Lt. Gov. Patrick, Sen. Perry tout legislative victories in Lubbock stop
While touring major cities in Texas to highlight wins and local impacts stemming from the 89th Texas Legislature, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick made a pit stop in Lubbock on Tuesday.
Joined by Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, both touted major wins for Texas — Perry's water bill and funding for public school and school choice, among others.
Others are reading: Texas House Speaker Burrows discusses water, school choice and small business priorities
However, something was also unique about this visit since the speaker of the Texas House — Dustin Burrows — is also the representative of Lubbock and has to work closely with the governor and lieutenant governor during session.
"I've worked with four speakers now," Patrick said. "This was, this was light years above any other relationship."
Patrick said that from day one, Burrows was in constant contact with him and the governor, and the three even reinstated what had been an abandoned tradition known as the Big Three Breakfast.
Story continues after the gallery.
But even outside of the breakfast, Patrick said he and Burrows met on a constant basis, where agreements on legislation were made.
"When we had an issue, we sat down and worked it out — like the property tax issue to go to the level we went to a $200,000 homes exemption to eliminate school taxes for seniors," Patrick said. "He and I decided that in a 10-minute conversation, on a handshake."
Patrick also said the two of them had to work on complicated bills during the session — several of which have a direct impact on West Texas.
School funding for public schools and private schools drew in vocal critics around the state for and against the bills. One of those bills, as previously mentioned, was raising the homestead exemption to $200,000 for those over the age of 65.
"For those of you under 65, your homestead exemption is now $140,000, meaning your school taxes will be down about 50% from where they were just several years ago," Patrick said.
Those exemptions provide property tax relief, but they also impact the funding for public schools like Lubbock, Lubbock-Cooper, and Frenship ISDs in a different way.
"When we cut your property taxes, we're not decreasing money from our public schools," Patrick said. "We're actually writing a check in your place."
This lends itself to an $8.5 billion investment in public schools, which Patrick said the state legislature did differently this time around.
"This time, Republicans and Democrats joined together almost unanimously to say, we want to put it in buckets, and the biggest bucket is prioritizing teachers," Patrick said. "They're the most important person in the school, because they're the ones who educate their child. We need to pay teachers more, and we've been doing that in the Texas Senate for the last five years."
Dig Deeper: Private school vouchers are now law in Texas. Here's how they will work.
Patrick said that when considering a more rural focus on this topic, lawmakers wanted to make strides in closing the $10,000 gap between rural teachers' pay and that of teachers in urban centers.
It was also through working with Burrows in the House that the Senate was able to pass its school choice framework. Patrick even addressed those concerned that the school choice funding would degrade public schools, arguing that it won't.
"To give you a comparison, school choice takes no money from public schools." Patrick said. "It's a billion-dollar program, a separate fund for 100,000 kids per year over here. Public schools — five and a half million kids, compared to 100,000 and about $44 billion a year, compared to $1 billion. It does not impact public schools."
"We collectively will leave this session with a $20 billion commitment going forward, plus the $2.5 billion in the base budget and a billion last session," Perry said. "So we have put $23.5 billion for one of the biggest issues the state Texas faces, and that's dependable, perpetual water supply to meet the growing state needs."
But the investment in Texas's water security doesn't stop there. Perry said Texans will have a chance to approve House Joint Resolution 7, which proposes an additional billion dollars to the Texas water fund from state sales taxes.
Others are reading: Texas farmers face mounting expenses as droughts worsen
That amendment, along with 17 other proposed amendments, will be on the November 2025 ballot.
Perry also said rural Texas was able to secure a $90 million grant for emergency medical ambulance services, noting the need for rural communities to transport hurt or sick individuals to hospitals.
"Rural Texas did well," Perry said. "Rural Texas — just like some of the initiatives we did in previous session, and what we continue to do this session, has never been better. Big, big wins in rural Texas."
Mateo Rosiles is the Government & Public Policy reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Got a news tip for him? Email him: mrosiles@lubbockonline.com.
