Latest news with #governmentreform
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Texas Lawmakers Aim To Address Unfinished Business In Special Session
AUSTIN, TEXAS - APRIL 23: Gov. Greg Abbott speaks during a bill signing in the State Capitol on ... More April 23, 2025 in Austin, Texas. Senate Bill 14 introduces and establishes a new Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office which seeks to create better practices within state agencies and terminate unnecessary regulations. (Photo by) Following the early June conclusion of the Texas Legislature's regular session, one that was marked by the enactment of a long sought conservative goal, the state's first school choice program, Governor Greg Abbott (R-Texas) has called a special session starting this week to address unfinished business. In his proclamation calling legislators back to Austin, Governor Abbott laid out a special session agenda that is likely to generate spirited debate, particularly over proposed reforms that could serve as national models for reining in government spending and limiting the rise in property tax burdens. Nation's First Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Ban In approving Senate Bill 19 during the regular session this spring, the Texas Senate, as it has done multiple times in previous sessions, passed legislation that would prohibit local government officials from hiring contract lobbyists. After the Senate transmitted SB 19 to the House, however, the bill was referred to the House State Affairs Committee, where it subsequently never received a hearing before the end of the regular session. Though SB 19 did not receive consideration in the House during the regular session, Governor Abbott added the proposal to the special session agenda, presenting lawmakers with another opportunity to get this reform to the Governor's desk before the next regular session in 2027. Not only does SB 19 have the votes to pass out of the Senate and backing from the Governor, Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) has also expressed his support. Senator Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) reintroduced his proposal to end taxpayer-funded lobbying for consideration during the special session as Senate Bill 12. Senator Middleton and other supporters of SB 12 point out that taxpayer-funded lobbyists are frequently the top opponents of conservative reforms that would reduce property tax burdens, limit increases in property tax bills, and restrict the growth in government spending. In 2023 alone, local government officials across Texas spent nearly $100 million on contract lobbyists. Senator Middleton explains that the impetus for this proposed reform is not primarily about the amount of taxpayer dollars being spent on lobbyists, but the fact that local government officials frequently hire contract lobbyists to advocate against taxpayer interests. 'The practice of taxpayer-funded lobbying violates the principles of constitutional order and limited government,' noted the Texas Public Policy Foundation's James Quintero and John Bonura in a report published earlier this year. 'Local governments that spend tax dollars to hire lobbyists oftentimes do so for the purpose of securing higher taxes, more spending, and greater regulatory authority.' Local government officials and the contract lobbyists they hire with taxpayer dollars are the most vocal opponents of SB 12. Many legislators, including Republican legislators, are loathe to upset them if it can be avoided. Speaker Burrows, however, has already demonstrated he does not shy away from disagreements with local officials in the name of advancing conservative reforms that he thinks are needed. In 2023, for example, Speaker Burrows championed legislation that bars local governments from imposing new regulations on an industry or activity that is in a field already regulated by state government. That proposal, referred to by opponents and supporters alike as the 'Death Star' bill, introduced the concept of 'field preemption.' While the implementation of Speaker Burrows' field preemption bill has been held up in court since Governor Abbott signed it into law in 2023, Texas's Third District Court of Appeals issued a ruling last week that will allow it to at last take effect. 'The Death Star is now fully operational,' Speaker Burrows posted to X shortly after that ruling came down on July 18. Similar to the Death Star bill, SB 12 will need to overcome robust opposition from local government officials, but lawmakers appear committed to getting this long sought conservative policy goal to the Governor's desk this summer. 'The special session will be a total failure if the Texas legislature fails to ban taxpayer-funded lobbying,' Representative Briscoe Caine (R) posted to X on the first day of the special session. Many Believe Time Has Come For The State To Limit The Growth Of Local Spending Barring local officials from hiring contract lobbyists isn't the only special session agenda item that is sure to draw the ire of local politicians. So too will Governor Abbott's call for lawmakers to consider legislation 'reducing the property tax burden on Texans and legislation imposing spending limits on entities authorized to impose property taxes.' While Texas is one of eight no-income-tax states and boasts a lower overall tax burden than most states, it does have one of the nation's highest average property tax burden. According to the non-partisan Tax Foundation, Texans face the nation's sixth highest average property tax burden. Texas already has a law in place preventing state spending from rising faster than the rate of population growth and inflation, but localities do not face a similar restriction. Governor Abbott and many in the Texas Legislature believe that greater restrictions on local spending growth are needed to keep rising property tax burdens in check. The state does have a property taxpayer safeguard on the books referred to as 'the rollback rate.' The Texas rollback rate was reduced in 2019 to require that local governments receive voter approval if they wish to increase spending faster than 3.5% annually (2.5% for school districts). Because of the many exemptions and exclusions in Texas's rollback rate, local government officials across Texas have been able to grow their budgets and property tax burdens much faster than 3.5% annually despite the 2019 rollback rate change. Though the rollback rate reduction of 2019 has saved taxpayer billions of dollars in property tax payments over the past half decade relative to what would've been paid under the higher rollback rate, it has proven to be an insufficient taxpayer safeguard. If Texas lawmakers were to use the special session to remove the exclusions that prevent the rollback rate from being the strong spending cap that it has the potential to be, they could prevent unsustainable increases in property tax burdens moving forward. 