Pipkins Reports

09/24/2025

Texas Breaks Employment Records as Oil and Gas Sector Fuels Growth

(The Center Square) – By Bethany Blankley, with analysis by Michael Pipkins

Texas once again leads the nation in job creation, shattering employment records in August, according to the latest data reported by The Center Square. The numbers reveal more than just raw job growth—they tell the story of a state whose economic engine continues to run on oil, gas, and energy innovation, even as Washington policies, global uncertainty, and environmental pressure threaten to slow it down.

At the center of this resilience is the Texas upstream oil and natural gas industry. After losing 1,400 jobs in July, the sector regained traction in August, adding 200 upstream jobs. While modest, that uptick pushed total upstream employment to 205,100. The numbers reflect an internal shift: 200 fewer oil and gas extraction jobs, but 400 more in oilfield services.

The Texas Oil & Gas Workers Association put those figures into perspective:

“Growth for this calendar year so far remains a positive 4,200 upstream jobs, and at 205,100 upstream jobs, compared to the same month in the prior year, August 2025 jobs were up by 2,000, or 1.0%.”

That 1% growth may seem small in isolation, but it is part of a longer arc showing how Texas continues to outperform national trends. The state’s energy workers are still earning some of the highest wages in the country, averaging $128,000 annually in 2024, even as other industries stagnate under inflationary pressures.

Understanding the Upstream Engine
The term “upstream” in oil and gas refers to the front end of the energy cycle—exploration, drilling, and extraction. In Texas, that means rigs in the Permian Basin, wells in the Eagle Ford Shale, and operators spread across the Panhandle.

What upstream doesn’t cover is equally important: refining, petrochemicals, pipelines, utilities, and oilfield equipment manufacturing. Those sectors—considered “midstream” and “downstream”—are vital, but they depend on the foundation upstream provides. Without upstream extraction, Texas would not be able to power its refineries, fill its pipelines, or support its vast export infrastructure.

In effect, upstream is the tip of the spear. Its performance signals the health of the entire Texas energy economy.

Resilience in a Time of Uncertainty
August’s rebound is notable precisely because it came after two straight months of job losses. In June and July, the sector shed a combined 2,000 jobs, reflecting global price volatility and forecasts of supply-demand imbalances.

Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA), emphasized that August’s slight gains show the industry is adapting:

“The August employment gains are a welcome sign of the Texas oil and natural gas industry’s resilience. Despite forecasts of a supply and demand imbalance and persistent global uncertainties, companies are adapting to manage risk and continue delivering the reliable energy that powers modern life.”

Those “global uncertainties” are not small. OPEC+ production cuts, geopolitical conflicts, and regulatory bottlenecks in Washington all weigh on the sector. Add to that environmentalist pressure to “phase out fossil fuels,” and Texas operators face a landscape in which success is anything but guaranteed.

Yet, rather than retreat, Texas firms continue to innovate, hedge against risk, and deploy new technologies that make drilling safer and more efficient.

The Labor Market: Job Postings Surge
Employment data from the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO) reveals just how hungry the market is for skilled labor.

In August, Texas posted 10,154 unique oil and gas job openings, compared to 8,853 in July. Of those, 3,806 were new postings. By contrast, Pennsylvania had fewer than 3,000 postings, California just over 2,500, Ohio 2,322, and Illinois 2,014.

Nationwide, nearly 60,000 job postings were listed across the oil and natural gas sector last month, including more than 20,000 new openings. Texas not only dominated the numbers but also the geography of opportunity. The top four cities for job postings—Houston, Midland, Dallas, and Odessa—were all in Texas.

Among the 19 industry subsectors TIPRO tracks, the most job listings came from Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations. Other leading subsectors included Gasoline Stations with Convenience Stores, Petroleum Refineries, and Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.

Ed Longanecker, TIPRO’s president, said the trends point toward continued growth:

“The Texas oil and natural gas industry remains vital for job creation, innovation, and energy security, with 2025 employment trends driven by a variety of dynamic factors. Federal policies, including faster permitting and expanded LNG export approvals, along with transformative investment in AI-driven data centers, will support increased export activity, creating high-paying jobs in midstream, gas-fired generation and export infrastructure in the coming years.”

Longanecker’s reference to AI-driven data centers highlights an underappreciated aspect of the energy story: the digital revolution runs on electricity, and that electricity still overwhelmingly comes from natural gas. Far from being “obsolete,” fossil fuels are powering the very technologies that environmentalists say will define the future.

