Archives for category: Elections

Dana Milbank wrote recently about the latest foibles of Trump: his endless verbal gaffes; his inability to stay awake at his trial in New York City; his endless lies about everything.

But the main point of his article is that the students protesting against Israel and calling Biden “Genocide Joe” are helping to elect Trump.

Trump will be far harsher towards student protestors than Biden and far closer to Netanyahu. Trump promises to use the National Guard to crack down on student protestors and to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.

He wrote that Trump:

….said he would change the law to reverse “a bias against White” people: “I think there is a definite anti-White feeling in this country and that can’t be allowed.” He walked away from his previous support for a Palestinian state, saying “I’m not sure a two-state solution anymore is going to work.” And he said he wouldn’t hesitate to use the National Guard against pro-Palestinian protesters while also leaving open the possibility of using the broader U.S. military against them.

Those last Trump positions — the restoration of white power, the rejection of a Palestinian homeland, the willingness to mobilize troops against peaceful demonstrators — show how deeply misguided those on the far left are as they protest Biden’s policies on Gaza. Their frustration with the president’s support for Israel is understandable. But in making Biden the enemy, including with chants of “Genocide Joe,” the plans to trash the Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the proliferation of vows of the “uncommitted” never to vote for Biden, they are in effect working to elect Trump. This isn’t principled protest; it’s nihilism.

They are working to help return to office an authoritarian who just last week said the neo-Nazi violence in Charlottesville was “like a peanut compared to the riots and the anti-Israel protests that are happening all over our country.” In recent months, Trump said Israel should be allowed to “finish the job” in Gaza and boasted about cutting off aid to Palestinians. And he has vowed, if elected, to reimpose his travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries and “expand it even further.”

For those student protesters too young to remember, this is the guy who led the anti-Muslim “birther” campaign against President Barack Obama; who claimed thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheered the 9/11 terrorist attacks; who said “Islam hates us” and employed several anti-Muslim bigots in his administration; who wanted to have police surveillance of U.S. mosques; who called for a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”; who retweeted anti-Muslim propaganda videos by a white supremacist; and who told figures such as Palestinian American Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Somali American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

So it’s entirely consistent that, in Wisconsin on Wednesday, he said that he’s “restoring the travel ban, suspending refugee admissions and keeping terrorists the hell out of our country.” He went on: “We’ve seen what happened when Europe opened their doors to jihad. Look at Paris, Look at London. They’re no longer recognizable.”
Trump, on Hannity’s show this week, called the demonstrators at Columbia “paid agitators” and “brainwashed.” At his Wisconsin rally, he condemned the “raging lunatics and Hamas sympathizers at Columbia and other colleges.” He called for authorities to “vanquish the radicals,” many of whom “come from foreign countries.”

None of this should be surprising, either, for this is the same guy who called thousands of National Guard troops to Washington and federal police to Oregon to combat racial-justice demonstrators after the George Floyd killing; who held a Bible-wielding photo op in Lafayette Square after authorities cleared a peaceful demonstration with tear gas; who, according to his own former defense secretary, suggested to military leaders that they shoot demonstrators; who calls the free press the “enemy of the American people”; who defended the “very fine people” among the Nazis in Charlottesville and who called those convicted of attacking the Capitol “hostages.”

Yet the pro-Palestinian activists, through their actions, would return the author of this ugliness to the White House. They must have been doing for the last eight years what Trump has been doing in court the last three weeks: napping.

Carl J. Petersen is a parent in Los Angeles who writes here about a politician who is mean enough and dumb enough to kill a 14-month dog. Cricket didn’t obey her orders so she took him to the bottom of a gravel pit and shot him in the head. Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota justly earned national scorn for her act of animal cruelty.

Next to holding a baby at a campaign rally, nothing does more to humanize a political candidate than a video of them frolicking with the family dog. The love of man’s best friend is bipartisan with dog owners “just as likely to come from either side of the political spectrum.” A Pew Research Center survey found that 97% of pet owners consider their pets part of their family.

Like everything else that has changed since Trump descended his golden escalator to announce his first candidacy, a dog’s status on the campaign trail is now threatened. As part of her campaign to become Trump’s running mate, Kristi Noem, the governor of one of the Dakotas, is set to release an autobiography where she brags about killing two of her family’s pets.

Governor Kristi Noem (CC BY 4.0)

As a dog lover, I have made the wrenching decision to help faithful companions cross the rainbow bridge. It is always difficult, but we owe it to our pets to allow ourselves to let go rather than let them suffer. I held each of them as the doctor injected the fatal shot, making sure that they left us knowing the answer to “Who is a good dog?”

Noem provided no such comfort to her dog. According to her account, Cricket was dragged to a gravel pit and shot dead in front of a startled construction crew. Like a serial killer discovering pleasure in taking a life, she then set her sites on one of the family’s goats. The goat did not fare as well as Cricket and did not die with the first shot. Noem had to “run back to her truck for more ammo to finish off the wounded animal….”

According to Trump’s first wife, Ivana (the one he cheated on with his second wife Marla), “Donald was not a dog fan” and was hostile to her poodle, Chappy. Like most Americans, she was perplexed by this hostility; “How can you not love a dog that acts like he’s won the lottery for life just because he sees you walk through the door?”

The Trumps were the first modern First Family not to have any pets when they were in the White House. James K. Polk and Andrew Johnson were the only other Presidents without pets while they were in office. Many people are saying that this is an example of Trump’s narcissism. It is hard to have unconditional love for another creature when you are too busy admiring the greatness of the man in the mirror.

Michael Tomasky came up with an interesting thought. Writing in The New Republic, he speculated on what Joe Biden could accomplish if the Supreme Court rules that Presidents have absolute immunity for anything they do in their official capacity. Time for Dark Brandon!

During last week’s oral arguments in United States v. Trump, it sure sounded like there might be five Supreme Court justices willing to conclude that a president should indeed have lifetime immunity from legal reprisal for official acts committed as president. This prospect is terrifying because it would hand a President Trump a nearly blank check to do anything he wants—to the Constitution, to his political opponents, to the executive branch—and there will be no way to stop him unless 67 votes emerge in the Senate to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors and remove him from office, which seems a near impossibility, given Republicans’ excessive fealty to and fear of the man and his movement.

But then it occurred to me over the weekend: Well, wait a second. Donald Trump isn’t president. Joe Biden is. And if presidential immunity for official acts were to apply to a future President Trump, would it not also apply to current President Biden?

Of course it would. And I hope that fact has them doing some thinking in the Biden White House. Democrats should drive the point home to Republicans and the nation that two can play this game.

What “official acts” might Biden undertake once Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Bret Kavanaugh, and possibly John Roberts declare him to be above the law? Well, let’s have some fun here.

Let’s start with the Supreme Court itself. Biden could wake up one day and announce that the court should have 13 members, or 15, and he could set about appointing the new associate justices and doing his best to ram them through the Senate, offering Joe Manchin trillions in economic development for West Virginia to secure the retiring senator’s support, between now and Election Day.

Politically risky? Sure. But maybe not as politically risky as most pundits would assume—and not nearly as costly to the republic as the things Trump is contemplating doing. Remember, the Constitution calls for no set number of justices. Biden would be within even his pre-immunity rights to try to change it. Two polls came out last fall asking respondents whether they’d favor court expansion, and the affirmative view prevailed in both: It was 54-46 in one, and 44-35 (with 22 percent having no opinion) in the other. That looks like a winnable political fight to me.

Biden would need only to make two arguments. Number one, this court delegitimized itself when it took away a half-century-old right, the right to a safe and legal abortion, in the Dobbs ruling. Every one of the justices who voted to strip that right away from women vowed in his or her confirmation hearing about their deep respect for precedent. They all lied. Number two, this very court gave me the power to do this! I’m only doing what this very Supreme Court just ruled a president was within his rights to do.

Okay. We all know Biden is not going to do that. He’s too respectful of tradition, and Democrats are too fearful of the right-wing noise machine, which would kick into an unprecedented outrage gear if Biden actually tried to make use of the tools the Supreme Court just handed him.

But here’s my point. If this court were to give presidents a grant of immunity for official acts, Biden should most certainly use the occasion to play some hardball. Make some threats about what he might do with this power. Get the American public thinking about some things they just don’t think about enough, leading public opinion in the direction of reforming aspects of our democratic system that badly need reform.

