. We need to explore a much broader range of ethics questions, including those that address group and organizational behavior. They can be more complex but are equally important and often involve significantly more dollars. Examples include recipients of City incentives, low-cost or free rent agreements for taxpayer-owned real estate, and policies regarding uses of excess bond dollars.

I believe it would be a disservice to the citizens of San Antonio to bring two simple recommendations to a quick vote. This might make for good headlines, but it won’t fix the problem. Instead, I would suggest we create a task force made up of council members, ethics review board members, stakeholders, and experts in the field to meet periodically and publicly over the next few months to review the ordinance and recommend changes.

I ask the Mayor and my Council colleagues to take up the cause and join me in this effort. It is important that we not just get past the current dilemma, but are able to vote on changes that are solid, make a difference, and help restore our citizens’ faith in our local government. 

Councilman Carlton Soules represents San Antonio's District 10. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .