But if you need to see the Senate's proposed tax bill, download it here. When the legislative website catches up, we'll link to their official (and hopefully, searchable) version. This smaller file was handed out with the Senate's proposal and gives you the short version of what's in the tax bill and the constitutional amendment that goes with it. Click here to download it.

Feeling the sting of a two-year-old vote to deregulate college tuition, the Texas Senate voted to reconsider.Feeling the sting of a two-year-old vote to deregulate college tuition, the Texas Senate voted to reconsider. They're not lowering tuition, and they're not telling public colleges and universities to lower the price of higher education. But lawmakers who meet in two years would have to decide whether the Legislature or the schools should decide the price of public higher education. The Senate voted to take away the schools' pricing freedom in September 2008, unless the Legislature votes sometime between now and then to let the schools set their own tuition prices. In the meantime, it assigns state officials to study the effects of tuition deregulation. For decades, tuition at public universities in Texas was set by the Legislature as part of the budget. But two years ago, House Speaker Tom Craddick and other lawmakers allowed the schools to set their own prices. Prices jumped. It didn't hurt, for purposes of getting this through the Senate, that it was a pet issue of Craddick's two years ago. The House and the Senate are in their biennial battle over which side is doing most of the work -- a battle that at the moment has brought on a most severe case of legislative constipation -- and putting an expiration date on a Speaker's pet. According to Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, average tuition at state schools has risen 43 percent. The numbers are higher at the bigger and more popular universities, up 104 percent at the University of Texas at Austin, 65 percent at Texas Tech and the University of Houston, and 61 percent at Texas A&M. The schools say the high prices are more in line with actual costs. And their advocates in the Lege say lawmakers have been underfunding state colleges for years. But the sticker shock had some political backlash (though not yet enough to get anyone unelected). The Senate's "sunset provision" was sponsored by Ellis and passed after Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst helped round up votes and then to work a deal between Ellis and Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, whose bill Ellis was amending. Her legislation called for a study on the effects of tuition deregulation; Ellis' amendment set up would set up the next Legislature to choose between setting rates itself or letting the colleges continue. The bill's on its way to the House, where most Senate legislation -- like House legislation in the upper chamber -- is stuck.

The slow wheels of legislation are starting to grind on workers' compensation insurance reform.The House committee that has been holding a Senate version for weeks made some changes and sent it along to the agenda-setting Calendars Committee. And the Senate panel that's been sitting on a House version for several weeks started doing some work on that, putting up its own version and voting it out of committee. We're not aware of a deal that gives one bill preference over the other, but at least they're moving. The issue has been held up in a dispute over which version should move forward. The governor's office has been quietly intervening to get the two sides talking, and apparently, they've made a bit of headway. There are some substantive differences, not the least of which is how to regulate that kind of insurance. The Senate, working from its own interim study on the issue, wants the Texas Worker's Compensation Commission to remain a separate agency. The House, which is carrying the sunset legislation that would keep the agency alive or let it die, wants to merge TWCC into the Texas Department of Insurance. The idea, apparently, is to get the bills to a conference committee for a final fight before time runs out.

While the House was still working on legislation (HB 1706) that raises the level of identification voters must show election judges, 11 of the 12 Democrats in the Senate were signing a petition saying they'll vote against consideration of that legislation.Unless somebody flips (or leaves the room when the measure arises), that kills the bill. It takes two-thirds of the 31-member Senate to bring up legislation for debate; 11 votes are enough to block it. Sen. Ken Armbrister of Victoria is the only Democratic senator who didn't sign the petition; the signers are the same 11 senators who moved to New Mexico for a month in a failed attempt to block a congressional redistricting bill in 2003. That legislation, sponsored by Rep. Mary Denny, R-Aubrey, in the Houston, has been a pet project for the state GOP. It would require voters to show photo identification to prove they are who they say they are. Democrats in the House opposed it -- some branded it as a racist measure -- but it passed 78-67 after a fairly long debate. The Senate petition says the bill's requirements are "onerous" and says allegations of voter fraud in recent elections have been overblown. "The bill attempts to solve a problem that has not been proven to exist," the petition says.
