Property Taxes on Owner-Occupied Housing

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/1888.html

Texas ranks as one of the highest for property taxes being a percent of one's income. The bureaucrats continue to spend so that you are required to come up with more out of your pocket each year for your property tax bill. If we continue down this road every ISD in this state will force us all into bankruptcy and we will be seeking a bailout. Only one problem............no one there to bailout the property owners who pay the majority of the taxes so the bureaucrats can continue to operate!

Someone once posted on here that it would be best if we "shut'um all down" and this might be the best solution. The money invested returns a minimal gain if any gain at all. If you have been reading the news lately even the Obama camp is on board for "shut'um down"! Perhaps the time has come................."shut'um down".

They said it would not hurt..............

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1729237&_blg=1,1729237

Health reform means a charge for AT&T

The company takes a $1 billion, non-cash charge for a tax on retiree drug subsidies that was included in the bill signed into law this week.

AT&T is not the only company that took a charge when the bill was signed this week.

The parade is just starting to line-up!

Paradox: Property owners you have to do your part

Here's a paradox: Why have property taxes generally risen over the past couple years, even as real estate values have plummeted?The long answer is complicated, but the short one is simple:

Property owners have not systematically appealed their tax bills. Indeed, few are aware that an appeal is even an option.Until now, that is. The trend is finally shifting, The Wall Street Journal reported last week, as homeowners across the nation mobilize to protest tax bills they believe do not reflect the current value of their homes.

Taxpayers in Missouri and Illinois have formed real-estate-tax protest groups. In Michigan, the state's top tax court is tied up with more than 24,000 cases filed by homeowners protesting their assessments. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey recently proposed an unprecedented 2.5 percent cap on property tax hikes. New Jersey has the highest property taxes in the country, a source of much voter unrest in a largely Democratic state that ousted its Democratic governor in favor of the Republican Christie. And in Clark County, Nev.-- dubbed "the nation's foreclosure capital" by the Los Angeles Times -- homeowners now line up at the Clark County Government Building to plead with a board that their property values be lowered, so they can pay lower taxes in the recession-plagued state.

A survey done by the nonprofit group National League of Cities reported that 25 percent of cities in the U.S. raised their property tax rates in the 2009 fiscal year in response to plummeting tax revenues. Meanwhile, property values have taken a 22.3 percent dip from 2006 to 2009, according to the National Board of Realtors.Unless you have an extremely fastidious tax assessor, the odds are good that your home's tax bill has not been adjusted downward to reflect its value in a declining market. That leaves the burden of reassessment squarely on the homeowner.

Procedures to appeal local property tax raises and can be hard to find out about and are often tedious, but certainly not insurmountable. The first step is to visit your local jurisdiction and learn more about the procedures in your area. It is important to understand how property values are assessed, how that assessed value is taxed, how often assessments occur, and what is the exact process to appeal the assessment. During the housing boom, the National Taxpayers Union estimated that as many as 60 percent of all homes are over-assessed. One can only imagine how high that figure might be in today's market.

Key signs that a property has been over-assessed include errors in your property's description on the tax bill; comparable homes in your neighborhood selling for less than your appraised value; and the presence of recently emerging depreciation factors in your area, such as re-zoning, an increase in traffic, new industry or increasing drainage issues. Also, many states have property-tax credit programs for low-income residents, as for senior citizens and the disabled. California, Oregon, Texas and Minnesota sponsor tax-deferral programs, which place an "increasing lien" on the properties of residents who can't afford to pay. When the property is sold, counties collect the accrued tax plus interest from the buyer. The for-profit American Homeowners Association provides a kit to guide you through the property tax appeal process for $29.95; some bare-bones guides are available from local tax authorities. However, experts warn against paying high fees on to online services promising to take care of the details for you.Whatever route you choose, if property values have dropped significantly in your area, now is an ideal time to question tax bills that have headed in the other direction. Deadlines to appeal vary by region, but generally fall in the spring.