Take the Electoral College. Democrats have won seven of the last eight presidential elections, in popular vote terms, but this archaic and reactionary system that was put into place to give presidential candidates from slaveholding states an advantage has helped elect two Republicans who lost the popular vote.

I don’t think Biden should just unilaterally end the Electoral College—although, if he had immunity for all official acts, he could certainly give it a whirl, let conservatives bring a civil lawsuit, and see what his new 13-member Supreme Court thinks of the idea.

Less audaciously, he could certainly find some legal way to put an end to all these MAGA-driven attempts to seat alternate electors in states whose outcomes they dispute, which they did in seven states in 2020 and by all accounts are preparing to do again this year. Yes, the GOP-led House would impeach him, but so what? There’d never be 67 votes in the Senate to convict. And as with court expansion, if it were clear that he had really won the disputed states, public opinion would be on Biden’s side, and he’d have pushed the Overton window dramatically in the direction of eventual abolition of the Electoral College.

Okay, this, too, is a little out there for Biden. More seriously, he could use an immunity grant to issue a series of rulings and orders that would be aimed toward two ends: one, shoring up some of his policy decisions against the inevitable Trump reversals should Trump be elected, and two, preemptively making it harder for Trump to do some of the things that the infamous Project 2025 pledges he will do.

On the former, for example, the Biden administration could undertake a number of administrative moves on the civil rights and labor fronts to make it harder for Trump to undo what Team Biden has done. And on the latter, Biden can find a way to make it basically impossible for Trump to implement his so-called Schedule F plans, under which Trump would give himself the authority to fire more federal workers and replace them with lackeys. And that’s just for starters. With immunity for official acts, Biden could preemptively defang a lot of what promises to be undemocratic and authoritarian about a Trump second term.

Of course, the Supreme Court might not even issue a ruling on immunity. It might just remand it back to the Washington, D.C., appeals court that ruled in February that Citizen Trump was not immune from prosecution—that is, the high court’s real intent may just have been to delay the prosecution of Trump on January 6 insurrection charges, not to shield him from prosecution.

But I hope we’ve all learned by now never to underestimate the cynical perfidy of this court majority. They may well limit presidential immunity, thinking they’re helping Trump remake the country in his fascist fashion. They’ll calculate that the old institutionalist Biden would never use his new powers in the closing months and weeks of his term. It would be delicious to see him prove them wrong.

Jonathan V. Last writes for The Bulwark, a website for Never Trumper Republicans that has some of the best writing on the current state of politics. In this post, Last explains that Trump presided over a period of crime “American carnage,” Trump called it), but crime has dropped during Biden’s term in office.

Last writes:

Remember the bad old days when people lost their minds about the crime wave Joe Biden had unleashed on America with his woke whatever-whatever policies?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

There was so much of this. 

Well I’ve got some great news for you: Joe Biden has won the war on crime.

Here’s a headline from the WSJ that Heather Mac Donald might want to see: Homicides Are Plummeting in American Cities.

And this isn’t a one-time drop. It’s an acceleration of a trend that began in 2023.

How many stories have the Washington Examiner and the WSJ op-ed page written about these facts?

I’ll let you guess. But wait—there’s even more good news.


The “Biden crime wave” was always proffered in bad faith because the “crime wave” appeared in 2020, while Donald Trump was president: 2020 saw the largest rise in the murder rate in American history.

Now just because Biden inherited a problem doesn’t mean he gets a pass on its existence. When you’re president, you’re supposed to solve everyone’s problems, not just the ones that crop up during your administration.

And here’s the data: All crime is down under Biden, with one exception.

Violent crimes like murder and rape? Down. Property crimes like burglary and theft? Down. Crime in cities? Down. Crime in rural areas? Down.

The lone exception is that car theft in metropolitan areas has gone up. That’s it.

Like the man said: Take the W.

In Donald Trump’s final year in office the murder rate rose by 30 percent, which was the largest jump in U.S. history. Over Joe Biden’s last 16 months, we’ve had the biggest drop in the murder rate in U.S. history.

You are better off now than you were four years ago.