Tax Revenue Surges with Production
Texas’ energy sector doesn’t just provide jobs—it fills the state’s coffers. In August, oil producers paid $445 million in oil production taxes, the highest level in six months. Natural gas producers paid $194 million in production taxes, representing a 143% increase over the year.

Those tax revenues flow into the state’s General Revenue Fund and the Economic Stabilization Fund—better known as the “Rainy Day Fund.” In practical terms, every barrel pumped in the Permian helps pay for Texas schools, roads, and infrastructure.

For a state that prides itself on low taxes and fiscal conservatism, the oil and gas sector’s tax contributions remain indispensable.

Texas vs. Washington: Competing Visions
While Texas celebrates job growth, Washington has charted a different course. The previous Biden administration had leaned heavily into green energy subsidies, EPA regulations, and restrictions on leasing federal lands for drilling. Critics argue that these policies undermine U.S. energy independence, making America more reliant on foreign sources.

Texas, by contrast, has doubled down on fossil fuels, while also investing in renewable energy where market conditions make sense. The result is a hybrid model that secures reliable baseload power while fostering innovation.

The data suggests Texans aren’t waiting for federal permission. They are drilling, producing, hiring, and exporting—driving both the state and national economy forward.

What It Means for Texans
For everyday Texans, the numbers translate into several realities:

High-paying jobs: At an average salary of $128,000, upstream jobs remain a path to middle-class stability and upward mobility.
Local prosperity: Towns like Midland and Odessa live and die by energy cycles. August’s rebound means more paychecks, more tax revenue, and stronger local economies.
Energy security: The more Texas produces, the less America must import from unstable regimes abroad.
Political leverage: With Texas leading in production and job creation, the state carries significant influence in national energy debates.

At the same time, challenges remain. Energy jobs are cyclical, tied to commodity prices. Inflation continues to eat into wages. And environmental policy battles show no sign of abating.

A Broader Economic Picture
Texas’ leadership in job creation isn’t confined to energy, but energy remains its backbone. The latest employment data proves that when oil and gas thrive, the broader Texas economy benefits.

As global markets shift and federal policies evolve, Texas will continue to chart its own path—balancing innovation with tradition, and resilience with risk.

The August rebound may look like a blip on a chart. In reality, it is a reminder that Texas’ economic future remains intertwined with the industry that put it on the map. Oil and gas are not relics of the past. They are the foundation of a modern, growing, and increasingly dynamic state.

Attribution: Original reporting by Bethany Blankley of The Center Square. Additional analysis and commentary by Michael Pipkins.

# # This post first appeared on PipkinsReports.com

09/22/2025

The $202 Billion Lie: Why Politicians Can’t Deliver Property Tax Freedom

Austin, TX — The biggest obstacle to lawmakers who promise to abolish or drastically cut school property taxes isn’t partisan gridlock or an unwilling governor. It’s money that voters already agreed to borrow: roughly $202.6 billion in outstanding independent school district bond debt — a sum that, when spread across Texas’ 5.5 million students, works out to about $36,800 per student and effectively locks future legislatures into continuing property-tax collections to pay that debt.

The fairness dilemma: why should the prudent subsidize the spendthrift?
Beyond the staggering numbers, fairness has emerged as a central challenge. When voters in one district approve hundreds of millions in bonds — for new stadiums, performing arts centers, or expansive building programs — those debts become locked-in obligations. But if the Legislature were to eliminate property taxes and shift to a statewide funding model, the costs don’t stay local. Taxpayers in fiscally disciplined districts, who either voted down bonds or avoided extravagant projects, would end up subsidizing the debt of their neighbors.

This creates a thorny equity problem: one community’s appetite for borrowing can effectively hold the entire state hostage, delaying property-tax elimination for everyone. Responsible districts — those that avoided over-leveraging their tax base — are forced into the same long repayment cycle as the districts that went all-in on debt. Lawmakers warn that unless Texas finds a way to firewall these obligations, the drive to abolish school property taxes statewide will continue to falter.

The numbers you need to know
A Texas Policy report and the state’s debt-tracking data show that outstanding ISD bond debt reached $202.6 billion in the most recent reporting year — the largest single component of local government borrowing in Texas.

Spread across Texas’ student enrollment, that comes to roughly $36,800 per student. That debt does not vanish if lawmakers change the tax code. It remains a contractual obligation backed by the taxing authority that issued it — and this legal reality ties the Legislature’s hands.