'Reducing the rollback rate from 8% to 2.5% for school districts and 3.5% for most other local governments, along with requiring an automatic election to exceed those caps, was a step in the right direction,' said Vance Ginn, a Texas-based economist who previously served as chief economist at the White House Office of Management and the Texas Public Policy Foundation. 'However, the 2019 rollback rate changes fell short in a few key ways, particularly its exclusion of new property, property located n natural disaster areas, and other jurisdictions significantly weakened the protection the rollback rate provides to Texas taxpayers. Despite the improvements made to the rollback rate in 2019, property taxes were hiked 13.7% by special purpose districts, 11.5% by counties, and 9.5% by cities in 2023, which reduced the property tax relief from the state that year.' 'The lesson learned is that the rollback rate should be 0% for all property and all jurisdictions,' Ginn added, noting that 'a local spending limit and a 0% rollback rate would help rein in the excessive burden of local governments.' In addition to enacting the state's first school choice program, Governor Abbott and state lawmakers passed other reforms that were praised by conservatives. The research and development tax credit that businesses can apply against their state gross receipts tax liability was scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. Not only did Governor Abbott and Texas lawmakers prevent that tax break from expiring, they passed legislation to make the R&D tax credit more generous and permanent. 'For every $1 in R&D incentive, Texas gains $12.47 in Gross State Product over 20 years,' Senator Paul Bettencourt, noted in a statement posted to X shortly after the Texas Senate passed the Senate Bill 2206, bill to boost and permanently extend the R&D tax credit. 'This bill creates 6,662 new jobs annually, $445M in labor income, and $748M in GSP growth every year. SB 2206 ensures Texas remains a national leader in research, innovation, and job creation — making sure our economy keeps pace with the demands of the 21st-century.' The strengthening and permanent extension of the state's R&D tax credit isn't the only form of tax relief that employers received during the regular session. With the enactment of House Bill 9 in June, Texas lawmakers and Governor Abbott advanced business personal property tax relief through an increase in the inventory tax exemption from $2,500 to $125,000. This tax cut, which is subject to voter approval, is projected to save Texas employers $400 million annually. 'Cutting the inventory tax has long been a priority of our members here in Texas,' NFIB State Director Jeff Burdett said following the signing of HB 9. 'By increasing the exemption, Main Street employers will have more of their hard-earned money to expand their operations, invest in their employees, and contribute to their communities.' Texas voters will also get the chance to vote on a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state taxation of capital gains thanks to a constitutional amendment that Governor Abbott and state legislators referred to the ballot during the regular session. Texas already has a constitutional prohibition against taxing income, which was approved by voters in 2019. The new constitutional amendment specifically barring taxation of capital gains, if approved by voters, would make clear that a capital gains tax is also off limits per the Texas constitution. After a regular session in which Governor Abbott and state lawmakers accomplished significant and historic reforms, they return to Austin this week to tend to matters that were not addressed before time ran out on the regular session. Some think that a second special session could even be in the offing, depending on how this one goes. While Governor Abbott and Texas legislators were catching up with the rest of the country by providing school choice, the special session presents them with an opportunity to pass reforms that could serve as national models that other states seek to adopt, reestablishing Texas as a state on the leading edge of conservative governance and policy innovation.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
Aristocrats sitting in the House of Lords have spoken of the 'deep' personal offence they feel at the Government move to boot them out and have pleaded for a late reprieve against 'the ruthless and unnecessary purge'. Hereditary peers complained they were being treated like 'discarded rubbish' and questioned what they had done to be 'shown the door in such a way'. They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. There are currently 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform. During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster. Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire. However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function. 'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.' He added: 'The Labour Party has won. 'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. 'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate. 'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory. 'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.' Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. 'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?' He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?' Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'. He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. 'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.' Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?' Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto. She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.' Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House. 'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.' Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster. Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hereditary peers make last-ditch plea to be spared in ‘ruthless purge' of Lords