This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Lt. Gov. Patrick touts legislative water bill, school funding, taxes
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SNAP work requirement carveouts for vets, homeless caught in crosshairs of Trump bill
Congress could soon put an end to work requirement exemptions for veterans, homeless individuals and youth that were in foster care who receive food assistance. While House Republicans preserved the exemptions to work requirements under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as part of their broader package to advance President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities, Senate Republicans omitted the key language in their version of the bill. The exemptions were initially negotiated as part of a bipartisan deal two years ago. The GOP-led Senate Agriculture Committee confirmed the provision's absence would mean the exemptions would no longer be retained for members of the three groups. The move has drawn little attention on both sides of the aisle so far, as other pieces of the Republicans' megabill take center stage, including significant changes to Medicaid and what some estimates have projected as a multitrillion-dollar tax package. Even multiple GOP members of the Senate committee that produced the text say they intend to press for more information about the potential change before the upper chamber votes on the bill. 'When you have an opportunity to restore dignity and hope and belief back to someone, we're doing something that I think is, is our obligation, you know, we should try to help people that are down under luck and having a hard time,' Sen. Jim Justice ( a member of the committee, also told The Hill when asked about the matter. However, he added, 'From the standpoint of the SNAP benefits and everything, if we're doing something that is detrimental to our veterans, shame on us, because they have given us so much it's off the chart.' Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) said Wednesday that 'everybody ought to be treated the same' when asked about the matter. A Senate Republican aide also noted that individuals who aren't 'able-bodied' wouldn't 'have to meet those requirements' under the Senate plan. Congress had previously agreed to temporary changes to work requirements for SNAP in 2023 as part of a bipartisan deal to cap annual federal spending and raise the nation's debt limit. That included measures carving out exemptions through September 2030 for individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, and young adults who were in foster care at the age of 18. In a statement on the matter last Friday, the Senate committee said Republicans are working 'to encourage greater independence through work and training opportunities.' However, it noted its plan would still allow for 'individuals who are physically or mentally unfit for employment are not required to meet the 20 hours per week work requirement whether in those groups or not.' The decision comes as Republicans in both chambers are working to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse' in what some have described as a 'bloated' government program that has seen its spending climb over the years. Other notable changes Republicans are seeking to make to SNAP include requiring states to cover some of the cost of benefits and front a greater share of administrative costs for the program, as well as limiting the federal government's ability to increase monthly benefits in the future. The Senate Agriculture Committee estimates its plan will yield 'an approximate net savings of $144 billion' in the coming years, with Republicans' proposal requiring states to cover some SNAP benefits costs estimated to account for a significant portion of the projected spending reductions. The plan is part of a larger pursuit by the party to find measures to reduce federal spending by more than a $1 trillion over the next decade that can ride alongside an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts and other tax priorities. Democrats have come out in staunch opposition to the evolving proposal that is being exclusively crafted between House and Senate Republicans. 'The Republican bill takes food away from vulnerable veterans, homeless people and young adults who are aging out of the foster care system and may not know where their next meal is coming from,' Rep. Angie Craig (Minn.), top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement on Wednesday. 'Republicans want to make these cuts to food assistance to fund new tax breaks for people who are already wealthy and large corporations,' she added. Some experts are also sounding the alarm. 'It is a huge deal. These groups were carved out for a reason. They are vulnerable for a reason,' Kyle Ross, a policy analyst for Inclusive Economy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said, adding the exemptions apply to 'different populations with their own special set of circumstances.' 'There are an estimated 1.2 million veterans receiving SNAP, and veterans are more likely to live in a food insecure household than nonveterans, so they're really more likely to be in need of some food assistance,' he said, while also pointing to barriers homeless individuals and those aging out of foster care face in the job market. But others have argued against the need for the special carveouts. Angela Rachidi, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), described the 2023 spending caps deal as 'a political compromise,' noting that Republicans had also secured increases to the age threshold for SNAP as part of the deal under the Biden administration. Some hardline conservatives had also been critical of the deal at the time, while pointing to SNAP's exemptions. 'Many states would exempt people anyway because of mental health issues and you don't always necessarily have to have a doctor's note for it,' she said, while also arguing there wasn't 'anything unique about those populations that make them not capable of work.' She added that doing away with the carveouts could help lessen states' burden by removing 'another level of screening.' 'They don't have to assess somebody for their veteran status or foster status, and they would assess them anyway for their shelter status,' she said, while suggesting from a 'bureaucratic perspective, it actually might make it easier.' At the same time, Lauren Bauer, a fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, pointed to the added strain states could face if other proposals from Republicans to increase states' cost share of the program's benefits and administrative cost also take effect. 'What the bill also does is, on both sides, you know, reduces the support that the federal government gives to states to administer the program and identifying and validating exemptions, the health exemptions, etc. is very expensive,' Bauer said. 'And administering work requirements is also very, very expensive, because it is onerous not only on the SNAP participant, it's onerous on the state who is managing the program,' she added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Moratorium On State AI Regulation Draws Some GOP Fire, But Also Praise
