Category: news

Enterprise Zone Tax Breaks? NO!

WARNING: Long, but really important post

Tax abatements shift the tax burden from the business getting the abatement to all other taxpayers. How does that happen?

It’s a simple concept. Governments budget income and expenses, just like you do. Local government income is primarily tax revenue. Expenses? I don’t think I need to explain those…. government spending.

Let’s talk about taxes (income). There are property taxes, sales taxes, hotel occupancy taxes, personal property taxes on businesses and some others. But that will do for my example.

Let’s say Local Government A gets revenue as follows:

Residential property taxes: $1,000,000
Commercial property taxes: $2,000,000
Hotel & Occupancy taxes: $ 500,000
Personal Property taxes: $ 750,000
TOTAL INCOME: $4,250,000
BUDGETED EXPENSES: $4,250,000

BUT, local elected officials decide that Business A should get a “tax abatement” and not pay any (or reduced) commercial property taxes or personal property taxes for the next 5 years.

In our example, we’ll say that Business A is estimated to pay $50,000 in commercial property taxes and $25,000 in personal property taxes each year. Also, the county has agreed to handle all administrative tasks (expense), do road repairs (expense), waive inspection fees (expenses incurred but not reimbursed by fees). Let’s estimate that to be $75,000 in expenses and lost income.

So now, with abatements, TOTAL INCOME above becomes $4,175,000 ($4,250,000 minus $75,000). Then there are those incurred expenses not paid by Business A, but paid by the local government. So, BUDGETED EXPENSES is now $4,325,000 ($4,250,000 + $75,000).

A net zero budget is now $150,000 in the hole and someone, some taxpayer, has to make up that deficit.

Every time there is an abatement without a matching reduction in spending, some other taxpayer picks up the tab.

Abatements give businesses tax breaks. There’s no such thing for residential property owners. We residential property taxpayers just pick up that deficit created by the abatements because there’s never a reduction in spending.

In fact, development increases government costs to provide services. Industrial/commercial less than residential, but all development increases costs. And, the “Order” on Tuesday’s agenda specifically states such as follows:

The County recognizes that participation in the Texas Enterprise Zone Program may require ongoing administrative coordination, reporting, record retention, compliance monitoring, and financial review by County staff, including the County Auditor’s Office and other County departments. The Commissioners Court reserves the right to establish administrative procedures, cost recovery mechanisms, or related agreements, as authorized by law, to support the administration of enterprise projects.

I’ve never seen a study in Bastrop County about the per capita cost of services. I’ve never seen a study here proving the income generated by a business exceeds the increased cost of government services. All we ever hear is how much revenue a development will generate. It sounds good, but my experience in local government elected office says it rarely works that way. And, even when it does, shouldn’t someone give taxpayers a true financial analysis?

The Bastrop County Commissioners, all Republicans, have Order 2026-09 on their agenda the day after Memorial Day at 9 a.m. Great timing with schools out and a preceding holiday weekend. Even poorer timing considering it’s election day.

Any patriot working the election will be unable to attend the meeting either in person or online to express their opinion about this issue. To me, someone who has worked elections for years, this is a real slap. (Full disclosure, I’m not working this election due to a prior out-of-state commitment.)

The order seeks to “ordain” the County’s participation in the Texas Enterprise Zone Program. According to the Governor’s website, “The Texas Enterprise Zone Program (EZP) is a state sales and use tax refund program designed to encourage private investment and job creation in economically distressed areas of the state.” (emphasis added)

I stress “economically distressed areas” in the above description. There’s a map on the Governor’s site. Space X is not in an “economically distressed” area. Nor is Bastrop County designated as a “distressed county”. The County admits so in its “Order“.

Every application of the Texas Enterprise Zone Program to a business that is not in an economically distressed area denies those benefits to a business or county that is in such an area. Eligibility is limited according to the Governor’s website.

“…communities with a population of less than 250,000 have 6 designations available. The state may award a maximum of 105 designations statewide per biennium, and may award up to 12 designations per quarterly round.”

Then there’s the fact that this is an all-Republican Commissioner’s Court. We didn’t elect these people to give tax breaks to businesses while residential property taxpayers get slammed. The GOP Platform gives guidance on this.