Lawmakers on record: bonds drive the property-tax problem
“Taxes are higher than if there was no bond … so every bond effectively is a tax increase,” said Rep. Brian Harrison (R-Midlothian) during a 2023 debate about school finance.

Rep. Morgan Meyer (R-Dallas), who carried HB 19 in 2025 to curb runaway local debt, framed it directly: “We can’t talk about eliminating property taxes while leaving the bond spigot wide open. Every dollar borrowed today is a tax locked in for the next 20 to 30 years.”

These blunt statements reflect why the bulk of legislative proposals in recent years have targeted future bond elections — raising voter approval thresholds, moving them to higher-turnout November ballots, and requiring more transparency about long-term costs. None of these measures erase the existing debt, but they aim to prevent further accumulation that would worsen the fairness gap between districts.

The political paradox: voters approved the problem
The irony is that most of this debt wasn’t foisted on Texans by bureaucrats alone — voters themselves approved these bonds at the ballot box. In many cases, school districts have resorted to scare tactics and emotional appeals to secure that approval.

The pitch is often less about fiscal prudence and more about guilt. Campaign slogans and superintendent talking points regularly frame the choice in moral terms: “If you don’t approve this, you must not support teachers,” or “Our teachers deserve more,” or the ever-present line, “It’s for the children.” Newer tactics now include, “You must not have children in school.” , “Teachers are paying out of their own pockets.” These carefully crafted appeals make resistance politically difficult, especially in tight-knit communities where opposing a bond can be painted as opposing kids or education itself.

And the strategy has worked. Across Texas, billions in bonds have sailed through under this messaging, saddling districts with long-term debt and tying the hands of future legislatures. The political paradox is this: the same voters who demand relief from crushing property taxes are also the ones who — swayed by emotional campaigns — have made that relief harder to achieve by approving bonds that lock in tax obligations for decades.

But those local “yes” votes have statewide consequences. The debt must be repaid, and repayment requires continued property-tax collections. For legislators aiming to abolish school property taxes, the very taxpayers clamoring for relief are also the ones who made that task exponentially harder by approving bonds.

Options — none are painless
State buyout of local debt: A one-time appropriation of $202.6 billion is politically and fiscally unrealistic.
Refinancing or defeasing debt: Lowers payments but doesn’t erase obligations.
Raising voter thresholds for new bonds: Limits future growth but doesn’t fix existing debt.
State assumption of debt: Shifts the burden, raising fairness concerns between high-debt and low-debt districts.
Each option forces the same uncomfortable conversation: who pays for decisions already made?

Bottom line
The dream of eliminating school property taxes runs headfirst into a wall of accumulated debt — $202.6 billion worth of it, or $36,800 per student. And until Texans reconcile the fairness problem — why should one district’s fiscal responsibility be undercut by another’s binge borrowing? — the debate will remain stuck.

Worse still, there’s a sleight of hand at work in many school districts. As soon as one bond issue approaches its final payment, local boards are quick to put another bond on the ballot. Instead of allowing taxpayers to enjoy the natural drop in property-tax rates that should come with retired debt, they simply roll that expiring tax into a new long-term obligation.

Districts then market these bonds with the line, “This will not raise your tax rate.” Technically true — but deeply misleading. What they are really saying is that your tax rate will not go down as it should have. The tax reduction that rightfully belongs to homeowners is effectively stolen, replaced with a new debt service that locks in the same tax burden for decades more.

This cycle ensures that property taxes never truly fall, even when debt is paid off. It’s a fiscal treadmill: as old obligations expire, new ones are issued, keeping taxpayers perpetually on the hook. That practice is one reason why the total statewide school bond debt has continued to climb rather than shrink.

For lawmakers and taxpayers alike, the conclusion is unavoidable: unless the bond game itself is reined in, every promise of property-tax elimination will remain an illusion. Texans cannot escape the burden of perpetual debt service so long as school districts treat bond expirations not as a chance to lower taxes, but as an opportunity to keep the gravy train running.

# # # This post first appeared in PipkinsReports.com

09/21/2025

09/19/2025

A Turning Point at Texas A&M: Welsh’s Resignation Marks a Victory for Accountability and Tradition

College Station, TX - Texas A&M University witnessed a symbolic moment today as Mark A. Welsh III exited the Administration Building, officially resigning from his post as university president. For many in the conservative community, this departure is not just a personnel change—it’s a long-overdue course correction.