Both the House and Senate versions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act include provisions to preempt ... More state regulation of AI. As President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans seek to extend the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's (TCJA) personal income tax rate cuts as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), how to deal with the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap remains a key point of contention. The House-approved version of OBBBA raises the TCJA's $10,000 per household SALT cap to $40,000 but the Senate proposal keeps it at $10,000. The SALT cap isn't the only part of OBBBA that has divided some Republicans. Opponents of the TCJA's SALT cap often accuse it of targeting blue states, which tend to have relatively higher tax burdens and are where most SALT beneficiaries live. The same criticism, however, cannot be leveled at the OBBBA provision prohibiting states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI), a proposal that has been the subject of some GOP criticism. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, voted for OBBBA but has since derided the moratorium on state regulation of AI included in the bill. 'This needs to be stripped out in the Senate,' Greene wrote about OBBBA's AI preemption provision in a June 6 post on X. 'When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it.' 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power,' Greene added. 'Not the other way around.' Neil Chilson, former chief technologist at the Federal Trade Commission, responded to the sentiment expressed by Greene in a June 10 X post: 'A lot of 'conservatives' seem desperate to have California (a state that is having some difficulties governing itself right now) regulate how the US does AI,' Chilson wrote, adding that 'China thanks you.' The sort of progressive state regulation of AI development that Greene is vowing to defend is now on display in Albany, where the New York Assembly and Senate recently passed the RAISE Act, legislation that would impose new regulations on companies, both large and small, that deal with AI. That legislation is now on Governor Kathy Hochul's (D) desk awaiting her consideration. 'The RAISE Act would create a legal minefield for New Yorkers trying to innovate by imposing vague, unworkable standards that punish developers instead of bad actors,' noted a letter that NetChoice, a trade association of online businesses, sent to Governor Hochul on June 17. That letter, which urged Hochul to veto the RAISE Act, added that the bill 'would stifle AI tech development, harm economic competitiveness and undermine free expression.' Bipartisan opposition to the AI preemption provision in OBBBA is not surprising. Though capping the SALT deduction disproportionately affects blue state taxpayers, OBBBA's federal preemption of state AI regulation would have implications for red and blue states alike. That's because governors and lawmakers in red states have proved just as inclined as their blue state counterparts to propose state-level regulation of AI. Take Texas, commonly viewed as one of the reddest and most conservatively governed states in the nation, and for good reason. Texas, where Republicans control every statewide office and both chambers of the legislature, is one of only eight states that does not impose an income tax. It's a right-to-work state where leading politicians tout freedom, liberty, and limited government. It's also a state where Republican lawmakers have been seeking to regulate AI. In late 2024, Texas Representative Giovanni Capriglione (R) introduced the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (TRAIGA), legislation to establish a state-level regulatory regime affecting companies operating in the AI space. Following its introduction, TRAIGA was quickly met with opposition from free market organizations. 'Though well-intentioned, this draft bill imposes restrictive regulations and burdensome compliance costs that risk stifling Texas's thriving artificial intelligence (AI) sector,' a coalition of conservative organizations wrote in a joint letter to Texas legislators. 'Texas has a unique opportunity to be a leader in AI innovation, but TRAIGA's approach threatens to undermine that potential. It would also be detrimental as a policy framework for other states or the federal government.' In response to pushback, Representative Capriglione scaled back TRAIGA, reworked it, and refiled it as House Bill 149. HB 149, which ultimately passed both chambers, is more narrow in scope than the original version of TRAIGA, with HB 149 focusing on government utilization and development of AI. 'Under the bill, government agencies will be required to disclose to consumers when they are interacting with an AI system,' noted a Transparency Coalition blog post on HB 149. 'Systems will be prohibited from 'dark pattern' interaction, or any 'user interface designed or manipulated with the effect of substantially subverting or impairing user autonomy, decision-making, or choice.'' 'TRAIGA also bans the government from using AI to create 'social scores' for users, and from using biometric data without consent,' the Transparency Coalition added. 'Government agencies also are prohibited from discriminating against users based on their political viewpoints, as well as from blocking, banning, removing, deplatforming, demonetizing, or otherwise limiting users.' Aside from Texas, legislation seeking to regulate AI has been introduced in most state capitals, in both blue and red states. It's not only free market voices and tech industry leaders who are expressing concerns about the adverse effects that would stem from a 50-state patchwork of overlapping and conflicting AI regulations. 'I just worry about every state going out and doing their own thing, a patchwork quilt of regulations, Connecticut being probably stricter and broader than most, what that means in terms of AI development here,' Governor Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) said last month. Shortly after Colorado lawmakers enacted their AI bill in 2024, Governor Jared Polis (D-Colo.) urged congress to enact federal legislation preempting state regulation of AI. 