TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Buying into empty legislation that doesn't do what was promised is much of the reason we, as a country, are in the condition we are in.

Indeed, it sometimes seems like the American people collectively lose their ability to think rationally during an election. Remember "Read my lips - no new taxes"? Remember Perry's "property tax relief"? "If you like your doctor, you can keep him"? This is just more of the same. It's just a carrot on a stick to get voters. Politicians have been doing it since elections were invented.

If it's "empty legislation", that could be the problem.

mojo84 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

v7a wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It will be no different if HB910 is amended in the Senate -- but don't hold your breath waiting for Patrick to help.

I realize you might not be able to clarify that until after the session has ended, but I see two possible interpretations of that:

1. If the spat between House and Senate doesn't get resolved soon there won't be enough time to amend HB910 and get it through concurrence vote in the House
2. Patrick wants to pass HB910 without any amendments so that he gets credit for getting Open Carry to the governor (versus House getting credit for Open Carry AND Campus Carry)

Patrick wants a reduction in property tax.

Unfortunately, what he is pushing isn't going to work in my opinion. Rates and appraisals will be increased to offset the increased homestead exemption.

Maybe in missing something.

Regardless of actual net effect, Patrick's number one campaign pledge was a reduction in property tax. His number one priority in this session is to fulfill that pledge.

If it doesn't reduce the amount paid by the property owner, it is not fulfilling his pledge. That is playing a shell game and isn't what he promised.

That may be the case. I haven't studied that particular bill. My only point is that he is determined to satisfy his promise of property and business tax reduction.

mojo84 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

v7a wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It will be no different if HB910 is amended in the Senate -- but don't hold your breath waiting for Patrick to help.

I realize you might not be able to clarify that until after the session has ended, but I see two possible interpretations of that:

1. If the spat between House and Senate doesn't get resolved soon there won't be enough time to amend HB910 and get it through concurrence vote in the House
2. Patrick wants to pass HB910 without any amendments so that he gets credit for getting Open Carry to the governor (versus House getting credit for Open Carry AND Campus Carry)

Patrick wants a reduction in property tax.

Unfortunately, what he is pushing isn't going to work in my opinion. Rates and appraisals will be increased to offset the increased homestead exemption.

Maybe in missing something.

Regardless of actual net effect, Patrick's number one campaign pledge was a reduction in property tax. His number one priority in this session is to fulfill that pledge.

v7a wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It will be no different if HB910 is amended in the Senate -- but don't hold your breath waiting for Patrick to help.

I realize you might not be able to clarify that until after the session has ended, but I see two possible interpretations of that:

1. If the spat between House and Senate doesn't get resolved soon there won't be enough time to amend HB910 and get it through concurrence vote in the House
2. Patrick wants to pass HB910 without any amendments so that he gets credit for getting Open Carry to the governor (versus House getting credit for Open Carry AND Campus Carry)

Patrick wants a reduction in property tax.

Expect this to go to the wire unless some very powerful people get some victories on bills that are higher on there priority list. HB910 is now a hostage.

Ruark wrote:What about 910? It's done with the house, now can Patrick pick it up in the Senate and get'er done?

I think we'll get open carry. It's the even more important amendments and possible amendments that are in peril.

CJD wrote:

TXBO wrote:

CJD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

CJD wrote:

canvasbck wrote:. . . it's hard to NOT be a card carrying Libertarian. . . . What's not to like?

Pretty much everything. Libertarians love to promote only two or three of the Libertarian Party's Platform planks like gun rights and smaller government. The vast majority of its Platform is either dangerously naive or outright crazy.

https://www.lp.org/platform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

May I ask which points in particular you don't like?

There's plenty. One example is their platform of "Economic Liberty". It's not only an idealistic impossibility, it's downright dangerous to capitalism.

I guess I don't see that.

Here's some examples:
1) No government involvement means no patents. Completely removes the motivation for research, development and innovation.
2) No anti-trust legislation. Can you imagine what our country would look like today if Standard oil had been allowed to continue with it's predatory practices? The Rockefellers would rule the country.
3) It is impossible to completely remove government from any macro-economic equation as long as it has taxing authority.

CJD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

CJD wrote:

canvasbck wrote:. . . it's hard to NOT be a card carrying Libertarian. . . . What's not to like?

Pretty much everything. Libertarians love to promote only two or three of the Libertarian Party's Platform planks like gun rights and smaller government. The vast majority of its Platform is either dangerously naive or outright crazy.

https://www.lp.org/platform" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

May I ask which points in particular you don't like?

There's plenty. One example is their platform of "Economic Liberty". It's not only an idealistic impossibility, it's downright dangerous to capitalism.