Low Tax Texas v. Big Government California

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Low-tax-Texas-beats-big-government-California-86681467.html#ixzz0hatpL585

Taxpayer funded lobbying

Frank Sturzl (recently retired as the Executive Director), who has headed the lobby association Texas Municipal League, is joining a binaries lobby firm - Hillco Partners. He will be director of municipal practices.

Yes, taxpayers, our opposition to taxpayer-funded lobbying has resulted in firms beefing up their gravy train practice. Taxpayers - you are funding this effort. Hillco Partners is only one of a number of lobby firms along with individuals who lobby using your tax dollars...often lobbying to raise your taxes. Hillco Partners last session earned as much as a million dollars or more lobbying the state legislature on behalf of local governments.

AFP has a solution -- rely on your elected officials at the local and state levels to communicate with one another and act in your best interests. We should not be paying lobbyists from public funds. Period.

From friends at AFP.

Do you have a benefits package like this?

http://www.houstontx.gov/hr/benpages/ben_main.htm

Dear Mr. President

Perhaps many of you have already seen this and for those of you that have not enjoy the Doc's letter:

Dear Mr. President,

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ring tone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid." During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me."

Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

Respectfully,
STARNER JONES, MD

SuperSuper said...
"Way to go PISD! You know what we need and you are making Pittsburg a better place to live. Keep up the great work! Cant wait for Roe's long letter to the editor that no one reads! Keep it up guys! Maybe one day someone will hear your far off thoughts!"
March 4, 2010 9:32 AM

Glad to know that Mr. Roe's letters are highly thought of by many in the community. SuperSuper must be reading are at least getting a summation from someone who did read the letter to the local rag. I find Mr. Roe's letters a bit lengthy myself; however, for intelligent people they are thought provoking.

As to the comment making Pittsburg a better place to live I and others are all for such actions that make Pittsburg a better place to live. However, one has to consider how the public as a whole in Camp County will benefit from the building of a 'multi-purpose facility'. I am open to your opinions in this regard. I like many in this community grew up without much and have now lived through the greatest downturn since the Great Depression and the years of excess. 'Multi-purpose facility' fits in that category of excess! Many in this community will be reaching retirement age over the next 5 to 10 years and we don't want to spend our retirement years paying for EXCESS.

"making Pittsburg a better place to live." - SuperSuper if you are Twi-lite Super then why don't you pack your belongings and move to the community? SuperSuper if you are not Twi-lite Super perhaps you can handle the summation and ask her why she does not move into the community.

I understand from one of the local coffee shop round tables there was a question in the local rag about charter buses the school used during the football playoffs. As I skimmed the local rag I must have missed that section of the paper. I must return to that edition of the local rag that covers the issue of charter buses and read the comments before offering additional comments. I have some reservation about the chartering of buses; however, I don't find it a deal killer.

Salaries: Private v. Government Employment

Just a sampling:


Job Federal Wage Private Wage Difference
Broadcast technician $90,310 $49,265 $41,045
Budget analyst $73,140 $65,532 $7,608
Chemist $98,060 $72,120 $25,940
Civil engineer $85,970 $76,184 $9,786
Clergy $70,460 $39,247 $31,213
Computer,
information systems manager $122,020 $115,705 $6,315
Cook $38,400 $23,279 $15,121
Crane, tower operator $54,900 $44,044 $10,856
Dental assistant $36,170 $32,069 $4,101
Electrical engineer $86,400 $84,653 $1,747
Financial analysts $87,400 $81,232 $6,168
Graphic designer $70,820 $46,565 $24,255
Highway maintenance worker $42,720 $31,376 $11,344
Janitor $30,110 $24,188 $5,922
Landscape architects $80,830 $58,380 $22,450
Laundry, dry-cleaning worker $33,100 $19,945 $13,155
Librarian $76,110 $63,284 $12,826
Machinist $51,530 $44,315 $7,215
Mechanical engineer $88,690 $77,554 $11,136
Office clerk $34,260 $29,863 $4,397
Paralegals $60,340 $48,890 $11,450
Pest control worker $48,670 $33,675 $14,995
Procurement clerk $40,640 $34,082 $6,558
Public relations manager $132,410 $88,241 $44,169
Recreation worker $43,630 $21,671 $21,959
Registered nurse $74,460 $63,780 $10,680
Secretary $44,500 $33,829 $10,671
Sheet metal worker $49,700 $43,725 $5,975
Statistician $88,520 $78,065 $10,455
Surveyor $78,710 $67,336 $11,374

How do you measure up?

