In late January, news broke that Samsung is seeking a 100 percent tax rebate from the City of Austin for more than 20 years in exchange for building a $17 billion facility within its borders.

As more continues to unfold concerning the proposal, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility highlights three things both taxpayers and policymakers should know about the technology giant.

Samsung is a Large, Profitable Company

The world’s largest information technology company, chipmaker, and consumer electronics maker, Samsung ranked 19th on Fortune’s most recent list of the world’s largest companies by 2019 revenues. And in 2020, Samsung did even better despite the Chinese Coronavirus.

As reported by The Verge:

“Samsung Electronics has reported its fourth-quarter earnings, confirming that the company made more money in 2020 than the year before despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. Operating profit was up to 35.99 trillion won ($32.1 billion) off 236.81 trillion won ($211.5 billion) in revenue for the year, increases of 29.6 percent and 2.78 percent respectively.

Samsung says its fourth-quarter results were helped by its “company-wide efforts to ensure a stable supply of products and services globally” in the pandemic environment. Quarterly profit was up 26.4 percent year-on-year, largely driven by the display and memory businesses, though the latter was down quarter to quarter.”

Samsung is Allied with Democrats and Identity Movements

Politically, Samsung has been allied largely with Democrats as well as the policy aims of GLBT and Black Lives Matter activists. In 2018 the company joined a group of companies in boycotting Fox News’s Tucker Carlson over his comments critical of illegal immigration. In July of 2020, Samsung celebrated “Pride Month” by “ hosting a week-long content series on Instagram, dedicated to educating its audience on the significance of each color in the Pride flag.” As Samsung further notes, “The topic was even more relevant after the 2018 redesign of the flag (reimagined to include five new colors: white, pink, blue, black, and brown) was widely adopted by the movement this year.”

In 2020, 67.8 percent of their political action committee’s donations went to Democrat lawmakers. Meanwhile, individuals within the company donated nearly four times as much to Joe Biden’s campaign as they did to Donald Trump.

But despite having a physical presence in Plano and Austin, Samsung has been largely quiet politically in Texas. Campaign finance records show no donations from its affiliated PACs to state lawmakers and show only a single lobby contract of between $10,000 and $25,000 with Jerry Strickland, Abbott’s former head of the Texas Office of State-Federal Relations.

The company did, however, come out in opposition to Republican-proposed religious liberty legislation in 2015 by signing on to the Texas Competes pledge, which advocates for workplaces to be “welcoming” to individuals who identify as GLBT.

“We believe that in order for Texas businesses to compete for top talent, we must have workplaces and communities that are diverse and welcoming for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people,” reads part of the Texas Competes pledge.

Sponsored by other big corporations, Texas Competes organized resistance to religious liberty legislation as well as the Texas Privacy Act by conjuring dubious studies showing economic devastation if Texas were to prevent city governments from micromanaging business’s bathroom policies.

Both Republican and Democrat Activists Oppose Tax Abatements

Opposition to the very tax carve out that Samsung is seeking is embedded in the platforms of both of the state’s main political parties.

Texas Democrats’ platform calls for “eliminating tax loopholes and unproductive special breaks, to simplify the tax system and provide revenue for essential services.” Meanwhile, the Texas Republican Party Platform explicitly states the GOP “[supports] repealing Tax Code Chapter 313 school property tax abatements.”

TFR’s Position

Rather than allot Samsung a special deal, lawmakers should see the company’s request as further evidence property taxes for every homeowner and business are too high. Instead of picking winners and losers, lawmakers should focus on delivering relief to everyone.

A big technology company is seeking big-time tax incentives in order to make a big investment in the Texas’s capital city.

On Thursday, Community Impact’s Christopher Neely reported Samsung Semiconductor is seeking a 100 percent tax rebate from the City of Austin for more than 20 years in exchange for building a $17 billion facility within its borders.

The news comes after a few weeks of rumors that Samsung was considering further investment in Austin, a theory partially validated by the company’s request to the Austin City Council to relocate part of Samsung Boulevard. Rumors also swirled Austin City Council had even extended a massive incentive offer to the technology giant.

According to Community Impact, however, that offer has been rejected and the chip manufacturer is demanding a more lucrative arrangement.