Texas is represented by some loathsome public officials (looking at you, Governor Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick, and Senator Ted Cruz). They have denounced President Biden in every imaginable way. Yet the Biden administration is sending $16 billion to Texas for clean energy and infrastructure. Texas Republicans voted against the legislation but they will gladly take the dollars and the new jobs. (All the red states are getting funds from Biden’s bills that they opposed, while taking credit for them.) And they will continue to insist that climate change is a hoax.

Chris Tomlinson writes in The Houston Chronicle:

Delivering reliable, affordable and sustainable electricity wouldn’t be difficult if officials in Austin and Washington worked together. The challenges are not technological or economic; they are about setting priorities.

Pablo Vegas, chief executive of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, promised a new approach to grid planning on Tuesday, promising to better track the growing demand for power from industry.

“We need to accelerate aspects of our planning processes and be able to look further into the future, anticipate what’s coming, because it still takes three to six years to build transmission,” Vegas said.

The Legislature ordered ERCOT to start considering long-term proposals to add load to the grid rather than relying only on finalized plans. The new approach makes demand forecasts look much, much larger but also less reliable because not all proposed projects come to fruition.

President Joe Biden, meanwhile, is offering Texans billions of dollars to fortify the electric grid, reduce electricity bills and cut greenhouse gas emissions. On Thursday, the administration promised to upgrade 100,000 miles of transmission lines.

The Environmental Protection Agency also gave $249.7 million to the Texas Solar For All Coalition and  $156.1 million to the Clean Energy Fund of Texas this week to provide solar energy equipment to low-income communities.

The EPA has also granted $104 million in federal funds to 19 Texas school districts to purchase 288 electric school buses. The EPA grants are part of the $16 billion the federal government has committed to clean energy projects in Texas that have created 23,000 jobs.

The money comes from the Inflation Reduction Act, which Texas Republicans vehemently opposed. The massive investment in energy and manufacturing is intended to grow the economy while fighting climate change.

Past investments led Waaree Energies to invest $1 billion in a solar panel manufacturing facility near Houston, creating 1,500 jobs. San Antonio has committed $30 million to build, with federal help, the largest municipal onsite solar project in Texas. Diligence Offshore Services announced in August it would invest $1.23 billion to open an offshore wind support and manufacturing facility off the coast of Port Arthur.

Climate change, though, is still missing from Vegas’ and ERCOT’s lexicon. He’s happy to talk about the growing electricity demand from artificial intelligence and fossil fuel facilities but never mentions the residential demand during climate change-driven extreme weather. That’s what causes record-setting peaks that can trigger outages.

Nationwide, weather caused 80% of the power outages since 2000, and the frequency of blackouts has doubled in the past decade, according to data collated by research nonprofit Climate Central. Texas experienced the most weather-related outages, and the pace is accelerating.

Improving the grid to meet growing industrial electricity demand is quite different from building a system that can withstand a changing climate. Adding more power generation and transmission lines is not enough when facing stronger hurricanes, larger wildfires, colder winter storms and hotter summers.

ERCOT’s planning will remain flawed until officials start preparing for more polar vortexes like 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, rain events like Hurricane Harvey and heat waves like last summer’s.

Transitioning to clean energy and building resilient generation plants and transmission lines offer huge economic opportunities. BlackRock, the world’s largest financial manager, says the world spent $1.8 trillion on the energy transition in 2023 but will need to spend $4 trillion annually by the mid-2030s.

Vegas never mentions climate change because the Republican elected officials who oversee him call it a hoax. Texas will never chart a strong economic course until we have a governor, lieutenant governor and speaker who recognize the greatest threat yet to human prosperity….

Since the Florida Supreme Court released dual decisions about abortion, there’s been some confusion. Five of the seven justices were appointed by DeSantis.

One decision upheld a fifteen-week ban on abortion, with the understanding that it would be superseded on May 1 by a six-week ban, already signed into law by Governor DeSantis. A six-week ban is the equivalent of a total ban, since few (if any) women realize they are pregnant at that point. The ban was approved by a vote of 6-1.

The second decision allowed a referendum this November that would guarantee the protection of abortion rights in the state constitution. This decision was approved by a vote of 4-3.

Are these two decisions in conflict? Well, yes. And there is a catch. The state constitution includes a guarantee that “all natural persons’ have a right to life and liberty.” Are fetuses “natural persons?” Some of Florida’s Supreme Court justices think so.