City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs.

State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.

PISD and all rural ISD's are you ready

For school districts across the state the digital age is upon us and one has to be concerned about their readiness for the move to the digital age. Believe I read recently in the local rag that the Primary school campus had installed interactive whiteboards. Interactive whiteboards are a neat product. I think the real challenge will be with the digital textbooks that are forthcoming. While flying to Washington state I came across an article and here is the link to a good article on the coming world of digital education:

http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=23460#more-23460

Surely this will cut down on the overhead costs associated with the education of our students. Only problem - many of the ISDs will use the saved funds to build 'multi-purpose' facilities rather than return the funds to the pockets of taxpayers!

US Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You want to know what the national debt is? Click the link above for a cool up to the second details about YOUR national debt.

Texas Independence Day

The Myth and Meaning of Texas Independence

March 2, 1836 dawned, frigid and gray; cutting winds blew through glassless windows. Texians - as they styled themselves - huddled close, pulled blankets tight, and gave birth to a dream. At the Town of Washington, fifty-nine representatives voted into existence a sovereign nation: the Republic of Texas. Tennessean George C. Childress had drafted the independence document. In word and spirit it borrowed heavily from Thomas Jefferson'' original 1776 declaration. No matter. Anglo-Celtic Texians proudly embraced the values and traditions of their founding fathers. "The same blood that animated the hearts of our ancestors in '76 still flows in our veins,"one frontier preacher affirmed. Still, not all the delegates were of that blood. Four Mexican residents signed the declaration on behalf of their Tejano constituents. By their presence and with their signatures, they demonstrated that they too shared Jefferson's values - and his vision of liberty. Thus began a decade of independence singular in the annals of American history.

The ramshackle surroundings seemed neither appropriate, nor especially auspicious. The Convention met in an unfinished building lacking glass in the windows or even doors. In lieu of glass, delegates tacked rags tight across the windows. They could have saved themselves the trouble. On March 1, as the members gathered in the Town of Washington, a blue norther swept in. By the morning of the second, the thermometer had plummeted to a brisk thirty-three degrees as gusts whistled through fluttering window cloth.

If the Washington "Convention Center" proved bleak, so too did the rest of the rustic frontier settlement. It did not make a favorable impression upon Virginia native Colonel William Fairfax Gray. He may have tasted sour grapes, for he had earlier applied for the job of convention secretary. Although he did not receive the post, he nevertheless maintained a record of the proceedings in his diary. In numerous instances, Gray's account is more complete than the official minutes. Still, he found the Town of Washington a "disgusting place." Cold, uncomfortable, and unappreciated, Gray described Washington in wholly uncharitable terms:

It is laid out in the woods, about a dozen wretched cabins or shanties constitute the city; not one decent house in it, and only one well-defined street, which consists of an opening cut out of the woods. The stumps still standing. A rare place to hold a national convention in. They will have to leave it promptly to avoid starvation.

Even here in Texas most folks still remain unclear about the meaning of that cold March day in 1836. Myth and misunderstanding also obscure the event. Many believe, for example, that the delegates signed the Texas Declaration on March 2. Not true. The delegates read and approved the document on that day, but remember that they did not have a photocopier at their disposal. Clerks worked through the night. Perforce, the five hand-written copies were not ready for signatures until the following day. Nor did all sign even then. Seven delegates had not yet arrived on March 3. As they dragged in, the latecomers added their names for a total of fifty-nine signatories. Nowadays Texans remember the small hamlet where the delegates gathered as Washington-on-the-Brazos. Nobody called it that in 1836. Texians back then simply called it the "Town of Washington." Not until later would 'Washington-on-the-Brazos" come into common usage.