'There are better ways for states to address AI concerns than a heavy-handed, top-down, paperwork-intensive regulatory approach,' Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.) wrote in the veto statement explaining his decision to reject an AI regulation bill passed by the Democrat-led Virginia Legislature. 'The role of government in safeguarding AI practices should be one that enables and empowers innovators to create and grow, not one that stifles progress and places onerous burdens on our Commonwealth's many business owners.' Proponents of federal preemption of state AI regulation, which includes many conservatives who advocate for pushing most policy decisions down to the states, believe that a patchwork of 50 separate state regulatory regimes for AI would put the U.S. at a disadvantage when it comes to development of AI. Vance Ginn, president of Ginn Economic Consulting and former economist at the White House Office of Management and Budget, says there is a precedent for a federal moratorium on state AI regulations. That precedent is the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, which was passed by a GOP-run congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. 'That federal pause on state taxes for internet access helped fuel the digital revolution,' writes Ginn. 'AI deserves the same breathing room. If the moratorium or something like it doesn't happen, America risks ceding the future to countries like China, where communist governing directs resources rather than profits.' Those remarks from Ginn, who served in the first Trump administration, sound a similar note to those recently delivered by a member of the second Trump administration. In an address to the AWS Public Sector Summit, David Sacks — the venture capitalist, technologist, and first ever White House AI czar — described the state-level efforts to regulate AI as 'fear-mongering', adding that a 50-state patchwork of varying and conflicting AI regulatory regimes across the U.S. could 'end up killing these things in the cradle.' 'If we had taken this approach towards the internet, if we had basically had a fear-based approach towards regulation and passed hundreds or thousands of regulations, I don't think the U.S. would become the dominant country in the internet,' Sacks added, calling the internet 'one of the crown jewels of the American economy.' There is bipartisan agreement about the need for federal preemption of state AI regulations and there is also bipartisan opposition to such a federal moratorium. The matter will be decided, however, by Republicans on Capitol Hill. 'Republicans have a pretty straightforward choice on AI,' writes Zach Lilly, deputy director of state and federal affairs for NetChoice, noting that the choices are 'follow Trump's lead and use their Congressional majority to set a light touch approach, or miss the moment and let California regulate it into oblivion.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: There's a way around Great Highway closure traffic jam
Regarding 'Has the Great Highway closure led to a traffic nightmare? This is the most complete data yet' (Projects, June 16): I lived on 40th Avenue in San Francisco's Outer Richmond for over 20 years before relocating last year. I always found complaints about traffic on Chain of Lakes Drive in Golden Gate Park to be overblown. Many drivers seem to have forgotten or never experienced the same congestion during periodic Great Highway closures (usually for sand) before the COVID pandemic. When I saw cars backed up to Lincoln or Fulton on Chain of Lakes, I had a simple solution: go around the west side of the park on the Great Highway — the portion that remains open after the recent closure. At the height of rush hour, this detour never took me more than about five minutes. John Cumming, West Sacramento Stop gestapo tactics Regarding 'Deport the worst' (Letters to the Editor, June 15): I suspect most people would not argue much with letter writer Peter Behr's call to deport criminals. The problem with President Donald Trump's policies, encouraged by adviser Stephen Miller, is that to meet their high deportation goals, they are taking law-abiding immigrants and, in some cases, citizens, and putting them into their dragnet. People are showing up for immigration court hearings like they are supposed to do, and being detained and deported. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are going into farms, restaurants and other workplaces and just taking people away, especially in Democratic cities and states. There's no legal process. ICE seems to be turning into the gestapo — fear and intimidation. What is next? Notice how Trump sent in the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, and Homeland Security Secretary Noem saying that they are there to 'liberate California'? Please wake up, Mr. Behr. Republicans, especially those in Congress, need to take steps to control Trump before it is too late. Mike Elgie, San Rafael Tariffs are taxes President Donald Trump says that consumers don't pay tariffs; foreigners do. That couldn't be further from the truth, and I should know — I just paid it. I recently ordered a piece of equipment used in an obscure martial art from Japan. It's a craft item that will never be made in the United States. The cost was $525, but on delivery, UPS required an additional $180. When I asked what it was for, the answer was tariffs on steel and aluminum. That $180 paid to the federal government won't contribute to the creation of any jobs in the U.S. It won't make us richer or more competitive. It did take money out of my pocket and out of the real economy that could have been spent in our community. Make no mistake, tariffs are a tax, pure and simple. They are a tax on all of us. Support new teachers Regarding 'Legislature rejects 'draconian' cuts to UC and CSU, keeps TK-12 funding intact' (California, June 12): I applaud the California Legislature's work balancing the budget; however, one area needs more attention and fiscal support: paying a stipend for aspiring teachers. Many teachers spend hundreds of hours learning in classrooms, with no salary but high debt. This barrier is one of the leading causes of a declining teacher workforce, particularly in California. In Dublin, where I live, advanced and honors classes suffer from ill-trained substitute teachers, while there are hardly any new teachers on campus. This worsens education and hurts student outcomes. With one of the largest educational budgets across the nation, California can lead by example: In this next budget cycle, by creating this new program — with the proposed $600 million price tag — it can start incentivizing aspiring teachers to enter the workforce. Aayush Gandhi, Dublin