-- The House spiked another piece of election reform legislation last week, but there's more news to come on that front. Reps. Todd Smith, R-Euless, and Jesse Jones, D-Dallas, filed papers saying they'll be writing a minority report on HB 1348, which stalled on a 4-2 vote in Denny's House Elections Committee. That legislation would limit the uses of corporate and union money in campaigns, and would prohibit so-called "issue ads" in the last weeks before an election. The House voted down an effort to pull the bill out of committee for consideration; the Senate companion bill is still alive, but stalled.

A state property tax will cost taxpayers in about a quarter of the state's school districts their local homestead exemption, cutting into their property tax savings. In 180 districts -- including Houston, the state's largest -- current proposals for a state property tax could mean higher residential property tax bills.If lawmakers choose a state property tax to solve school finance, property tax rates will have to drop 20 percent from current levels before homeowners in many school districts see any property tax relief. The state's top rate for maintenance and operations taxes would have to drop from $1.50 to $1.20 before they'd see savings. The first-year cut proposed by the Senate is lower than that -- dropping 13.3 percent to $1.30 -- but homeowners would keep their local property tax exemption that year. In the second year of the cuts, a state property tax would replace the local tax -- and the local exemption. That year, voters in districts with high local exemptions would see a higher tax bill. With local add-ons, the overall property tax rate would eventually top out at $1.25, resulting in higher tax bills in some districts than homeowners pay today. Houston homeowners could actually do better if the legislative plans are a half-success, cutting local school property taxes but failing to replace them with a state property tax that kills local homestead exemptions. Under current law, school districts are allowed to exempt up to 20 percent of a homestead's value from their tax rolls, in addition to the exemptions allowed under state law ($15,000 for homesteads, and another $10,000 for taxpayers over age 65). The Senate's version of a state property tax leaves the state exemptions in place, but does away with the local options. It's not a local tax anymore, and that kind of local variation would make the tax higher or lower depending solely on the location of the taxpayer. Houston might cut homeowners a break while McAllen might not, and that would be unequal taxation at the state level. The 20 percent tax break is, for the moment, a boon to homeowners in Houston and 179 other districts -- including most of the others in Harris County, the Highland Park ISD in Dallas County, Galveston ISD, West Orange-Cove (the lead district in the lawsuit against the state's current school finance system), Mineral Wells, Lago Vista and Lake Travis in the Austin area, Ysleta, and a mess of others. Other districts around the state give smaller but still significant local exemptions. Dallas ISD, the state's second biggest, knocks 10 percent off the value of homes for tax purposes. So do Richardson ISD, Midland ISD, Jefferson ISD and several others. The local breaks are in addition to the exemptions in state law for homeowners and, separately, for the elderly. And the rest of the state's districts -- the 700-plus that don't give local exemptions to homeowners -- base their taxes on appraised values less the state's exemptions. Homeowners in those districts would get the full benefit of property tax cuts under a state property tax. Homeowners elsewhere would offset their property tax rate cuts against the loss of their exemptions. The more generous the current exemptions, the less they'd benefit from the switch to a state school property tax, even with its lower rate. The Senate wants to lower the cap on local school property taxes to $1.30 from the current $1.50. Senators would give voters a chance to replace those local taxes with a $1.10 state property tax. Local schools could add back up to 15 cents in local money onto that over time, bringing the ultimate rate to $1.25. If voters rejected the constitutional