A Presidency Marked by Controversy
Welsh’s tenure was marred by ideological clashes and donor discontent. Critics say he failed to uphold the university’s core values of integrity, respect, and tradition, instead allowing progressive ideologies to take root in faculty ranks and student affairs. His defense of controversial professors and alleged attempts to silence dissenting students drew sharp rebuke from alumni and conservative watchdogs.

One viral reply summed up the mood: “Woke ideology needs to be rooted out root and stem. He failed at doing so and defended the woke professors peddling propaganda over the students”.

Donor Exodus and Cultural Drift
Under Welsh’s leadership, Texas A&M reportedly lost key financial supporters who felt the institution was drifting from its mission. The erosion of trust between the administration and its conservative base—students, parents, and donors alike—culminated in calls for Welsh’s resignation. Many viewed his departure as a necessary step to restore accountability and realign the university with its founding principles.

Grassroots Pressure Pays Off
The reaction online was swift and celebratory. “Goodbye and good riddance. Took them long enough,” wrote one user, echoing the sentiment of many who felt ignored by the administration for too long. Others framed the resignation as a win against what they called “transgender indoctrination” and “woke propaganda,” demanding that taxpayer dollars no longer fund ideological experimentation on campus.

What Comes Next
Welsh’s resignation opens the door for a new chapter at Texas A&M—one that many hope will prioritize academic excellence, viewpoint diversity, and respect for tradition. The next president will face intense scrutiny, not just from faculty and students, but from a politically engaged public determined to keep the university grounded in its values.

For conservatives, this moment is more than a resignation—it’s a reminder that institutions can be held accountable, and that cultural course corrections are possible when voices unite.

09/19/2025

Stephen "Destiny" Bonnell, online gamer and leftist ideologue, who has championed the assassination of Charlie Kirk, has been demonetized from YouTube, banned from Twitch and his page, https://www.facebook.com/OmniDestiny/ has been terminated.

09/18/2025

Four Republicans Betrayed Constitutional Conservatism by Shielding Ilhan Omar

Four Republicans—Mike Flood of Nebraska, Jeff Hurd of Colorado, Cory Mills of Florida, and Tom McClintock of California—cast votes on September 17, 2025, to shield Rep. Ilhan Omar, of Minnesota, from facing any consequences for her vile reposts mocking the assassination of conservative icon Charlie Kirk.

This 214-213 House vote to table Rep. Nancy Mace’s censure resolution isn’t just a political misstep; it’s a gut punch to the very principles of constitutional conservatism that have long anchored the Republican Party. Let’s unpack this betrayal, piece by perplexing piece, and ask: What in the world were these lawmakers thinking?

First, let’s set the stage. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and a tireless defender of American values, was gunned down on September 10, 2025, by a deranged transgender activist at Utah Valley University. The nation reeled, and rightfully so. Yet, in the aftermath, Omar—never one to miss a chance to stoke division—reposted content labeling Kirk a “stochastic terrorist,” a term dripping with justification for the violence that ended his life.

Rep. Mace, a fierce patriot, introduced a resolution to censure Omar and strip her of her committee assignments, a move rooted in the House’s constitutional authority to discipline its members (Article I, Section 5). It should have been a slam dunk. Instead, four GOP turncoats joined Democrats to protect this radical, fracturing party unity and spitting on the graves of those who’ve fought for free speech without incitement.

Take Mike Flood, Nebraska’s supposed conservative stalwart. This former Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature has built a career on rural values and limited government—until now. His vote to shield Omar suggests either a stunning lapse in judgment or a craven bow to some unseen pressure. Flood’s district, reliant on agriculture, deserves a representative who stands firm against those who glorify violence, not one who coddles a congresswoman with ties to radical ideologies.

The backlash is already brewing—X users like McCall Calhoun (
) are calling for his ouster in the primaries. Good luck, indeed.

Then there’s Jeff Hurd, the freshman from Colorado’s 3rd District, who rode into Congress on a wave of rural healthcare promises. Hurd’s vote reeks of naiveté or worse—perhaps a misguided nod to “free speech” that ignores the Constitution’s clear allowance for Congress to police its own. His district, with its Medicaid-dependent population, might tolerate this if he spins it as compassion, but constitutional conservatives know better: protecting Omar’s seat undermines the rule of law.

Cory Mills, Florida’s Bronze Star veteran, is perhaps the most confounding of the bunch. A Trump ally with a record of pushing border security and anti-China legislation, Mills’ vote against censure is a head-scratcher. His district, once a GOP stronghold, now questions his loyalty—Rick Waite () branded him a “disgrace.”

