Jump to Navigation

Appraisal Cap

Strengthening the Economy > Tax Burden > Appraisal Cap
We support capping the annual increase in real property appraisals at 3% and strongly support a reduction in the margin of error in the property value study to 90% in place of the current 95%. We call upon the Texas Leg to eliminate the property value study
(plank deleted)

This plank calls for adjustment to a program and also calls for its elimination? Huh?

The Property Value Study is a valid tool to monitor appraisal district accuracy. Certainly Republicans don't want less accuracy?

A 3% cap in Dallas County, for example, would have in fact shifted the net tax burden away from the wealthiest inhabitants. That makes no sense.

Fault:

Comments

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Random plank

Restoring American Sovereignty and Leadership > International Relations > United Nations
We reservedly support involvement in the United Nations. We support the United States's tough stance to counter the UN's many flaws. We oppose any measure that subjugates the United States to UN control.We believe it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations. We will: 1. support legislation similar to "The American Sovereignty Preservation Act", which would remove the United States entirely from the control of the UN; 2. demand that Congress ratify no more, and rescind any existing treaties that compromise the United States Constitution; 3. support immediate recall of our military forces from UN initiated engagements, and restore them to their traditional mission of defending the liberty and freedom of the people of the United States of America; 4. support an amendment to the United States Constitution stating, "a treaty that conflicts with any provisions of the Constitution shall not be of any force or effect"; 5. urge our Texas Senators to unalterably oppose any agreement or treaty that seeks to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC), make the United States a participatory party to such a court; recognize the jurisdiction of such a court within the United States or upon any native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States; and We oppose: 1. UN control of any United States land or natural resources; 2. the use of Presidential Executive Orders to implement UN treaties, thereby circumventing our elected Congress; 3. any attempt by the federal government, or the UN, to directly or indirectly tax United States citizens for UN support; 4. a UN resolution that would force the United States to adopt gun control measures by treaty; 5. the placement of the UN flag and emblem on public property or in government facilities; 6. payment of any debt allegedly owed to the UN; 7. Any attempt to grant veto power over the sovereignty of the United States to set national defense priorities, wage effective war, and negotiate peace in terms favorable to our vital interests; and 8. Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). We urge Congress to evict the United Nations from the United States and eliminate any further participation.
Reason:

This is a highly paranoid view. There is no credible movement to subjugate the United States to the United Nations. The US has consistently rebuffed all such proposals.

While the United Nations has deep flaws, it is the only forum for broad international discourse.

Several of the enumerated objections are redundant with other parts of the platform.

LOST should be handled in another plank.

misinformed, redundant, paranoid, extreme

Problems

Show problem parts of the platform:
Platforms promote principles and policies. Planks must not push particular polymorphic political proposals, including bills.about a specific bill (6)
Parts of these were recently implemented.accomplished (11)
Parts of these only promote limited religious viewpoints.advances religious doctrine (8)
Too many positions already overwhelm voters. We cannot add more without a plan to cut ballot complexity.another elected office (6)
The GOP should not be a virulent, anti-homosexual crusade.anti-homosexual crusade (6)
These destroy useful customs or start us down slippery slopes.bad precedent (17)
Cliches belong on the playground, not in serious platforms.cliche (5)
These contradict other planks.contradictory (13)
These simply go too far, overshooting a rational remedy.extreme (25)
These have factual errors.incorrect (11)
These planks advanced contemporary liberal causes or expand government.leftist (22)
These planks require belief in something that is untrue.misinformed (18)
These are not appropriate for a platform document.misuse of platform (6)
These planks have minor punctuation or grammatical errors.needs copyedit (8)
These problems were fixed before the 2008 platform was published.no longer relevant (3)
"Black helicopters" and paranoid conspiracy have no place in our party.paranoid (15)
Parts of these do nothing useful.pointless (61)
These proposals would make our kids stupider.reduces education quality (3)
These planks are internally redundant or repeat other parts of the platform.redundant (41)
These planks should propose a more general solution.too specific (6)
These planks are unclear or unfocused.vague (19)
Puffy prose, hackneyed phrases, and obscure words create pinheaded, unfocused, and inaccessible platforms. Platforms must be simple and direct.wordy (47)

Recent comments