According to documents, Samsung rejected a city offer that included nearly $650 million in economic incentives over a 10-year span. The proposal would have been a record corporate incentive from the city, exponentially topping the current record—a still active incentive package, initially estimated at $62.9 million, offered to Samsung in 2006 for its existing $4 billion chip manufacturing plant, according to economic incentive data from the city.

However, Samsung wants more for its latest mega-project and has asked for a 100% tax reimbursement over a 25-year term.

Samsung can also be expected to seek funds from Travis County, which has already accepted an economic incentive application from the technology giant, and the Gov. Greg Abbott-run Texas Enterprise Fund. In 2006, the company received $10.8 million after announcing its plan in the state’s capital.

While the allure of bringing a big company to the state capital is certainly understandable, the best deal for taxpayers isn’t giving preferential treatment to a big company over them. Instead, Gov. Greg Abbott, the Texas Legislature, and local officials should look to reduce the burden property taxes imposed on individuals and businesses who would no doubt enjoy the same 25 year 100 percent break Samsung is asking for.

The LBB explained in a way that taxpayers can understand.

Following the release of budget proposals by the Texas House and Texas Senate, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility president Cary Cheshire released the following statement:

“In light of the continued government shutdowns negatively affecting Texans and the Comptroller’s projection of a revenue shortfall, it’s encouraging to see lawmakers forgo tax increases and refrain from raiding the state’s savings account.

However, the majority of lawmakers in the Texas Legislature did not win their elections by promising not to raise taxes. They won by promising to cut taxes.

As proposed, the budget fails to adequately prioritize tax relief for overburdened Texans struggling in the face of high taxes, government mandates, and shutdowns.

Texas lawmakers should prioritize a full reopening of the economy and further regulatory and tax relief for hardworking taxpayers.”

Compared to most states, Texas is among the most business friendly with no tax on personal income, fewer regulatory barriers relative to many of its neighbors, and an engaged and enterprising workforce.

However, the state could be even more business and taxpayer friendly if it halted its effort to be friendlier to a few, at the expense of the many, through the use of a crony corporate welfare program known as the Texas Enterprise Fund.

Created in 2003, the Texas Enterprise hands out cash to businesses that pledge to deliver significant numbers of jobs and significant capital investment in the Lone Star State. Referred to as a “deal closer” by former Gov. Rick Perry, the fund and its distributions have been cited by the state’s governors as necessary to enticing businesses to come to the Lone Star State, but is that really the case?

State records show over $500 million has been disbursed by the TEF in since its inception. Those projects range from $50 million to the Texas A&M University System and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals in 2005 to $1,015,560 to Jacobs Engineering in 2019.

Those disbursements, made according to an analytical model which factors in the potential direct and indirect jobs, capital investment, and timeframe of the project, ostensibly ensure Texans receive a return on the investment of these direct dollars.

And should things go awry, the state preserves the ability to clawback the cash provided to the business.

However, a 2014 report from the State Auditor’s Office raised numerous questions about the management of the TEF and the standards required to receive the taxpayer dollars. In fact, the report showed a number of early recipients never even submitted formal applications and yet received sizable grants of taxpayer money.

“It was not always possible to determine whether award decisions were supported, or to determine the number of jobs that recipients of awards from the Texas Enterprise Fund have created,” reads the report.

Though the Texas lawmakers pledged to reform, a later study shows continued problems with the TEF, specifically with companies paring down their commitments after being approved and receiving taxpayer cash.

According to a study by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, “large number of companies have renegotiated their TEF agreements, usually committing to fewer jobs created, or their hiring schedule, or how headcount should be computed (with some renegotiated deals allowing firms to count employees in subsidiaries that weren’t party to original TEF-subsidized project). In many cases, such contract amendments are made right before a company would otherwise be subject to clawback provisions. For example, in one case an incentive agreement was changed to reduce the number of jobs required one day before an employment deadline.”

The study’s authors posit that under the TEF’s current practices, the “clawback” provision is an ineffective safeguard of taxpayer money.

But what if such tax dollars were never taken in the first place? In other words, what if instead of the government pledging to take money from private citizens under the belief that it could spend them better and wiser than they could themselves?

Perhaps more accurately, what if instead of engaging in wealth redistribution, Texas lawmakers took the dollars they currently spend on corporate welfare and cut taxes the same amount instead?

A 2018 study by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center asked and answered that very question—showing the Lone Star State could cut taxes significantly if corporate welfare schemes like the Texas Enterprise Fund were to be eliminated.