amendment, the state cap on local school property tax rates would stay at $1.30. As long as that's a local tax, the school districts have the option of continuing their 20 percent homestead exemptions. Even with a state property tax, they'd be able to grant the local exemption from taxable values for the locally added 15 cents for local enrichment. If they find themselves needing more money, they could also kill the local exemption altogether, bringing themselves in line with most of the school districts in Texas. Some examples: The owner of a $100,000 home in a district that gets only the state exemption takes $15,000 off the appraised value and thus pays taxes only on $85,000. At a $1.50 tax rate per $100 in value, that's $1,275. Under the Senate plan, the base value would remain at $85,000. In the first year, with a $1.30 local tax rate, the bill would come to $1,105, for a savings of $170. In year two, assuming voters went along, the state rate would drop to $1.10; the total bill would drop to $935, or $340 less than the current tax. In a district with the 20 percent exemption, the numbers would be much different. Take off $15,000 for the state exemption, and $20,000 for the local exemption. The taxable value of that $100,000 house drops to $65,000. At a $1.50 tax rate, they're getting a deal right now, paying $975. The Senate plan would lower the rate the first year and leave the exemption in place, resulting in a tax bill of $845, a savings of $130. But with the constitutional amendment and the state property tax, the exemption would disappear as the rate fell to $1.10, bringing the tax bill to $935. That's a net annual savings of $40. Rising property values and local enrichment taxes would eat at that amount. The folks with 10 percent local exemptions get a mixed result. Their $100,000 homes are on the tax roll at $75,000 now, meaning the tax at the $1.50 rate is $1,125. Their first year deal would net out at $975, a savings of $150. Their third-year number would be $935, a drop of $190 from current law. Assuming voters approved the constitutional amendment, third-year savings for the owner of a $250,000 home would be $940 in the district with no local exemption, $565 in the district that currently has a 10 percent local exemption, and $190 in the district with the 20 percent local exemption. That's how the state property tax is set up in the tax bill. There's an alternative version in the school finance bill that would replace the $1.50 cap with a $1.30 cap the first year, and then replace that with an 85-cent state tax combined with a 25-cent local tax. That still brings the second-year total to $1.10, but the local homestead exemption would apply to the local part of the tax, lowering the size of the bill. For the owner of a $250,000 home in a district with the 20 percent exemption, the current tax at $1.50 is $2,775. It would drop to $2,405 at $1.30, and then would rise to $2,460 when the state/local property tax kicked in. That third-year would only set up that way with a constitutional amendment. As with the other state property tax, most voters in Harris County, under that plan, would be asked to vote to raise their school property taxes. In places with lower local exemptions, the tax bill would drop in both the first and second years of the shift. Think about voting patterns when that constitutional amendment goes on the ballot: The first break would go to homeowners in places like San Antonio and Austin, the second in Dallas, the third in Houston. And remember that Houston homeowners (and others with 20 percent breaks now) would actually get a better deal if the Senate plan passes and the constitutional amendment fails. For them, that's the best mix of tax cuts and continued homestead exemptions. Remember, too, that Harris County accounts for more than 25 percent of the entire state vote in most constitutional amendment elections. In all cases, local districts would be able to add on relatively small amounts for "local enrichment." School districts would be allowed to phase in those local add-ons, up to a maximum of 15 cents under the Senate scheme. That'd put the top tax rate at $1.25, or a nickel more than the break-even tax cut in Houston and other districts with 20 percent tax exemptions.