Our reader Democracy espies a scheme behind the scene:

In the oral arguments over the Florida abortion amendment to the state constitution, the chief justice of the Florida Supremes – Carlos G. Muñiz – asked specifically about fetal rights. As Bloomberg reported,

“Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz asked during Feb. 7 oral arguments on an amendment that would protect abortion in the state whether the Florida Constitution’s guarantee that all ‘natural persons’ be ‘equal before the law’ can apply to fetuses. Muñiz questioned whether justices must first decide this before determining whether the proposed amendment protecting abortion until fetal viability was misleading.”

Meredith L. Sasso, a DeSantis appointee, raised the issue of fetal rights in voting NOT to allow the amendment on the ballot.  Renatha Francis, another DeSantis appointee, did the same.

Jamie R. Grosshans, ALSO appointed by DeSantis, wrote the opinion finding that in Florida privacy does NOT apply to abortion, also said this when voting AGAINST the abortion amendment’s placement on the ballot:

“The voter may think this amendment results in settling this issue once and for all. It does not.”

Is it too cynical to believe that the Florida Supreme Court would approve a referendum that they intend to invalidate?

Rick Perlstein writes in The American Prospect about a conversation with a friend who is a journalist in Texas. His friend describes how his native state is run by men who are determined to stamp out every last vestige of democracy in Texas. The Republican Party keeps moving to the extreme and crushing reasonableness and sanity. The result is a fascist state where all power is concentrated in the hands of Gregg Abbott, Dan Patrick, and far-right fascists.

Perlstein writes:

I made a friend a few years back, a young journalist at a newspaper in a smaller Texas city, bored with his work and seeking out conversation on the kind of things I write about. As time went on, however, he just wanted to talk about escape. “A local city I cover, as a matter of habit, appeals every single public records request,” went a typical plaint. “In a state that hasn’t completely lost its mind, maybe the solution is to reach out to the AG’s office. Except in Texas, you’re trying to get an indicted man who might have helped with January 6 to act on behalf of the public.”

At the end of that year, he approached me on the horns of a dilemma: take a job offer as a beat reporter at a daily in a big Texas city, or quit journalism and find some job at a do-gooder nonprofit. The guy’s dog was named “Molly Ivins.” I told him I didn’t think he had much choice. Alas, he took this graybeard’s advice. Things since have been hardly more rewarding.

One day: “Working on a deep dive into how the state of Texas fails to protect intellectually disabled people from predatory guardians. Depressing stuff.”

Another day: “A thing that really irks me about covering conservative dustups is how profoundly dishonest the whole thing is … When it comes time to write, you have two options. Either cut through the BS and call it what it is; then they’ll tell you you’re just biased. Or you can try to finesse it and sound insane.”

Another: “I also just finished a story about how domestic violence homicides are through the roof in Texas (even as overall homicide rates have declined), but we don’t have the infrastructure to really know how bad conditions have become. It turns out when you turn women into second-class citizens and make guns easily accessible, that doesn’t go well.”

A couple of weeks back, he shared with me a dark epiphany: He no longer felt hope. Thought it might be high time to get the hell out of his native state forever. He asked if there was anything out there that gave me hope. Having reached the “Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown” stage of my relationship with the United States (in part thanks to his testimony from the front lines), I had no comfort to offer.

I did, however, have a suggestion. He could tell me about what all this was like. I could let you listen in. Forthwith, an edited and annotated transcript of my conversation with a man I’ll call Lonely Star. Though it’s not so much that he’s lonely; he has manyanguished compatriots who feel the same way. It’s just that they feel like there’s less they can do about it with every passing day.

Please open the link and read their conversation. It’s enlightening and frightening.

Robert Hubbell summarizes Trump’s goals, as he explained them to TIME magazine in an interview. They sound remarkably fascistic. All power to the imperial President. No checks or balances. Remember and ask yourself: is this the country we want to live in? I suppose we should be glad that Trump is turning 80 this year. With any luck, he won’t have time to abolish the Constitution and make himself President-for-life.

Hubbell writes:

On a day of many important stories, the most important news came from Donald Trump’s interview with Time Magazine. See Donald Trump on What His Second Term Would Look Like | TIME. In the interview, Trump confirmed that he will attempt to exercise dictatorial powers in a second term.