According to the study, Texas could cut business taxes by nearly 25 percent—a move that would benefit not only enterprising individuals seeking to bring their business to our state, but also those who have already been established and employing Texans.

Texas lawmakers know that government doesn’t create jobs—businesses create jobs. And a level playing field for all Texas businesses would lead to individuals and business owners having the ability to make investment decisions themselves in the free market and leading to more and better-paying jobs for Texans.

Texas is already a strong competitor for businesses to relocate and expand within. It would be even stronger if it got out of the business of picking winners and losers.

The Texas state budgetary process from start to finish in a way taxpayers can understand.

With no say in the matter whatsoever, taxpayers across the state have been forced to foot the bill for lobbyists’ advocacy efforts in the Texas Legislature. Worse yet, these tax dollars are spent advocating for policy positions that are often at direct odds with the interests of the taxpayers who fund them.

Across Texas, many cities, counties, school districts, and special districts spend public money to hire professional lobbyists to engage lawmakers on issues. And it’s no paltry sum.

According to reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission, as much as $376.6 million was spent to influence state policy-makers in 2017’s legislative session. Of that, more than $41 million (or almost one quarter of the total) came from cities, counties, and other taxpayer-funded entities — often to lobby against taxpayer interests such as property tax reform, uniform election dates, and bond disclosure requirements.

Taxpayer-funded lobbying is so pervasive that in that same year 42 percent of lobbyists that session represented city and county governments. Which begs the question: What sort of policy positions are taxpayers funding?

The Texas Municipal League — a voluntary association which includes virtually all city governments in the state — provides a telling guide as to what kind of big-government measures these resources are spent defending or, alternatively, the pro-taxpayer reforms they oppose. Items such as defending involuntary annexation, red-light cameras, opposing revenue tax caps, opposing ballot transparency, and opposing bond reform are just a few of the fundamentally anti-taxpayer policy items this money is spent on.

With such a track record, it’s no surprise conservative voters overwhelmingly support banning taxpayer-funded lobbying. In March 2020, a supermajority of Texas Republican primary voters supported a ballot proposition in favor of banning the practice. More than 94 percent of the state’s nearly 2 million GOP primary voters approved of language stating: “Texas should ban the practice of taxpayer-funded lobbying, which allows your tax dollars to be spent on lobbyists who work against the taxpayer.”

Even ignoring the groundswell of public support for banning taxpayer funded lobbying, the practice of using taxpayer dollars on lobbying the legislature is philosophically indefensible. It’s already generally forbidden for officials to use taxpayer resources to support a candidate’s campaign — and for obvious reason. Most people frown upon officials abusing resources under their purview for political purposes.

Should the same logic not be applied to where the political rubber meets the road, and forbid spending money taken from taxpayers on hiring lobbyists to advance a political agenda?

It’s plainly obvious to fiscal conservatives that the use of tax dollars on lobbying legislators is a toxic practice — both philosophically and practically. In the interests of the constituents they purport to represent, legislators should stand up this session and work towards banning the practice altogether.

Local governments should not be allowed to use taxpayer dollars to lobby the state for more taxpayer dollars or increased regulatory power.

The Texas Legislature should prohibit taxpayer resources from being hijacked to support political ends and ban taxpayer-funded lobbying entirely by banning local governments from hiring lobbyists and prohibit taxpayer dollars from flowing to associations that lobby the Texas Legislature.

Thanks to the effort of a number of conservatives in the Texas House, a number of anti-taxpayer rule proposals were defeated. However, a majority of lawmakers unfortunately prevented many positive changes from being adopted on the floor.

On Thursday Texas House lawmakers passed HR 4, a resolution establishing their rules for the 87th Texas Legislature.

Ahead of the debate, many organizations, including TFR, raised serious concerns over a number of the proposals which included the creation of a consensus calendar (on this newly proposed calendar, just a few lawmakers could prevent their colleagues from offering amendments to legislation) and a decision to raise the threshold to request a record vote from one to three lawmakers.

Thankfully, both changes were stripped out before the bill passed. However, efforts by conservatives to make the rules more taxpayer and citizen-friendly were also defeated. Here are a few of those defeats:

Slaton Amendments to Limit Power of Democrats

State Rep. Bryan Slaton offered an amendment that would require the top 11 most important committees of the Texas House to be chaired by the majority party. This would ensure that the minority party could not kill legislation through the strength of committee chairmanship.

