Use Common Sense, not lobby sense, on Prop 2

On October 25, 2011 an Agenda Wise article addressed the idea of this Proposition 2 plan which basically provides a credit line for water projects in Texas. On the previous day, Austin's KLBJ, TAB's Steve Minnick framed Prop 2 in terms, informing us that we need more water infrastructure if we expect to attract more businesses to the state. While this is true, the Prop 2 idea equates to us cutting off our nose and spite of our face, as one said.

Proposition 2 does not provide $6 billion for water projects, it provides a $6 billion credit line for water projects in Texas. Basically, this means that as soon as the water project is paid off, the amount that has been paid off can be used on another water project immediately without voter permission. This funding feature is called "Evergreen" and has only been used once before for veteran loans.

Steve Minnick said the state of Texas needs to spend $231 billion on water infrastructure over the next 48 years.Mathematically speaking, that is requiring almost $5 billion each year until the year 2060; seems a little too high. The article says that if the people who do these projects can convince us every year for the next 40 years that we need another $5 billion project, then we must really need it, but it would be quite stupid to say "yes" to all 48 $5 billion water projects in advance just because the lobbying arm of the people who will get these contracts has told us we need to spend this kind of money.

My thoughts are a bit conflicting, I'm kind of on the fence. Considering the drought we are in, Texas desperately needs to start making significant progress enacting the state water plan. Maybe the left over money from the water projects could be used for situations like this when we really need water, so I guess it could be beneficial to us if they really use the money to help us. As the population grows, the need for water also grows. Think about this, what is our future going to be like if we do not invest now in water supplies?

Investing in the water projects could be a good idea, on the flip side, the amount of money they are wanting to use for these projects is ridiculous (at least to me). Unless I knew that these water projects were legit and they were going to improve our state, I don't think I would want to contribute a dime. In the article it said that the amount that has been paid can be used on another water project immediately WITHOUT voter permission. I don't know about you but if I was giving money for these projects, I better know exactly what it is going for and who is to say that the left over money isn't going for other things besides water projects; $6 billion dollars is a lot of money to me. In the long wrong, Proposition 2 could be a good idea but I don't think it should require nearly the amount of money they are asking for. Although, I am not fully educated on exactly how much these water projects should cost versus how much they are going to cost.

Keeping May Elections Cost Austin Taxpayers

       An Empower Texans article written by WasteWatch on October 11, 2011 concerns the issue of the May elections costing Austin taxpayers. WasteWatch is suggesting that the Austin City Council does not care about reducing costs or increasing voter turn out. They apparently voted to keep their elections in May despite the amount of money it would save the taxpayers. The city would spend about $2 million by keeping the elections in May 2012, compared to the $900,000 they would spend by moving it to November 2012.
      
       The huge controversy was about how the council made this decision knowing it would be forced to cover the extra cost from a reserve fund and only $791,000 was budgeted for a May 2012 election. The voters were concerned with this because to them, keeping the elections in May shows that the city council is unresponsive to voter concerns. A poll released a week before this blog was posted shows that 75% of likely Austin voters support moving the elections to November.
      
       The Austin ISD Board of Trustees decided to move their elections to November, probably after feeling the disappointment of Austin voters regarding their city officials. The school board President Mark Williams stated: "This will substantially increase voter turnout and significantly reduce cost for the district. There's benefits in increasing access to voters, and part of a public school district is public involvement." WasteWatch was saying what does that say about the Austin City Council when even Austin ISD realizes this decision is a no-brainer? The Austin City Council was not thinking in the interest of taxpayers or increasing the electoral participation.
     
       The author's intended audience is all the taxpayers. Waste Watch has posted numerous blogs and is very knowledgeable on Government waste. I do not really see the effects of taxes for me just because I hardly know what is going on. I just know that taxes come out of my paycheck and you pay taxes on everything. Ignorant, maybe, but I do agree with this blog because we as taxpayers want to feel secure in supporting out Austin City Council, but when they do not take our concerns to heart it is very difficult to feel secure. People talk about how our state is so in debt, well if that was really a concern then why wouldn't you want to do everything you could to save money?