No Corporate Welfare: We encourage government to divest its ownership of all businesses that should be run in the private sector. We oppose all bailouts of and subsidies to domestic and foreign government entities, states, and for all businesses, public and private. We agree with the Texas Constitution’s requirement for fair and uniform taxation andoppose special treatment or tax breaks for favored industries or companies. We call for repeal or sunset of existing subsidy or special-interest tax exemptions, including the Special Events Trust Fund program, the Texas Enterprise Fund, Moving Image Industry Incentive Program, and lab-grown meat incentives, and now request repeal of Chapter 403.601 of the Texas Tax Code. […] (Plank 78, 2024 Texas GOP Platform, highlighting added)

So, why are they doing this? Star-struck perhaps? Because it’s Elon Musk? Perhaps it’s pressure from higher levels of government. Frankly, that would be my guess.

In conclusion, I don’t care what business owner is getting a tax break. I don’t believe in them. Redirecting the tax burden from one entity to another is socialist thinking.

I’m actually an Elon Musk fan. I don’t blame him for trying to get every break he can for his businesses. But our elected officials were put there by US, by the voters. Elon Musk, Governor Abbott, Donald Trump did not put them at the dais. We did. And they need to remember that, remember who they are supposed to represent, when voting to give another business a tax abatement.

John Guandolo on Islam in Texas

Probably like you, I feel bombarded by “stuff” happening at all levels of government. Perhaps I feel it more because of my involvement or because I’m a talk radio junkie. But, this has really grabbed my attention: The Islamization of Texas.

I speak often about letting people get their foot in the door (or even just their toe) so they can, without us expecting it, push their whole body (or political agenda) in our faces. How many “movements” can you think of that started with “oh, it’s just a little of this” and the next thing you know, they’re everywhere. The threat then seems overwhelming to tackle.

That’s pretty much where we are with Islam in Texas. Have you seen the videos of “sermons” in mosques? A quick search on YouTube will turn up quite a few. There are laws in Texas against sedition, and calling for the overthrow of our government is just that. But, hey, it’s just one sermon or two… not so much to worry about, right? Those people calling for “Death to America”? Well, they’re overseas not next door, so why worry. Really?

Take an hour to listen to John Guandolo. He’ll open your eyes. Then sign up for the LPRW Cinco de Mayo event where you’ll learn more from some experts. It’s time to step up to the plate and stop this in its tracks.

Because you asked

I’ve been asked quite a few times who I recommend on the ballot. I’ve written a lengthy endorsement for the Attorney General’s race. Since tomorrow is election day, I’m going to share a few other recommendations.

US SENATE
Ken Paxton. Paxton has been a bulldog for Texans and Texas Values in his role as Attorney General. His opponents have not. Texas desperately needs a strong voice representing conservative Texans in the US Senate.

US HOUSE – CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 27
Michael Cloud. Michael Cloud is a strong Texas conservative and votes accordingly. He has earned positions on the Appropriations Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He deserves to be returned to Congress.

GOVERNOR
“Doc” Pete Chambers. Governor Abbott has, overall, done a good job for Texas. However, his endorsement of legislators based on one vote (School Choice) was inappropriate. I loved his bussing of illegals throughout the country as it brought that issue front and center for places that weren’t feeling our pain. I didn’t like his Covid decisions. Keeping big box stores open and forcing small businesses to close was unacceptable. Forcing bars to close because more than 50% of their revenue was alcohol while allowing restaurants to open and serve lacked consistency. Too many appointments and decisions seem to be made due to campaign financial support and I oppose that. Doc has said he will not appoint people to positions if they donate large amounts of money to his campaign. Refreshing.

LT GOVERNOR
Perla Hopkins. When Dan Patrick pushed for half a billion dollars for the movie industry every 2 years, he lost my vote. Texas Scorecard explained “The Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Fund would receive $500 million every two years over the next decade, amounting to $2.5 billion by the 2034-2035 biennium.” If I wanted to support that industry, I’d go to the movies. I’m frankly sick of dolling out tax money to the favorite industry of the day…. especially one that has no impact on my quality of life.

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Aaron Reitz. I’m strongly endorsing Aaron Reitz for Attorney General. Not only is he Ken Paxton’s choice for the next AG, but he has the tenacity, core values, and strength of character to protect Texas and to manage over 4,000 employees. Read my entire endorsement.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, PLACE 3
Lesli Fitzpatrick. Lesli is the most qualified candidate. She has a broad range of legal experience including significant criminal courtroom experience. She had her own legal practice, has worked for the State of Texas in a position that provided extensive knowledge of the Texas prison system. This race is for a seat on the highest criminal court in Texas, the one that reviews every death penalty case. Lesli is a solid conservative Republican. With her criminal courtroom experience, Lesli is the best choice.