Whether one observes March 2 or March 3, one constant remains; the delegates could not have picked a worse time to declare independence. To many contemporary observers, such confidence appeared reckless. As delegates brazenly declared Texas independent, the artillery of Mexican dictator Antonio López de Santa Anna hammered the walls of the Alamo. Just four days later his troops would assault the crumbling fort and wipe out every rebel defender. At the same time, General José Urrea's division swept northward through the coastal prairies. He would subsequently capture the entire rebel command of Colonel James W. Fannin, Jr. following the Battle of Coleto on March 19. Acting upon Santa Anna's orders, Mexican troops executed Fannin and the majority of his Goliad garrison, some 342 men. The twin defeats at San Antonio and Goliad generated panic among Texian settlers who fled toward the Louisiana border. The "Runaway Scrape" they called it. To declare independence amid all this chaos seemed more than unduly hopeful. Indeed, to most it resembled a fool's errand.

On April 21, General Sam Houston's vengeful army swept the Mexican camp at San Jacinto and the skeptics recanted. On that momentous afternoon, enraged Texians slaughtered 650 Mexican soldados and took another 700 prisoner. Most important, the following day Texians captured President-General Santa Anna. At San Jacinto Texians won a great victory, but only with the capture of the Mexican dictator did the battle become decisive.

Sandwiched between the defeat at the Alamo and the victory at San Jacinto, it is not all that startling that the importance of March 2 gets lost in the glare of those two shining episodes. The date is not a state holiday; public schools do not let out; newscasters rarely recall the event.

Even in 1836, Texians did not consider the approval of Childress's declaration a momentous occasion. Nearly all the representatives had arrived in Washington knowing that independence was a forgone conclusion. Gray captured the lackadaisical nature of the proceedings in his diary, but was so underwhelmed that he could not manage to spell Childress's name correctly. The important news of the day, at least as far as Gray was concerned, was the break in the weather: "The morning clear and cold, but the cold somewhat moderated." Only then, did he mention - in an offhand manner - that the Convention had approved the declaration of independence:

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Mr. Childers [sic], from the committee, reported a Declaration of Independence, which he read in this place. It was received by the house, committed to a committee of the whole, reported without amendment, and unanimously adopted, in less than one hour from its first and only reading. It underwent on discipline, and no attempt was made to amend it. The only speech made upon it was a somewhat declamatory address in committee to the whole by General Houston.

And it was done. At the end of the day, the delegates merely rubber-stamped a question that they had already decided.

So apathetic were the delegates concerning the document--or, perhaps, so chaotic were conditions--that all five of the original hand-written copies went missing. In 1896 an original copy turned up in the files of the U.S. State Department. It appears that Texas agent William H. Wharton deposited his copy there in 1836. As Commissioner of the Texas Republic, he had traveled to Washington, D. C. to inquire about admitting Texas into the Union. If annexation proved impossible, he then was to push for the recognition of Texas as an independent nation. He must have submitted one of the original copies to support the claim that Texas was, in fact, an independent nation and not merely a breakaway province within the Mexican Republic. State Department officials returned the precious document to Texas. Today this it resides deep inside a vault at the State Library in Austin. A reproduction of this copy is on permanent display at the state capitol. The archivists, having lost it for so long, are not willing to take chances with the only surviving original.

So here we are near the end of the twentieth century. What do the events of 163 years ago have to do with us? What does it all mean? Of late the delegates have not fared too well at the pens of activist historians. They see Texas independence as the action of ungrateful snits that willfully ignored Mexican generosity. Typical of this new breed is Colorado writer Jeff Long. In his book Duel of Eagles: The Mexican and U.S. Fight for the Alamo, he sides with the Mexicans.