Aristocrats sitting in the House of Lords have spoken of the 'deep' personal offence they feel at the Government move to boot them out and have pleaded for a late reprieve against 'the ruthless and unnecessary purge'. Hereditary peers complained they were being treated like 'discarded rubbish' and questioned what they had done to be 'shown the door in such a way'. They argued sparing existing bloodline members would be 'a statesman-like choice' and foster future goodwill. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. There are currently 86 hereditary peers after the suspension of by-elections pending the legislation, the majority of whom – 44 – are Conservative. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and has been promoted as the first step in a process of reform. During its passage through the Lords, peers backed a change proposed by the Tories to block the expulsion of hereditary members already sitting at Westminster. Instead, the abolition of the by-election system would see their number decline over time as individuals die or retire. However, the Conservative amendment faces defeat when the Bill returns to the Commons, where the Government has a majority, during so-called 'ping-pong', when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Speaking at third reading, Tory shadow leader in the upper chamber Lord True warned: 'Without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the Government of the day and His Majesty's Opposition… this House cannot function. 'And the brutal reality is that the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence full respect and cannot be the basis of full goodwill.' He added: 'The Labour Party has won. 'No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this despatch box, but I submit it is not necessary on top of that, to wield the brutal axe on our colleagues who sit here now. 'That is what the amendment passed by the House for grandfather rights asked the Government to moderate. 'There is a chance and there is a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory. 'Such a statesman-like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleash a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry us all together through the rest of this Parliament.' Conservative hereditary peer Lord Strathclyde, who previously served as leader of the House, said: 'We all accept the mandate that the Government has to end the involvement of the hereditary principle as a route of entry to our House. But I join my colleagues of all benches still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. 'What have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way?' He added: 'It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous… Labour's victory in abolishing heredity here is real. Need we have such a ruthless and unnecessary purge as well?' Tory hereditary peer Lord Mancroft argued he and his colleagues were being 'thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish'. He said: 'We are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. 'It is rightly illegal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper House of this mother of parliaments.' Lord Mancroft added: 'It is very personal to each and every one of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive, and I would simply like to know why? Is that really too much to ask?' Responding, the Leader of the Lords Baroness Smith of Basildon again highlighted the removal of hereditary peers had been in the Labour Party manifesto. She said: 'Of course this feels personal to those departing hereditary peers. It felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament, with far less notice.' Lady Smith added: 'Nothing about the legislation says that we do not value the work of hereditary peers, or that of any other member of the House. 'That has always been the case, but we were quite clear that the hereditary route is not the route into the House that the country or the Labour Party expects.' Other changes made by the Lords to the Bill, which will be considered by MPs after the summer recess, included a Conservative move to create life peers who do not have to sit at Westminster. Peers also supported a Tory amendment to abolish unpaid ministers in the upper chamber, amid long-held concerns about Government frontbenchers in the unelected House not being remunerated for their official duties.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Ministers who serve less than six months in government won't get payoffs as PM tightens rules on ‘golden goodbyes'
Ousted ministers will only receive payoffs if they have served in government for more than six months as Sir Keir Starmer overhauls his appointments watchdog. After repeat examples of ministers receiving payoffs after only serving short stints, the prime minister has tightened eligibility for severance payouts. He has also scrapped the Advisory Committee for Business Appointments (Acoba) as part of the shakeup, replacing it with a new Ethics and Integrity Commission created from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden, who is driving through the reforms, said: 'This overhaul will mean there are stronger rules, fewer quangos and clearer lines of accountability. Michelle Donelan refused the offer of £17,000 in severance pay after a 36-hour stint as education secretary (PA Wire) "The Committee on Standards in Public Life has played an important role in the past three decades. These changes give it a new mandate for the future." But he added: "Whatever the institutional landscape, the public will in the end judge politicians and government by how they do their jobs and how they fulfil the principles