We have been warned.

We ignore Trump’s threats at our peril and the peril of our democracy.

In describing his fever dream of autocratic powers, Trump said he would take (or allow) the following actions:

  • Allow states to monitor the pregnancies of women to ensure they comply with abortion bans (a grotesque violation of liberty, privacy, and dignity).
  • Fire US attorneys who refuse to prosecute defendants targeted by Trump (a violation of US norms dating to the creation of the Department of Justice).
  • Initiate mass deportations of alleged illegal immigrants using the US military and local law enforcement (neither of which are authorized to enforce US immigration law).
  • Pardon insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6.
  • Prosecute President Biden (for unspecified and non-existent crimes).
  • Deploy the National Guard to cities and states across America—likely those with predominately Democratic populations (presumably under the Insurrection Act, a deployment would violate the terms of the Act and implementing regulations).
  • Withhold funds from states in the exercise of his personal discretion (a violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
  • Abandon NATO and South Asian allies if he feels the countries are not paying enough for their own defense.
  • Shutter the White House pandemic-preparedness office.
  • Fire tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civil servants and replace them with Trump acolytes with dubious qualifications (other than loyalty to Trump).

Most readers of this newsletter understand the seriousness of Trump’s threats and are working tirelessly to prevent a second Trump term. But tens of millions of Americans seem oblivious or apathetic in the face of an imminent and dire threat.

If elected, will Trump succeed in achieving any of his stated goals? No—not if Democrats continue their resistance in the courts, in Congress, in state legislatures, and in the hearts and minds of most Americans.

However, whether Trump succeeds in achieving his stated objectives is beside the point. He will attempt to do so—and his attempts will tear at the fabric of democracy and destroy legal norms that have served as the bedrock of our republic since its founding.

To be clear, I am not attempting to frighten readers of this newsletter. To the contrary, I believe that we can and will defeat Trump—or outlast him, whatever it takes. But the interview confirms that we are not frantic alarmists exaggerating the threat posed by Trump.

No, far from it.

When we challenge the milquetoast, both-siderism reporting of the media or the normalization of Trump by spineless politicians, we are not overreacting. We are sounding the alarm in a responsible, necessary way. For reasons that defy comprehension, our warnings have been unheeded—often dismissed, minimized, or patronized.

We must redouble our efforts. Commit the above list to memory. Copy the URL so you can forward this newsletter or the Time Magazine article to friends, colleagues, and complete strangers who doubt that Trump is a danger to democracy. Pick two or three issues and be prepared to discuss them when the moment arises. We have been warned—and we must act accordingly. 

Chris Tomlinson, a columnist for The Houston Chronicle, writes here about the audacious, mendacious plan of Lt. Governor Dan Patrick to destroy public schools. Patrick was a talk-show host like Rush Limbaugh before he entered politics. In Texas, the Lt. Governor has more power than the Governor, so his actions must be closely scrutinized.

Dan Patrick hates public schools. He wants to abolish them and replace them with vouchers.

Tomlinson explains Dan Patrick’s malevolent plan:

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s fantasy of abolishing property taxes would set the state up for financial failure and end public education as we know it by placing a greater burden on low- and medium-income Texans.

The most powerful man in Texas politics wants you to believe he’s looking out for homeowners, but there’s always an unacknowledged goal for significant initiatives like this one. You need only look at who deposited $3 million in Patrick’s campaign account and who gave the record $6 million donation to Gov. Greg Abbott to boost private religious schools.

As lieutenant governor, Patrick appoints the leaders of Senate committees, sets their agendas and decides whether a piece of legislation gets a vote. Patrick also rewards senators who appease him and punishes those who don’t with his fat campaign war chest.

Last week, the lite guv ordered the Senate Finance Committee to “determine the effect on other state programs if general revenue were used to fully replace school property taxes, particularly during economic downturns.”

Rising property taxes are directly correlated to the growing cost of housing in Texas. When home or apartment values go up, so do taxes, and the two combined create a crisis across the country.

Median property taxes in Texas rose 26% between 2019 and 2023, according to data from real estate research firm CoreLogic, and first reported by Axios, an online news agency. In four years, the median payment rose to $4,916 from $3,900 as property values nationwide grew 40%.