It was grotesque that a host of squatters, land speculators, and short-term colonists should expect the Mexican government to grant them government conducted in the English language. Mexico had not forced the Anglo-Americans to come to Texas. Mexico had certainly not promised those who did come "that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America." To the contrary, those settlers in Texas who were legitimate had pledged themselves to a set of regulations extended by a whole new authority."

Like many of his ilk, Long has a reductionist understanding of Texas history. To be sure Mexicans were astoundingly generous to norteamericano colonists. A head of a household normally received a league and a labor. That amounted to a whopping 4,605 acres. Additionally, immigrants could also expect a tax rebate until they got on their feet in their adopted homeland. Americans who had been ruined in the Panic of 1819 flocked to Mexican Texas by the thousands. And they were grateful to Mexico for the chance--and a place--to make a fresh start. To most American immigrants, it seemed as if Mexico offered more opportunity than the "land of opportunity" itself. Still - and this is the part Mr. Long conveniently remembers to forget - most Texians immigrated under the Mexican Constitution of 1824. Under that covenant Mexican citizens enjoyed a republican form of government and most of the power of government resided at the state and local levels. Indeed, the Mexican federalists were great admirers of the United States Constitution of 1787 and employed it as a model for their 1824 charter. When Santa Anna revoked the Constitution of 1824 and declared himself dictator in 1835, all bets were off. American Mexicans considered themselves bound to the old constitution and were not about to sit still and be quiet while a military dictator appropriated the reins of government. They were not, however, alone it that. Many Federalistias –Mexicans loyal to the Constitution of 1824 - also took up arms to resist Santa Anna's centralist regime.

So the revolt that began near Gonzales in October 2, 1835, was a civil war - not a bid for complete separation from Mexico. Both Anglo-Celtic Texians and the native Tejanos fought for self-government within the federalist system created by the Constitution of 1824. The war was not, as some have insisted, a "culture conflict." Indeed, many Texas Mexicans joined with norteamericano neighbors to resist the centralistas.

Having said that, why did Texians overwhelmingly support complete separation from Mexico only five months later? Is Long correct? Was the Texas Revolution merely a shameless land grab? Once again, the answer is more involved than some allow themselves to believe. Texians were disappointed when Federalists from the interior did not rush to Texas to take up the struggle. Texian leaders had tried to squash any mention of independence, fearing that such remarks might alienate Mexican federalists. By February 1836, however, a majority of Texians had concluded that they could expect no help from that quarter. Why had the federalists south of the Rio Grande been so unwilling to support the Texian federalists? The short answer is that they simply did not trust the Anglo-Americans.

Mexican federalists had plenty of reasons to mistrust their northern neighbors. They recalled the two decades from 1800 to 1820 as the era of the filibusters. Throughout that period, American soldiers of fortune such as Philip Nolan, Augustus Magee, and James Long (apparently no relation to the Colorado revisionist) had attempted to wrest Texas away from Spain. Mexicans declared their independence from Spain in 1821, but many still remembered the filibusters and mistrusted Americans. Mexican Secretary of State Lucas Alamán expressed such concern succinctly. "Where others send invading armies," he groused, "[the Americans] send their colonists." He understood that American newspapermen wrote incendiary articles calling for the occupation of Texas. He knew that in 1829 President Andrew Jackson had dispatched the brutish Anthony Butler to Mexico with an offer to buy Texas. He was also aware that Americans almost constantly spoke of the "reannexation of Texas," a crack-brained belief that Texas should have been a part of the Louisiana Purchase owing to the short lived La Salle colony of 1685. Little wonder then that Mexican federalist viewed the colossus to the north and its wayfaring citizens as a threat to Mexican nationhood.