The amendment was defeated with 11 Yeas, 127 Nays, 2 PNV. To see how your lawmaker voted click HERE.

Slaton also brought a similar amendment that would require all chairs to be of the majority party.

That amendment was defeated with 5 Yeas, 135 Nays, 2 PNV. To see how your lawmaker voted click HERE.

Cason Amendment to Protect Right to Record

State Rep. Jeff Cason brought an amendment to protect the rights of citizens to record video in public committee hearings. Unfortunately, this amendment failed with over two-thirds of the House voting against the rights of citizens.

This amendment was defeated with 33 Yeas, 109 Nays, 1 PNV. To see how your lawmaker voted click HERE.

Tinderholt Amendment to Provide Transparency

State Rep. Tony Tinderholt brought an amendment that would prevent the practice of “tagging” a bill in the Calendars Committee, a practice whereby they can kill bills in secret without a vote. Tinderholt’s amendment would require a record vote in the case the committee “tagged” a bill refusing to place it on a calendar.

This amendment was defeated with 21 Yeas, 118 Nays, 1 PNV. To see how your lawmaker voted click HERE.

What’s Next?

After adopting their rules, the Texas House voted to adjourn until Tuesday, January 26th. The Texas Senate is also adjourned until that same day. While this means lawmakers will not engage in floor action, taxpayers can expect they will continue to work on legislation and communicate with their constituents.

If there is an issue important to you, now is a good time to let your lawmaker know!

As the Texas House looks to continue to organize in preparation of doing the work of the 87th Texas Legislature, lawmakers are set to consider an updated rules package that would reduce transparency and limit individual lawmaker’s ability to affect legislation that comes to the floor for a vote.

As noted by the Texas Scorecard‘s Brandon Waltens one of the most onerous changes is a decision to make it harder for lawmakers to put their colleagues on the record on a vote:

Currently, the Texas House rules allow any single member to call for a “record vote,” in which the names of each member and how they voted on a given bill, amendment, or other action is placed into the journal.

The proposed House rule would raise the threshold, requiring three members to request a record vote.

If passed, this change could result in far fewer record votes being placed into public record, obscuring lawmakers’ actions in office, and work to shield them from accountability by their constituents.

Another onerous change is the creation of a “Consensus Calendar” which would create a process whereby lawmakers could put bills where they wanted to prevent amendments.

The practical effect of this rule is that this creates the “No Pro-Taxpayer Amendments” calendar where, even if the entire Republican caucus supported an amendment, they couldn’t even offer it on Second Reading without first getting permission from the Calendars Committee. They could offer it on Third Reading, the next day, but that would be futile because at that point the amendment would require a two-thirds vote and thus the support of the Democrats.

Other changes include requiring face masks on the House floor and in the gallery, the provisions necessary for remote voting, and restrictions on the ability of individuals to record proceedings.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility recommends lawmakers reject HR 4 in its current form and instead amend their rules to be more citizen and accountability-friendy.

After lawmakers were sworn in, TFR sent the following message to every member of the Texas Legislature congratulating them on their election and informing them about the Fiscal Responsibility Index.

Dear Legislator,

Congratulations on your election to the Texas Legislature! 

Regardless of whether you are Republican or Democrat, a returning lawmaker or a newly-elected legislator, please know we earnestly appreciate the sacrifice you’ve made to engage in public service on behalf of your fellow Texans.

As you’re likely already aware, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility is an independent educational non-profit organization seeking to illuminate the actions of government, educate and equip citizens to effectively advocate for pro-taxpayer reforms, and hold lawmakers accountable for their actions. 

For more than 10 years (and six sessions) we’ve produced the Fiscal Responsibility Index, a tool we use to measure legislators’ commitment to fiscal responsibility and limited government. 

Though legislators take thousands of votes during the session, only a small percentage of them highlight this commitment. We narrow the votes down to about 100 for which we believe there was a clear choice between limited and bloated government.

As we have done in the past, ratings will be calculated based only on the votes actually taken by each member, including any clarifying statements placed in the Journals. Absences will be noted, but will not positively or negatively affect the rating.

