Posted on 08/12/2010 9:12:55 PM PDT by Innovative
Texas would have to preserve its current education spending levels through 2013 to qualify for more than $830 million in federal aid under a Texas-specific provision signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama.
The mandate passed the House on Tuesday afternoon as part of a $26 billion jobs protection bill, despite strong opposition from Texas Republicans. Several said the amendment unfairly singled out the state and jeopardized its ability to receive the funds.
Gov. Rick Perry said the provision, which applies only to Texas, is unconstitutional because state officials can't guarantee future spending. And only days after Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst threatened legal action over the requirements, Perry promised to "fight this injustice."
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Tx. will be one of the first states and everyone will move there; as the state I am in is under progressive control because of Obama and ACORN. Good thing it is a huge state.
You know, I always looked at those fellow Texans as somewhat radical when the word “SECEDE” arose. Now I am looking for the phone number to call and join.
And more football.
The Fed should be allowed only those taxes required by the Constitution for maintenance of the military, and those tasks designated by the Founders to be of Federal jurisdiction. Anything else should be aggressively contested.
The Federal Government was put together by the States as a management concern for the Union of States, and should operate totally at the will of the States, not the other way around.
It’s long past time to put the Fed in their place, and send a whole bunch of Leftists to the streets while we take back our government, our lives, our freedom from entrenched Leftist bureaucrats, and the Leftist Professional Politicians they support.
AZ, now TX....Two notable instances of the fed govt tussling with a state. How common is this, historically; and in recent times?
Seems almost like strategic demolition of the Union, placing the explosives at key structural points.
I can think of the 50s and 60s when troops were sent to desegregate etc.
My understanding is that Perry cut the state education budget to match the incoming federal money - so that no ‘additional’ money was actually spent. So, when the federal money runs out, they’ll reallocate the state money back, and the educational monies spent will be the same.
That’s what got everything in an uproar, from what I’ve read.
I believe this bill applies to any state that accepts funds. I may be wrong and I definately am unsure why Texas is singled out.
The first answer that pops into my mind is that Bush is from Texas.
Total amount of Federal tax revenues collected from Texans in 2007: $225 bil. Total state tax revenues collected in 2009: $41 bil.
Total defense budget for the UK: $58.6 bil.
Shakey presidencies have often benefitted from a convenient war. O wants to have one here. Freakin’ commie.
Sue them? Texas should tell the feds to keep their money, then withhold all future monies ordinarily paid to the feds. There are too many lawyers already involved in government and a lawsuit would mean nothing; we've become a culture of litigation.
If anyone ever doubted the wisdom of Hillsdale College’s refusal of any government funding this is a perfect example as to why. All of it comes with government calling the shots.
Thank you for those numbers. I think this shows Texas could dramatically cut taxes and more than be able to support itself.
BIG difference between the SD v Dole case and this one is that the law in that case applied to all 50 states, whereas this provision applies only to Texas.
It does that to ALL states:
“... (10) MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT.—
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (8), the Secretary shall not allocate funds to a State under paragraph (1) unless the Governor of the State provides an assurance to the Secretary that—
... (iii) in the case of a State in which State tax collections for calendar year 2009 were less than State tax collections for calendar year 2006, for State fiscal year 2011 the State will maintain State support for elementary and secondary education (in the aggregate) and for public institutions of higher education (not including support for capital projects or for research and development or tuition and fees paid by students)—
(I) at not less than the level of such support for each of the two categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2006; or
(II) at a percentage of the total revenues available to the State that is equal to or greater than the percentage provided for each of the two categories, respectively, for State fiscal year 2006.”
(There was a specific section on Texas, don’t remeber just what it said though.)
I’m not a secessionist. While the economic logic is admittedly compelling, it ignores the political reality. Without an explicit way of states seceding under the Constitution, a state or states that do secede are simply begging for a confrontation with the Federal government.
Southerners tried that about 150 years ago. It ended badly.
Perhaps I’m an optimist, but I do think divorce is avoidable and reconciliation preferable in the long run.
That makes sense. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.