Texas leaders came to understand that alone they could not win the war. If Mexican federalists would not lend a hand, they must enlist assistance from the United States. War is the most expensive of all human endeavors. While Texians claimed thousands of acres of disposable land, they were cash poor. To win this war they first had to fight it. But that required troops, weapons, and provender and all those items cost money - lots of it! They were not so naïve as to believe that President Jackson would risk an international incident by openly supporting the Texas rebels against Mexico. They did, however, hope to enlist the support of individual Americans who believed in their cause. The ad interim government dispatched Stephen F. Austin--the most famous Texian--as an agent to the United States. Once back in the "old states" the empresario appealed to citizens to provide volunteers, funds, and supplies for Texas. He and other Texas agents visited American banks to secure loans for the Texas war effort.

That is where they consistently encountered problems. Banks in the north would not even consider supporting with their money a cause that might ultimately bring another slave state into the union. Southern bankers, while more sympathetic, would not lend their money so long as the war remained a domestic Mexican squabble. They let Austin and the other agents know, however, that they might be interested if - and only if, Texians declared their complete separation from Mexico.

Why this southern support for Texas independence? Southerners anticipated that an independent Texas would remain independent for, say, three or for months, before entering the union as a slave state. In 1836 the United States had an equal number of free and slave states. Since both free and slave states voted as a block, it created a legislative gridlock with neither side being able to gain advantage. Southerners believed that adding Texas to the list of slave states would tilt the congressional balance of power in their favor.

Austin may have been lukewarm concerning slavery, but he was a firebrand in the cause of Texas. In a rambling letter dated January 7, 1836, he neatly summed up the situation.

I go for Independence for I have no doubt we shall get aid, as much as we need and perhaps more - and what is of equal importance - the information from Mexico up to late in December says that the Federal party has united with Santa Anna against us, owing to what has already been said and done in Texas in favor of Independence so that our present position under the constitution of 1824, does us no good with the Federalists, and is doing us harm in this country, by keeping away the kind of men we most need[.] [W]ere I in the convention[,] I would urge an immediate declaration of Independence - unless there be some news from the [Mexican] interior that changed the face of things - and even then, it would require very strong reasons to prevent me from the course I now recommend.

When Stephen Fuller Austin spoke, Texians listened. By March 2, nearly all of them believed that their best hopes for the future rested on complete separation from Mexico.

How did Tejanos regard the independence announcement? The fighting had severely tested the loyalty of Texas-born Mexicans, most of whom resisted the inexorable movement toward independence. While many were willing to fight, even die, for the Constitution of 1824, they were understandably hesitant to support an open break with their mother country. The politically astute among them realized that in an independent Texas they would be woefully outnumbered by norteamericanos and thus relegated to minority status in a land dominated by foreigners who possessed little knowledge of or appreciation for their distinctive culture.

The war cast Tejanos into a whirlpool of changing politics and shifting loyalties. Wealthy landowners like José Antonio Navarro, Erasmo Seguín, and Plácido Benavides had been early proponents of American emigration. They were willing to abet slavery to promote the cotton trade and economic growth for the province. Having placed their economic and political bets on their new allies, when open revolt erupted federalist Tejanos could only try to play out their hand.

Independence forced Tejanos to make hard choices. Some like Navarro and the Seguíns opted to support the new republic. But others like Benevides, the alcalde of Victoria, could not force their principles to bend that far. Benevides was a Mexican first, a federalist second. He had seen much hard fighting at the siege and storming of Béxar in 1835, but when he heard of the March 2 declaration he went to Goliad commander James W. Fannin and informed him he was leaving the army. He could not abide centralist despotism, but neither could he be a party to striping Mexico of Tejas. He believed his only honorable option was to return to his ranch and sit out the war as a non-combatant. Fannin understood his plight and sent him home with his blessing. Still other Tejanos, like Carlos de la Garza, Juan Moya, and Agustín Moya, resented the influx of foreign settlers, view opposition as disloyalty to their motherland, and flocked to the centralist banner. These were not men who wet their fingers to test the prevailing winds; they did not plot their course according to the latest public opinion poll. They were deeply rooted in principle and tradition. Each of these Texas Mexicans followed his heart and while the path did not always lead to victory, it never led to dishonor.