of public service." Ministers are currently entitled to a severance payment equivalent to three months' salary when they leave office for any reason, regardless of how long they have been in the job. The PM faced calls to go further (PA Wire) The rule saw former minister Michelle Donelan reject the offer of £17,000 severance pay after her 36-hour tenure as education secretary. And the political turmoil at the heart of the Conservative government in 2022 cost taxpayers more than £3m in severance fees for ministers and advisers across three prime ministers. Sir Keir's shakeup would also have seen his own ministers Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, and Tulip Siddiq, a former Treasury minister, made ineligible for severance pay. Under Labour's plans, ministers who leave office after a serious breach of the ministerial code or who have served less than six months will also now not get the payment. If they return to office within three months of leaving, they will also not receive their salary until the end of that three-month period. But critics called for the PM to go further, blocking ministers who are forced out in disgrace from receiving payouts altogether. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden is overseeing the reforms (James Manning/PA) (PA Wire) The Liberal Democrats said Sir Keir's change was 'the right step' but that he 'must now go further - ban ministerial severance payouts altogether for disgraced former ministers, as well as stripping Liz Truss of her access to the ex-PM allowance fund of up to £125,000 per annum'. The new Ethics and Integrity Commission will report annually to Sir Keir on the health of the standards system. It will be chaired by Doug Chalmers, a retired lieutenant general who chairs the current Standards Committee. The committee was set up in 1994 by then-prime minister Sir John Major, after his government was mired in accusations of "sleaze" following a series of parliamentary scandals. Sir John warned in a recent speech that a small group of politicians were increasingly breaking the rules, and suggested Acoba needed to be reformed. It has faced repeated allegations that it is toothless and unable to enforce its rules properly. Ministers have instead decided to scrap it and split its functions between the Civil Service Commission and the Prime Minister's Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. Under reforms to the business appointments rules, ex-ministers found to have breached them by taking on inappropriate jobs will now be asked to repay any severance pay they receive. Solve the daily Crossword
The Independent
3 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Ministers who serve less than six months in government won't get payoffs as PM tightens rules on ‘golden goodbyes'
Ousted ministers will only receive payoffs if they have served in government for more than six months as Sir Keir Starmer overhauls his appointments watchdog. After repeat examples of ministers receiving payoffs after only serving short stints, the prime minister has tightened eligibility for severance payouts. He has also scrapped the Advisory Committee for Business Appointments (Acoba) as part of the shakeup, replacing it with a new Ethics and Integrity Commission created from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden, who is driving through the reforms, said: 'This overhaul will mean there are stronger rules, fewer quangos and clearer lines of accountability. "The Committee on Standards in Public Life has played an important role in the past three decades. These changes give it a new mandate for the future." But he added: "Whatever the institutional landscape, the public will in the end judge politicians and government by how they do their jobs and how they fulfil the principles of public service." Ministers are currently entitled to a severance payment equivalent to three months' salary when they leave office for any reason, regardless of how long they have been in the job. The rule saw former minister Michelle Donelan reject the offer of £17,000 severance pay after her 36-hour tenure as education secretary. And the political turmoil at the heart of the Conservative government in 2022 cost taxpayers more than £3m in severance fees for ministers and advisers across three prime ministers. Sir Keir's shakeup would also have seen his own ministers Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, and Tulip Siddiq, a former Treasury minister, made ineligible for severance pay. Under Labour's plans, ministers who leave office after a serious breach of the ministerial code or who have served less than six months will also now not get the payment. If they return to office within three months of leaving, they will also not receive their salary until the end of that three-month period. But critics called for the PM to go further, blocking ministers who are forced out in disgrace from receiving payouts altogether. The Liberal Democrats said Sir Keir's change was 'the right step' but that he 'must now go further - ban ministerial severance payouts altogether for disgraced former ministers, as well as stripping Liz Truss of her access to the ex-PM allowance fund of up to £125,000 per annum'. The new Ethics and Integrity Commission will report annually to Sir Keir on the health of the standards system. It will be chaired by Doug Chalmers, a retired lieutenant general who chairs the current Standards Committee. The committee was set up in 1994 by then-prime minister Sir John Major, after his government was mired in accusations of "sleaze" following a series of parliamentary scandals. Sir John warned in a recent speech that a small group of politicians were increasingly breaking the rules, and suggested Acoba needed to be reformed. It has faced repeated allegations that it is toothless and unable to enforce its rules properly. Ministers have instead decided to scrap it and split its functions between the Civil Service Commission and the Prime Minister's Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. Under reforms to the business appointments rules, ex-ministers found to have breached them by taking on inappropriate jobs will now be asked to repay any severance pay they receive.