In both chambers, slight weighting is given to budget amendment and tax-related votes. Authoring and co-authoring legislation in support of our legislative priorities that receive an up-or-down vote on the floor is positively included in the rating as extra credit. Note: You must be signed on as a co-author before the bill filing deadline to receive extra credit.

You, your staff, and everyday Texans can subscribe to email alerts and view our full list of notices of upcoming votes under consideration for the Index at https://www.texastaxpayers.com/tfr-voter-alerts/.

At the end of the session, we’ll tabulate your score based on one thing and one thing alone: your voting record. We’ll then communicate it—good or bad— to your constituents.

While no “scorecard” tells the whole story about a legislator, we’ve found citizens across Texas appreciate our method of cutting through the clutter and presenting how their lawmaker voted on key issues in a manageable way where they are free to agree (or disagree) with our view.

Thank you again for stepping forward to serve the citizens of our great state.

 

For Texas!

Texas lawmakers will need to find roughly $1 billion in budget cuts for the current biennium and pare down expectations for the upcoming budget after new estimates were released by the state comptroller Monday.

In a livestreamed press conference, Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar released a new revenue estimate projecting the state to have a serious financial deficit. In a press release, Hegar noted lawmakers should take the estimate—which is substantially more positive than many had feared— with a grain of salt.

From Hegar’s press release:

“As is always the case, this estimate is based on the most recent and precise information we have available,” Hegar said. “It represents our efforts to provide lawmakers with the most accurate forecast possible as they craft the budget for the 2022-23 biennium and the supplemental spending bill to address the remainder of the current biennium.

The forecast, however, remains clouded with uncertainty. The ultimate path of the pandemic and the behavior of consumers and businesses during a resurgence are difficult to gauge. It’s also unclear how they’ll respond once the pandemic is fully under control. As a result, there is a wide range of possible outcomes for state revenue through the end of fiscal 2023, with the possibility of revenue falling short of this forecast but also a chance revenue could exceed it, perhaps substantially.

In any case, the Legislature will again face some difficult choices to balance the budget. While savings from agency spending cuts and federal funding could help erase the projected shortfall for this biennium, a substantial supplemental appropriations bill could increase it, thereby reducing revenue available for the next biennium.”

Hegar’s estimate of the budget shortfall does not account for savings made by Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to direct state agencies to reduce their spending or for funds the federal government may allow the state to use to plug some budget holes—two items that could reduce the size of the budget deficit.

However, it also does not factor in a likely Medicaid shortfall and other areas of the current budget that lawmakers will have to address with additional spending in the supplemental budget.

In all, lawmakers will have a tall task ahead of them as they navigate not only this current deficit but the continued drag on the state’s economy by the Chinese Coronavirus, government-issued shutdowns, and changes in consumer spending, items Hegar further noted.

“We must keep an eye on several things that could impact this forecast, including the spread of the COVID-19 virus and the possibility of renewed reduction in customer-facing economic activity,” Hegar said. “In addition, we must carefully monitor the nascent recovery in energy markets as further shocks on either the demand or supply side could threaten recent positive developments for prices and production.”

“On the other hand, household savings have increased during the pandemic, while credit card debt has declined; this could support increased consumer spending once people feel safe to return to pre-pandemic activities. So, while there are numerous potential concerns, my economic forecast assumes a further moderate decline in economic activity in fiscal 2021, followed by a return to growth in the 2022-23 biennium at rates somewhat higher than those experienced during the last decade,” he added.

TFR issued the following statement after the conclusion of Hegar’s press conference:

“Today’s report by Comptroller Glenn Hegar confirms what taxpayers already knew: Texas lawmakers spent too much in 2019 and government shutdowns of the economy are incredibly costly.

The path forward for the Texas Legislature is clear. Lawmakers must prioritize serious and lasting spending cuts and deliver substantial tax relief for overburdened taxpayers.

New taxes or increases in existing taxes should be completely off the table.”

The mission of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility is to illuminate the actions of government, educate and equip citizens to effectively advocate for pro-taxpayer reforms, and hold lawmakers accountable for their actions. Taxpayers should demand their interests, not those of elected officials, lobbyists, or bureaucrats, must come first in the Lone Star State.

It is in fulfilling that mission that we are focused on delivering real, relevant, and actionable information about our state’s government and those in elected office to the taxpayers they’re charged with serving.