Is this a tactical pivot to moderates, or did his military background lead him to avoid escalating tensions post-Kirk? Whatever the reason, it’s a betrayal of the constitutional principle that elected officials must face accountability, not a free pass to incite violence.

Finally, Tom McClintock, California’s libertarian-leaning veteran, offers a twist. Known for ditching the House Freedom Caucus in 2015 over strategy, his vote aligns with his free-speech absolutism—evidenced by his own statement defending Omar’s First Amendment rights. But this is where the perplexity peaks: Does McClintock not see that Omar’s rhetoric crossed into incitement, a line the Supreme Court has long recognized (e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)? His deregulatory zeal doesn’t excuse shielding a lawmaker who mocks a murdered American husband and father. The “RINO” cries on X Baxter Allen () are harsh but not unwarranted.

This vote isn’t just a procedural hiccup; it’s a seismic shift away from Republican principles. Constitutional conservatism demands accountability, a strong defense of life, and a rejection of radical ideologies—principles these four have abandoned. The House’s power to discipline members isn’t a suggestion; it’s a safeguard against those like Omar, who’ve supported ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood, as Rep. Mace rightly noted. Yet, Flood, Hurd, Mills, and McClintock chose party discord over duty, handing Democrats a victory in a 214-213 squeaker that leaves conservatives reeling.

The fallout is already chaotic. X is ablaze with calls to primary these defectors, with Zack Everett () urging checks for challengers. The Reuters/Ipsos poll showing 67% of Americans linking rhetoric to violence underscores the stakes—yet these four ignored the public’s cry for sanity.

As a constitutional conservative, I’m left wondering: If Republicans won’t police their own house, who will? The primaries in 2026 will be the battleground, and these unprincipled four should brace for a reckoning. Stay tuned, Texas—corruption and cowardice know no state lines.

# # This post first appeared on http://PipkinsReports.com

09/17/2025

The Rockwall City Council on Monday approved a $54 million budget for Fiscal Year 2026 and adopted a property tax rate of $0.25750 per $100 of assessed valuation – set

09/17/2025

Texas’s School Funding Scandal: Why Ditching Property Taxes for 100% State Cash Is a Game-Changer

Opinion / Advocacy – Texas boasts one of the largest public education systems in the nation, serving over 5.5 million students across more than 1,200 school districts. Yet, the way we fund our K-12 schools remains a patchwork of state contributions and local property taxes—a dual mechanism that perpetuates inequities, burdens homeowners, and complicates accountability.

As we navigate fiscal year 2025, with state coffers bolstered by economic growth, it’s time to advocate for a bold reform: eliminating school property taxes entirely and providing 100% of K-12 funding through state sources. This shift would promote fairness, streamline administration, and ensure every Texas child has access to quality education regardless of their zip code.

The Dual Funding Mechanism: A System Ripe for Reform
Texas’s K-12 funding operates under a dual structure, blending state and local revenues to meet the constitutional mandate for a “general diffusion of knowledge.” At its core is the Foundation School Program (FSP), which calculates a baseline funding level per student and divides the responsibility between the state and local districts.

State Share: The state provides funding through formulas that account for student needs, such as special education or economically disadvantaged populations. This includes “Tier 1” funding for basic allotments and “Tier 2” for enrichment. The state aims to equalize funding by reducing aid to wealthier districts and recapturing excess local revenue—often called the “Robin Hood” system—to redistribute to poorer ones.

Local Share: School districts levy property taxes on residential and commercial properties within their boundaries to cover the remainder. These taxes fund operations, maintenance, and sometimes debt for facilities. Local contributions typically make up 50-60% of total K-12 funding, with the state covering the balance plus federal aid (around 10-18%). This local reliance creates disparities: Wealthy districts with high property values generate more revenue at lower tax rates, while property-poor districts struggle even with higher rates.

This dual approach, rooted in laws like Chapter 48 of the Texas Education Code, was designed to balance local control with state oversight. However, it has led to persistent inequities. In FY 2025, the average funding per student is approximately $15,503, covering teacher salaries, student services, and operations. But this figure masks wide variations—some districts receive far more due to robust local tax bases, while others rely heavily on state aid amid rising property values that outpace homeowner incomes.

Critics argue the system is outdated, especially with Texas’s booming population and economy. The “Robin Hood” recapture mechanism alone is projected to collect nearly $5 billion from districts in 2025, redistributing it statewide. While intended to promote equity, it often feels punitive to growing suburbs and fails to fully address underfunded rural or urban schools.