Texas has crazy property taxes due to a convoluted system that protects the wealthy and pushes the burden of paying for government services onto low- and middle-income families.

To understand how and why, Texans must remember that we pay for schools through property taxes levied by school districts. The state is forbidden from collecting a property tax, so the Legislature depends primarily on sales taxes and severance taxes levied on oil and gas production.

The Texas Constitution also forbids an income tax, perpetuating the myth Texas is a low-tax state. The wealthy, who spend less of their income on retail purchases and real estate, get off easier than in other states. But the half of Texans who struggle to make ends meet pay a higher proportion of their income in sales and property taxes.

Most states rely on the proverbial three-legged stool of income, property and sales taxes to fairly charge families and businesses based on their ability to pay. Texas relies on only two legs, and Patrick is talking about kicking away one of them.

Patrick’s command comes less than a year after the Legislature took $18 billion from sales taxes and oil and gas severance taxes to pay down school taxes. Most of that money came from high crude oil and natural gas prices and a roaring economy that generated huge sales tax returns. The move marked the first tax reduction paid by most property owners in decades.

Ending property taxes is part of the Republican Party of Texas platform, but it would require collecting $73.5 billion from the remaining leg of the stool, the sales tax.

The state sales rate is 6.25%, while local authorities can collect up to 2% more. The Texas Taxpayers and Research Association in 2018 calculated the sales taxes would need to reach 25% to replace property taxes.

Right-wing fantasists will point at Texas’ colossal budget surplus last year as proof that lawmakers will only need to raise sales taxes a tiny bit. However, anyone who’s lived in Texas for a decade or more knows the fossil fuel business goes through boom-and-bust cycles.

During a bust in 2011, Texas lawmakers slashed school funding by $4 billion. When the money runs out, the Republicans who control every lever of power in Texas do not hesitate to sacrifice public education to avoid raising taxes. Even with last year’s windfall, they refused to give teachers a raise.

This is where school vouchers and property taxes collide. The billionaires backing Abbott and Patrick believe public schools are Marxist, woke indoctrination factories. They want to give parents vouchers to choose Christian nationalist indoctrination factories exempted from state or federal oversight.

The vouchers, though, are insufficient to cover private school tuition, so families must pay the difference. The GOP hopes to create a system in which the state pays a defined amount and normalizes parents’ paying the rest.

Don’t be fooled by promises of lower taxes; this is about killing public schools by underfunding them and shifting more of the burden onto young families and off the wealthy.

This malicious proposal could be politically palatable. There are some five million public school students in Texas. There are more than six million privately owned homes. The population of Texas is majority-minority, like the public school students. The Republican-dominated legislature is overwhelmingly white. Do the math. The people with the power, the people who pay the most property taxes, are white. Do they want to pay property taxes for other people’s children?

Award-winning opinion writer Chris Tomlinson writes commentary about money, politics and life in Texas. Sign up for his “Tomlinson’s Take” newsletter at houstonhchronicle.com/tomlinsonnewsletter or expressnews.com/tomlinsonnewsletter.

Our reader is a retired union worker who follows economic and political news closely. He lives on long Island in New York. He wrote this comment in response to Jonathan V. Last’s article about the media’s insistence on saying that good economic news is “bad for Biden.” His response: “It’s about time!”

Joel wrote:

What we call MSM is owned by very wealthy people whose interests will not be hurt by a Trump re-election. Tax cuts for the wealthy don’t trickle down and never have, but they go into his and their pockets . But even a more benign explanation is that Trump is good for the business of the Washington Post , the New York Times , CNN… All with increased readership and thus advertising sales. Generated by the buffoon.

The jobs report was released on Friday the 5th showing a remarkable stretch of below 4% unemployment not seen since ” we partied like it was 1965″ . Showing millions of more Jobs created on top of all the Jobs recovered since the Covid recession. Jobs recovered in record time for any recovery. After a recession business close employees who were employed have moved on it took from 2010 till 2017 to just recover the Jobs lost in the great recession.