TEXAS HOUSE DISTRICT 17
Tom Glass. If you’ve been to your mailbox lately, you’ll understand this endorsement. More than 125 Political Action Committees have donated to Tom’s opponent. Texans for Lawsuit Reform has donated well over a quarter of a million dollars to Tom’s opponent. If you want a legislator that answers to the big money donors, vote for the other guy. But if you want a legislator who fights for conservative Texans in his district, vote for Tom Glass.

BASTROP COUNTY JUDGE
Don Loucks. I was shocked when, at a candidate forum, our current County Judge had to ask the emcee what an NGO is. What?? He’s reviewing, voting for, and presiding over a multi-million dollar budget that includes tax dollar payments to NGOs and he doesn’t know what one is. He struggles to run a meeting as seen by those who were at the last County Commissioner’s meeting: taking testimony after an item had already been tabled. That violates Robert’s Rules.

Don’s opponent has shown that he does not have the skill set to make decisions for a county whose population is exploding. The County Judge literally has the lives of over 100,000 Bastrop County residents in his hands. We need a leader trained in emergency management, who understands budgets and taxes, who is conversant with the public safety needs of a growing Texas county. We need a strong, conservative leader and that’s Don Loucks.

Bought?

Did you see when Stan said on Facebook that he didn’t have any idea some of these mailers were coming from PACs until they arrived in his mailbox? Now that the 8-day prior to the election reports are out, we have a broader view of where the money is sourced.

Stan’s consulting company (Catalyst Advisors Group LLC) is also the consulting company for Protect and Serve Texas PAC. This PAC received $15,000 from Texans for Lawsuit Reform. They’ve sent several mailers for Stan.

Then there’s the Alliance of Texans for Conservative Leadership PAC. In our last post, we told you their only report to Texas Ethics showed they had no money. Zero.

Their 8-day report is very revealing. This PAC received $1.6 MILLION on February 5 this year. Yes, that’s right. Just 21 days ago, Texans for Lawsuit Reform put $1.6 MILLION into Alliance of Texans for Conservative Leadership PAC. They are the sole donor to this PAC. They then spent $692,762.63 on mailers. They failed to list the amount spent on each candidate, but Stan was a recipient, not once, but three times.

Candidates also have to file an 8-Day prior (to the election) report. We’ve already discussed the donations to Stan Gerdes from PACs in Sneaky but Legal Part 1 and Part 2.

The 8-day prior report covers just 30 days: Jan 23, 2026 – Feb 21, 2026.

Gerdes took in a whopping $549,682.65 in donations in that one month, overwhelmingly from Political Action Committees, not from district constituents.

Has someone been working the phones to raise money from Texas PACs and across the country to save his seat? Is Gerdes getting very nervous about the challenge from Tom Glass? This is a very long list of PAC donors directly to Gerdes in just 30 days.

  • Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC $237,448 (does not include their donations to PACs that sent mailers for Gerdes);
  • Weekley, Richard (co-founder Texans for Lawsuit Reform) $2,500;
  • Texas Conservative Majority PAC $67,750;
  • Dustin Burrows Campaign $50,000;
  • Protect and Serve Texas PAC $35,150.89;
  • Texas REALTORS PAC (TREPAC) $28,842.34;
  • Associated Republicans of Texas Campaign Fund $19,259.83;
  • Troutman Pepper Locke LLP $5,473.25;
  • Texas House Republican Caucus PAC $5,000;
  • TX Diamondback Energy, Inc. PAC $4,000;
  • Texas Building Branch Asso General Contractors PAC $2,500;
  • Koch Industries, Inc. PAC (KOCHPAC) $2,500;
  • Rural Friends of Texas Electric Cooperatives $2,500;
  • Pape-Dawson Engineers PAC $2,500;
  • Texans for Reasonable Solutions PAC $2,000;
  • Texas Dairymen PAC $2,000;
  • Delisi Communications PAC $2,000;
  • Texas Manufactured Housing Assn. Committee For Responsible $2,000;
  • Texas Food & Fuel Assn. PAC $1,500;
  • Texas Society Of Anesthesiologists PAC $1,500;
  • AT&T Texas PAC $1,000;
  • Beer Alliance of Texas PAC $1,000;
  • Charter Schools Now PAC $1,000;
  • Congress Ventures LLC $1,000;
  • ConocoPhillips SPIRIT PAC $1,000;
  • Consulting Engineers PAC $1,000;
  • The American Electric Power – Texas – Committee for Responsible $1,000;
  • EYE PAC of the Texas Ophthalmological Assn $1,000;
  • Houston Police Officers Union PAC $1,000;
  • K & L Gates LLP Committee for Good Government $1,000;
  • Germania Farm Mutual PAC $1,000;
  • Gulf States Toyota Inc. State PAC $1,000;
  • H B Strategies (Jefferson City MO) $1,000;
  • Mike Toomey & Associates $1,000;
  • Moak Casey PAC $1,000;
  • NRG Energy Inc. PAC $1,000;
  • Stan Schlueter Consulting $1,000;
  • Texas Farm Bureau AGFUND $1,000;
  • Texas Optometric PAC $1,000;
  • Texas Pipeline Assn PAC $1,000;
  • Tenaris Global Services (USA) Corp. PAC $1,000;
  • Texas Nurse Practitioners PAC $1,000;
  • PNM Responsible Citizens Group (Albuquerque NM) $750;
  • Greenberg Traurig, P. A. PAC (Albany NY) $750;
  • Texas Chemistry Council/Assn. Of Chemistry Alliance FREEPAC $500;
  • Texas State Assn. Of Fire Fighters Action Committee $500;
  • ExxonMobil Corp PAC $500;
  • Hochheim Prairie PAC $500;
  • Longbow Consulting Partners LLC $500;
  • ONEOK Inc Employee PAC (Tulsa OK) $500;
  • P. John Kuhl Jr., PC $500;
  • Sampson Public Affairs, LLC $500;
  • Texas Dental Association PAC $500;
  • Schwartz, Page & Harding, L.L.P. $500;
  • Liriano Motors LLC $250;
  • Texas Conservative Coalition PAC $40;