That was then; this is now. Why should modern Texans observe the events of 163 years ago? Why should they stop for a moment every March 2 to reflect on the meaning of Texas Independence Day?

The first reason is historical - this day marks the creation of the Republic of Texas. For almost a decade Texas existed as a sovereign nation. It exchanged foreign ministers with other countries; it had a national army and navy (though neither was especially effective); it maintained a national currency (though, to be sure, the money was never worth much). When Texas joined the Union in 1845, it did so as a nation and thus demanded rights not accorded to mere territories. By order of Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress, Texas retained possession of its public lands. So large was the landmass of Texas, the same resolution allowed Texas to divide into as many a five states. In 1850 Texans did, in fact, sell a portion part their western holdings to pay off the debt incurred during the Republic period. Since then, however, they have been reluctant to part with even so much as an inch of their sacred soil - the resolution notwithstanding. Texas nationalism has proved stronger that political expediency.

The second reason is psychological, perhaps even spiritual. The Republic of Texas was an ephemeral empire. Like the spring bluebonnets, it bloomed, blossomed, and blanched with the sands of time. But also like the state flower, its sent lingers in the hearts and imaginations of every Texan. A moment ago I referred to Texas nationalism. Many outside the state would, no doubt, find that remarkably pretentious, but those who live here understand the truth of it. Texas existed as a nation for ten years; Texans got used to the idea; and nationalism is a difficult habit to break. The novelist John Steinbeck perhaps said it best:

Texas is a state of mind. Texas is an obsession. Above all, Texas is a nation in every sense of the word.

March 2 is a day to celebrate Texas distinctiveness. Now I'm not saying that Texans are better that other folks, but I am saying that we're different. And if a people consider themselves different, they are. March 2 should be to Texans what St. Patrick's Day is to the Irish. But what if you are a Tejano. Should you want to celebrate the day that Texas separated itself from Mexico. You bet! Even as early as 1835 Tejanos were distinctive from other Mexicans. The ranching culture that developed in Texas produced its own clothing, its own music, its own customs, and its own food. Gringos call it "Mexican food," but all one has to do to put the lie to that assertion is to eat the food in the interior - or try to. It is rather bland and not nearly as good as the Tejano food (we might as well call it what it really is) right here at home. We sometimes call it Tex-Mex, but in truth, it's all Tex and precious little Mex. It is found nowhere else on earth. How many things might we say that of? Tejano music is not Mexican; it is not American. It is Texan and is found nowhere else on earth. Tejanos also speak a variety of Spanish called Tex-Mex. But try using it in Mexico City, or worse yet, in Seville. Again, it is a unique language and is found nowhere else on earth. Truth is if you're a Texan - be you brown, black, white, yellow, or red - you don't rightly belong anywhere else. Steinbeck nailed that too. "A Texan outside of Texas is a foreigner," he observed. That applies to Tejanos as much as, probably more than, other Texans. After all, whose family has lived here the longest?

Even today it is common to hear natives claim to be "Texans first, Americans second." It is impossible to believe that they would feel that way had the Texas Republic never existed. There in Washington on that cold, windy day in March of 1836, delegates, both Anglo and Tejano, shouted to the world that they were different. Not Mexican were they, not American, but something else. They were, they insisted, TEXIANS. They gave birth not only to a dream, but also to a mystique. Not all Texians wanted to join the Union in 1845. Early settler, ranger, and Indian fighter, Robert Hall spoke for many of the old breed. "I was opposed to annexation," he groused, "and voted first, last, and all time for the Lone Star." The degree of Texas nationalism may be a matter of debate, but it is perhaps significant, that even when they joined the Union, the old Texians could not bear to part with their cherished flag. And even today, the banner of nation continues to swell over the Lone Star State.

Courtsey of Professor of History at Victoria College, Dr. Steven L. Hardin. Professor Hardin is the author of The Texian Iliad.

Ironic: Election and Independence Day on the same day

Election day and Independence Day: Out with the old and in with the new! Could it be? Time will tell.