The US has a higher growth rate and lower inflation than almost the entire G20. We have been told by the MSM (not just Right Wing Media ) that the 10s and 10s of millions who either went to work or changed jobs during the recovery, don’t really care about easily getting a Job and changing Jobs for better paying Jobs. Don’t care that the real (inflation adjusted) median wage actually exceeded inflation by a few dollars a week. That most of those raises went to non-supervisory workers. In other words the working class. Not the upper middle class and the wealthy. What they care about we were told was inflation that subsided almost as quickly as it arose. Inflation that was due to supply shortages of Labor and Materials generated by Covid shut downs at home and overseas. By autocrats overseas manipulating oil prices to see an autocrat elected in America. Not due to the typical wage price spirals of the past. Inflation that saw corporations because of the hysteria generated in the media feel free to boost profits by raising prices far and beyond any increase in Labor or material costs.

Laughing in many Corporate Board Rooms that the people have been duped to expect inflation and we are going to give it to them as corporate profits rose to record levels not seen since WW2 and profits still are near record highs. I thought I could sleep after Biden was elected. Garland dispelled that hope quickly. So on Sunday the 7th two days after the employment report , I am up at 4AM. I tuned to CNN . They ran a story I thought was about the fantastic employment report that quickly turned to “but this may not be good for Biden”. And then for the next 8 minutes of perhaps a 10 minute segment diverted to the”oh but inflation”story.

I will say this again !!!! when Reagan declared morning in America inflation was 4.3% not 3.5% as now. Un-employment was still at 7.8% not 3.8% as now . Mortgage rates were at 13% not 7%. Biden compared to the Reagan administration should be declared the second coming by the media.

But it gets worse. As I pointed out by November of 2021 and several times since on this Blog and elsewhere. The media was hyping inflation beyond any reality. The National price of Gas before Putin was $3.21 a gallon as people went back to living their lives after Vaccinations and Oil fields had not fully opened!!!!!. Yet the NY Times , CNN and PBS found people who used a 1000 gallons of milk or Gas a week to highlight the impacts of inflation . Worse the Picture in the NY Times on line was of a station that had to be in the Pacific off the Coast of California with gas at $5.99. As their own writer Niel Irwin pointed out the price of Gas was CHEAPER than it was for 4 whole years from 2011 till 2014 when the Euro crisis tanked oil prices. Pointed out that workers were working significantly fewer hours to fill that tank than in 2011-14 when the National Average never went below $3.60 and went as high as $3.90.

So imagine me waking up two Sundays ago to see the picture on that CNN segment with gas prices at $5.39 a gallon . The National Price was $3.50 . I had paid $303 a gallon in Trumplandia Long Island (Commack ) on the Friday before. I had paid $3.13 a gallon in Hicksville LI to fill my wife’s car the day before the Employment report . I rewound the TV and paused the TV to snap a picture of the $5.39 cent gas on my cell phone. The following Thursday I filled up in Elmont Long Island at an Exxon station cash or credit $3.15. Long Island is not Texas it has new Wind Mills going up , not oil wells and refineries. The inflation report that rattled Wall Street last week was a whopping 3.5% up 2/10ths from its recent lows in December of 2023 . Not exactly historically high and food inflation was 1.2% year over year .

But again the other day Niel Irwin now writing for Axios (?) came to the rescue with an interesting tidbit. This gets a little nerdy. As Krugman points out rents are responsible for 1/3 of the Consumer price index. The US Labor Department computes rents with a factor no or few other Foriegn Economies do “Owner Equivalent Rent”. Something that does not exist in the real world and no body ever actually pays. It is what you would have to pay to rent your own home. If you had to rent it. But I don’t rent my own house I own it (and the mortgage is free and clear ). Neil Irwin pointed out that back in January the BLS changed the way it computes this fictional cost. It added 5% more single family homes and thus 5% fewer less expensive multi family homes and condos to the mix. As detailed in an Email from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that soon got deleted.  Now this may be a perfectly legitimate statistical change from their view point . But it is like declaring Ketchup a vegetable . Forcing you to compare apples to oranges.

Rent increases across the Nation have moderated significantly . “BLS data on rents for new tenants out today(4/17) show they rose just 0.4% over the last four quarters, marking the slowest pace of advance since 2010. The largest and most important component of the consumer price index is likely soon to follow them lower.” Dean Baker WELL MORE BAD NEWS FOR BIDEN