After the 8-day prior report, daily reports over a certain amount of contribution and expenditure are required. Gerdes reported this daily contribution: AFSCME Texas Correctional Officers PAC $5,000.

Ask yourself when you vote: who will Stan represent in Austin: you or these PACs? If your issue conflicts with their priorities, with whom will he vote? The answer is clear if he wants to stay in elected office (or move higher up the ladder which requires more and more money).

Think about it before you cast your vote.

Financials~Local Races

DEMOCRATS WITH OPPONENTS

Dock Jackson: County Judge: Hasn’t filed one report for this election cycle: no Jan.15; no 30-day prior; no 8-day prior. Hasn’t even filed a treasurer appointment for this race.

Tamara McIntyre: JP1: Hasn’t filed one report: no Jan.15; no 30-day prior; no 8-day prior. Hasn’t even filed a treasurer appointment.

Ruth Todd: JP2: Did not file 30-day prior or 8-day prior. Did file a report that she had exceeded the modified reporting limit.

Rachel Turman-Smith: JP4: Hasn’t filed one report: no Jan.15; no 30-day prior; no 8-day prior. Hasn’t even filed a treasurer appointment.

REPUBLICANS WITH OPPONENTS

Don Loucks: County Judge: All required reports filed.

Gregory Klaus: County Judge: All required reports filed.

Holly Cox: District Clerk: All required reports filed.

Ward Northcutt: District Clerk: No 30-day prior or 8-day prior report filed. All other required reports filed.

Sarah Loucks: District Clerk: No 8-day prior report filed. All other required reports filed.

Tammy Batot: District Clerk: All required reports filed.

Sneaky but legal: Voter Beware Part 2

Not all PACs are created equal. There are Federal PACs, Federal Super PACs, Texas GPACs, Texas MPACs, Texas SPACs and others. They all operate under different rules.

A Texas GPAC has to file income and expense reports with the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) every January 15 and July 15. If it’s an election year and they have involvement on behalf of a candidate or issue, they have to file 30-day prior and 8-day prior (to the election) reports. And, subject to certain dollar amounts, a GPAC must file daily reports for receipts and expenditures “during the Daily reporting period”.

A Texas SPAC is like a GPAC, but is focused solely on one issue. Fundraising and expenses are restricted to that issue. Only state-wide issues are reported to Texas Ethics. All others are reported locally.

A Texas PAC can choose to file monthly with the Texas Ethics Commission. They become an MPAC. Here’s where it gets shady. MPACs have to file monthly but don’t have to do the 30-day and 8-day prior reports. They do have to report receipts and expenditures over certain amounts daily for the 9 days prior to an election. That’s election day, not the beginning of early voting.

For example: February is the month before the March 3 primary. MPAC reports aren’t due until March 5, after the election. And, unless the expense (think mailing) is paid for during the 9 day prior reporting period, voters will not even be able to see that expenditure until after the election.

WHO’S PAYING FOR THE MAILERS?