The Fiscal Responsibility Index

For more than 10 years (and six sessions) TFR has produced the Fiscal Responsibility Index, a tool we use to measure lawmakers within the Texas Legislature’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and limited government. 

Though legislators take thousands of votes during the session, only a small percentage of them highlight this commitment. We narrow the votes down to about 100 for which we believe there was a clear choice between limited and bloated government.

As we have done in the past, ratings will be calculated based only on the votes actually taken by each member, including any clarifying statements placed in the Journals. Absences will be noted, but will not positively or negatively affect the rating.

In both chambers, slight weighting is given to budget amendment and tax-related votes. Authoring and co-authoring legislation in support of our legislative priorities that receive an up-or-down vote on the floor is positively included in the rating as extra credit. However, lawmakers must sign on to such legislation ahead of the bill filing deadline in order to receive credit.

At the end of each session, we tabulate the scores and communicate them to their constituents so they can be better informed.

While no “scorecard” tells the whole story about a legislator, we’ve found citizens across Texas appreciate our method of cutting through the clutter and presenting how their lawmaker voted on key issues in a manageable way.

The Fiscal Responsibility Index can be viewed here.

Educating and Equipping Texans Across Texas

While the Texas Legislature meets almost exclusively in the Texas Capitol in Austin, the 29 million citizens who are governed and taxed by the laws passed are dispersed across the Lone Star State. 

To serve these Texans, we seek to engage with them digitally through our website and when possible travel the state speaking to groups about what’s going on in Austin and local governments as well as what they can do to most effectively hold their lawmakers accountable.

Do you have a question about a policy or issue we could help explain? Would you like for us to come speak to your group?

If so, please reach out to us through our contact page here.

As the Texas Legislature prepares to convene with a major budget deficit and Texans continue to demand a more accountable government, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility is relaunching as an independent organization to better serve taxpayers and equip them for the fights ahead.

Continuing to helm the initiative is Cary Cheshire, who will serve as the president of the organization. He is joined by Tim Hardin who will serve as the organization’s executive director. 

Cary Cheshire has worked on TFR’s premier product, the Fiscal Responsibility Index, for three sessions of the Texas Legislature. He resides in Leander and attends St. Margaret Mary Catholic Church.

Tim Hardin is a small businessman, pastor, and former staffer in the Texas House, Hardin comes to TFR after serving as chief of staff to State Rep. Jonathan Stickland for seven years. He resides in Fort Worth with his wife Luisa and five children, Elijah, Noah, Micah, Jeremiah, and Selah.

As it has in the past, TFR will continue to produce the Fiscal Responsibility Index which cuts through the clutter and provides Texans a resource with which to determine if their lawmaker is voting for taxpayers in Austin. Additionally, TFR will engage taxpayers across the state and provide additional information and tools they can use to take back control of their government.

The organization will be governed by a board of directors, whose members include three lawmakers with strong records of service in the Texas Legislature, and standout ratings on the Fiscal Responsibility Index: Board Chairman Jonathan Stickland, Board Secretary Matt Rinaldi, and Director Stuart Spitzer.

Jonathan Stickland served four terms in the Texas House representing District 92. During his time in the Texas Legislature, Stickland was known as one as one of the most aggressive advocates for taxpayers and was consistently rated as one of the most conservative lawmakers in the Texas House. Stickland runs his own oil and gas consulting company and lives with his wife Krissy and their two daughters, Andie and Carlie, in Willow Park.

Matt Rinaldi served two terms in the Texas House representing District 115. While serving in the Texas House, Rinaldi led the fight to pass pro-taxpayer reforms and was consistently regarded as one of the most conservative lawmakers in the state. An attorney by trade, Rinaldi resides in Irving with his wife Corley and their son Rush.

Stuart Spitzer served one term in the Texas House representing District 4. A strong conservative, Spitzer earned top marks from various organizations during his time in the Texas Legislature. A general surgeon by trade, Spitzer resides in Kaufman with his wife Shari and their two children, Lily and Luke.

Texans for Fiscal Responsibility is an independent educational non-profit organization seeking to illuminate the actions of government, educate and equip citizens to effectively advocate for pro-taxpayer reforms, and hold lawmakers accountable for their actions. Taxpayers should demand their interests, not those of elected officials, lobbyists, or bureaucrats, come first in the Lone Star State.

For more information about Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, visit TexasTaxpayers.com.