State-Administered Programs: The Backbone of Current Funding
Drawing from the Texas Education Compensation 2025 spreadsheet—a detailed ledger of state appropriations—the state’s role in K-12 funding is substantial, totaling an estimated $38.4 billion in FY 2025. These funds are administered primarily through the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and flow via targeted programs. Here’s a breakdown of key state-administered initiatives based on the data:

School Apportionment – Foundation Program (Object Code 7602): The largest slice at approximately $30.1 billion, this is the core of the FSP. It includes $26.98 billion from the Foundation School Fund and $3.11 billion from the Available School Fund, ensuring baseline per-student allotments adjusted for district needs.

Grants to Elementary and Secondary Schools (Object Code 7601): Around $7.9 billion, encompassing federal pass-throughs like $3.84 billion from Health/Ed/Welfare funds (e.g., Title I for low-income students) and $2.81 billion from the Federal School Lunch program. State contributions add $745 million from general revenue and $397 million from instructional materials funds.

Payments/Grants to Counties and Other Political Subdivisions (Object Codes 7612/7613): About $434 million, including $168.5 million in federal grants to subdivisions and $194.5 million in state general revenue for various local supports, such as compensatory education.

Grants – Community Service Programs (Object Code 7623): $43.97 million from TEA’s general revenue, supporting extracurricular and community-based initiatives.

These programs highlight the state’s commitment, but they only tell half the story. The spreadsheet excludes local revenues, focusing solely on state and federal disbursements.

The Hidden Burden: Local Property Taxes Fill the Gaps
While the state provides a significant portion, local property taxes shoulder 50-60% of the load—estimated at $30-35 billion annually in recent years. In FY 2023, total property tax collections statewide exceeded $81.4 billion, with nearly half ($39.5 billion) going to school districts. Projections for FY 2025 suggest similar or higher figures, driven by rising property values despite recent relief efforts. For instance, the TEA reports that combined state and local FSP revenue per student reached $13,405 in FY 2025, up 49% from 2014, with locals contributing heavily.

This reliance on property taxes exacerbates issues: Homeowners in high-value areas face skyrocketing bills, while commercial properties often benefit from abatements. In 2025, despite $51 billion allocated for property tax cuts over two years—including $17.5 billion for rate compression and increased homestead exemptions—local taxes remain a core funding source. These measures provide partial relief, such as raising senior exemptions to $200,000 (effectively eliminating school taxes for many elderly Texans), but fall short of systemic change.

The Case for 100% State Funding: Equity, Efficiency, and Economic Sense
It’s time to eliminate school property taxes and fund K-12 entirely through state sources. Texas has the resources: Lawmakers entered the 2025 session with at least $21 billion in available general revenue and $23 billion in the Economic Stabilization Fund. Shifting the full burden to the state—potentially via sales taxes, severance taxes on energy, or reallocating surplus—would yield transformative benefits:

Promoting Equity: Ending local taxes would dismantle disparities tied to property wealth. No more “Robin Hood” recapture draining billions from districts; instead, a uniform state formula ensures consistent funding statewide.

Relieving Homeowners: Property taxes are regressive, hitting fixed-income families hardest. Full elimination could save the average homeowner thousands annually, boosting economic mobility and homeownership.

Simplifying Administration: Districts could focus on education rather than tax collection. The state already handles major programs efficiently—expanding this to 100% would reduce bureaucratic overlap.

Investing in the Future: With a $10 billion funding boost in 2025 (including a $55 per-student increase), Texas schools are improving, but tying it to property relief would amplify impact. Proposals like House Bill 9 (exempting business personal property) and constitutional amendments for higher exemptions show momentum toward relief—why not go further?

Critics may cite costs, but with projections of sustained revenue growth, Texas can afford it. States like Vermont and Hawaii have minimized local taxes for schools with positive results. In Texas, this reform would honor our commitment to education while unburdening taxpayers.

Conclusion: A Call to Action for 100% State-Funded Schools
Texas’s dual funding model has served its purpose, but in 2025, it’s clear we can do better. By leveraging the state’s robust programs and surplus, eliminating school property taxes is not just feasible—it’s essential for a fairer, more efficient system. Lawmakers should prioritize this in future sessions, ensuring every student’s potential isn’t limited by local tax rolls. The future of Texas education depends on it.

# # This post first appeared on PipkinsReports.com