Gerdes Primary Lit 2026In Stan Gerdes’ case, the following MPACs who sent mailers are monthly reporters: Texas Realtors Political Action Committee, AFC Victory Fund, and Texas Conservative Fund.

Supporting Federal PACs include Alliance for Children and American Energy Action Fund. Their data is available at OpenSecrets.org.

The following are GPACs that have sent mailers for Gerdes: Protect and Serve Texas PAC, Texas Action PAC, Alliance of Texans for Conservative Leadership PAC.

Candidates spend a lot of money with consultants to manage all this. So….

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Stan Gerdes has spent one MILLION dollars with a consulting firm called Murphy Nasica & Associates from January 11, 2022 through the end of 2024. That’s $1,001,502.91 for consulting and advertising in just 3 years according to TEC records. For 2025 into 2026, the consulting firm is Catalyst Advisors Group. They’ve been paid more than $60,000 in that time.

More than 125 PACs have donated money to Gerdes totaling more than $800,000 in the 4 years since he first ran for the legislature. That doesn’t count contributions from TX House Speaker Dustin Burrows of $38,800 or the $164,000+ from past-Speaker Dade Phelan after voting for each of them for Speaker.

Money, money, money. And all this for a position that pays just $7,200 annually. Again, it’s all legal. But don’t you wonder why so much money is involved for a position in a legislature that meets every other year?

My advice: voter be aware, and beware, when casting your vote.

Sneaky but legal: Voter Beware

UPDATE: Today four Stan Gerdes flyers arrived, all from Political Action Committees OUTSIDE Texas. Ask yourself why Alexandria VA PACs want Stan Gerdes in the Texas House so badly that they’ll do 4 mailings in one day? Two of the four have the same treasurer. Hmmmm…….
(1) from American Energy Action Fund. This is a Federal PAC, Alexandria VA
(2) from Texas Conservative Fund. Established 1/2026 in Alexandria VA.
(3) from Texas Action PAC. Established 9/2025 in Alexandria VA.
(4) from AFC Victory Fund. Established 10/2023 in Alexandria VA.

I’ve written before about the value (or not) of endorsements. I’ve explained my rules for reading campaign literature. I’ve talked about desperate candidates and “going negative”. But these latest revelations really take the cake.

Political Action Committee or PAC. What is it? Texas Ethics Commission defines PACs as follows:

  • A political committee that supports or opposes two or more candidates who are unidentified or who are seeking offices that are unknown is a general-purpose political committee.
  • A political committee that supports or opposes candidates, all of whom are identified and are seeking offices that are known, is a specific-purpose political committee.

Reporting requirements are the same. Spending money to influence a question or candidate requires a 30-day prior and 8-day prior election finance report.

What seems to be happening more and more is that PACs are being formed by consultants or people closely aligned with a campaign. They use names that include words like “Conservative” or “Safety” or “Protect”. Those names appear in the “Paid for by” and the average voter who doesn’t have time to spend hours researching a PAC think the organization and its support are a big deal.

In reality, it’s all marketing to sell you on a candidate.

At the very least, check to see if they have a website. Check the address of the organization. Visit Texas Ethics where you can download a list of active PACs. Choose “Search/View a Filed Report”, then “List of Active PACs”.

Download that Excel sheet, filter for PACs started in 2026 and you’ll find 78 of them. That’s right. SEVENTY-EIGHT PACs have been formed in Texas just since the start of 2026.

Let’s take the mailer that arrived a few days ago from “Alliance of Texans for Conservative Leadership PAC”. That PAC was started January 31, 2026. It’s address is Dallas TX. It’s treasurer is Marshall C. Bumpus with an address of 8558 Katy Freeway Ste 105, Houston TX 77024.

Any idea how much it costs to mail such a piece? Thousands!

But cleverly, this PAC, formed in January, mailed this piece AFTER the required “30-day prior” financial filing. Here’s a copy of that filing for this PAC: No income, no expenses, no candidate supported, NOTHING. All zeros. Yet, this glossy mailer supporting Stan Gerdes shows up in our mailboxes.

Powered By EmbedPress


Complete shenanigans meant to deceive YOU, the voter.

If a candidate is willing to play these games, use these cleverly-created PACs to make you think they’re a very popular candidate, will that person also play these same games in Austin? You can bet on it. It directly points to the candidate’s character: they’re willing to deceive.

Drain the swamp means drain the swamp. It means voting for honest leadership, not clever gamesmanship.

Your vote. You decide. My vote will go to Tom Glass, supported by individuals not cleverly-created, out-of-district PACs.