Officeholders who weren't in the Pink Building in 1997 are finding out now what George W. Bush found out then: Even when everything appears to be lined up just right, it's almost impossible to pass a tax bill.When the circumstances aren't perfect -- now is a good example -- it's even harder. Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst blew off some steam at business lobbyists early in the week, basically saying they were out there protecting the loopholes they currently enjoy. That came after representatives of some of the bigger taxpaying businesses gave him a thumbs-down on the Senate's tax plan. They prefer the House plan, or nothing, or something they haven't seen yet, to what the Senate was pitching. The kvetching deepened as the week wore on, and the twin bills to rewrite state education laws and cut local school property taxes -- bills that were supposed to come up for floor votes in the last week of April and the first week of May -- were pushed back another week. Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, wrote a letter to his fellow senators that outlines a less ambitious package for school finance. That gave voice to previously quiet concerns that the Senate bit off more than it can chew politically. Carona opposes a state property tax, wants to lower local property taxes a quarter instead of 40 or 50 cents, wants to revise the current corporate franchise tax while leaving out real estate and oil and gas partnerships, and wants to add about $4 billion to what the state spends now on schools. "Nobody deserving of the office of state senator is going to be defeated at the polls for adequately funding our schools and casting a vote for lower property taxes," he wrote. "This is one among several possible alternatives that will fix the problem without devastating the Texas business climate." You can see the whole letter at this address: www.texasweekly.com/documents/CaronaTaxLetter.pdf While that noise level rose, the wonks chewing on the legislation started finding problems. The biggest might be with the Senate's plan for a state property tax, which, as proposed, would put voters in the state's two biggest counties in the position of voting for a constitutional amendment that would increase their school property tax bills. The timing mismatches in the bill have been mentioned here earlier -- new tax money initially comes in faster than it's needed for buying down local property taxes. That makes it harder to argue that the legislation is a net tax shift -- not a decrease or an increase. That claim would be true over time, but not at first. And it creates a real problem if voters decide they don't want a state property tax. State tax increases, in that instance, would outrun local property tax cuts. That's a tax increase, and Republican lawmakers don't like the sound of that. Dewhurst was hoping the biggest taxpayers in the state would get on board and help sell the Senate plan to the House, to the governor, and eventually, to the public. Like the last guy who attempted this (and went on to much higher office), he's getting schooled. The current franchise tax applies to about 17 percent of the state's businesses, according to the tax wonks who watch this stuff. You're more likely to hear it described as five out of six businesses taking advantage of loopholes, but the fact is that only one in six is legally required to pay the tax. The replacements cooked up by the House and the Senate are designed to spread that out, to increase the number of businesses paying the tax and to lower the rate so that they won't pay so much. The first problem is that 83 percent of the state's businesses -- those not in the 17 percent paying now -- would be subject to a new tax. There are cutouts for small businesses and so on, but that's the general idea. For many of those new taxpayers, property tax cuts will offset the taxes. But one of the political questions is whether the Legislature can add that many taxpayers to the rolls without inciting a mob to grab the torches and pitchforks and march on the castle. Ask a legislator if she's more likely to hear from the new taxpayer or the old one when she goes home after voting to broaden the franchise tax. Business lobsters have been telling the Senate and for weeks that they prefer the idea baked up in the House, which would let businesses choose from two different business taxes. Sen. Kim Brimer, R-Arlington, has been pitching a "basket" tax for nearly a year. The idea is similar to what got out of the House: Offer businesses the choice of a tax on payroll, one on compensation (which grabs partners and others who aren't technically on the payroll) and gross receipts. They'd pay some tax no matter what, but they'd have some flexibility. That's one of the options back on the table now that the Senate plan has unraveled. As we went to press, the Senate Finance Committee, led by Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, was reworking the bill, trying to more closely match state tax increases with local tax cuts, incorporating appraisal caps for local school taxes, and trying to wire around exemption differences from one district to the next. They hope to get a bill in front of the full Senate after Mother's Day.

The legislative calendar starts getting very interesting next week.The rules are designed to end legislative sessions without any sudden stops, kind of like putting on the brakes when the driver's ed teacher says you're supposed to instead of waiting until the red light is above you. This is more important on the House end of the building, since the Senate regularly suspends its rules and ignores internal deadlines. House Committees have to kick out legislation by next Monday, and next Thursday is the last call for House legislation on the floor of that chamber. After that, it's all local bills, Senate bills and conference committees. Committees in the lower chamber have to finish with Senate legislation on May 21, and the full House has to see those things by the 24th. Conference committee reports have to be approved by both houses by the end of business on Sunday, May 29. Download a copy of the calendar here.