Answer

1876 Texas Constitutions

The 1876 Texas constitution was in most parts good. The advantages of the constitution stemmed from the following factors; first, it was in line with the public’s opinion. The constitution addressed the public’s wishes, such as providing a guarantee of implementing a low tax rate, cost-cutting by reducing the pay received by the officials of the states, such as the governor. Additionally, it segregated the school system and made the State’s court system less costly for the public. However, despite the numerous advantages of the constitution, one of its main problems is its restrictive nature. The constitution placed several limitations on the State and its local authorities’ operations, making it difficult to deliver services as it placed caps on spending effectively. The limitation made the state government inefficient in its operations. For instance, the debt limits reduce the State’s government’s ability to raise capital should there be a pressing need and they have exhausted their allowable limit.

 The restrictive nature of the constitution is a problem that needs to be fixed for the following reasons; first, it was formulated without considering the effect of inflation.  According to Mishchenko et al.(2018), inflation reduces the value of money. Leveraging the concept of time value of money, a dollar today has a value that is not similar to the value of the same dollar in two days.  Therefore, inflation wipes some value out of money, reducing the number of things it can achieve.   Pegging the limit of services offered, such as the level of money used in the State for welfare programs at 1% of its annual budget, reduces the State’s ability to effectively deliver services to those who need and benefit from such welfare programs.   The 1% during inflation will be significantly lower in value and therefore not achieve its desired outcome.

Secondly, the restrictions placed on the debt limit, pay-as-you-go limit, and welfare spending limit do not also take into account population increase in the State. The population of the State can rise significantly through immigration and births over the years. With the population on a rising trajectory and the resources needed to serve the rising number of people fixed at a percentage of a value that can even reduce is a factor that not only limits the ability of the State’s government to deliver services but also compromises the quality of services delivered by the State. Additionally, the percentage of the welfare spending is pegged on the income made by State and does take into account a possible reduction in the value of the income. The State gets revenues from factors such as taxing the public. Suppose the value of taxable income reduces due to an increase in the level of failed business or unemployment. In that case, the State’s level of income will reduce, and so will be the money that supports programs such as welfare for the increasing needy population.

  To solve the problem, the following sections of the constitution will have to be amended to introduce flexibility into the State’s operations to enable it to effectively serve the public. Article III, Section 49 (j) on the limit of the debt level that the State can borrow. I will increase the level of debt but put a caveat that the increased level will only be used when absolutely necessary, such as during an emergency. Secondly, Article III, Section 51-a. I will peg the welfare spending on the need and not a fixed percentage. As Wildes (2020) asserts, the government needs flexibility in order to operate efficiently. The two changes will increase the State’s government’s flexibility, thus increasing its ability to deliver services.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments will fix the restrictive problem by introducing flexibility into the State’s government’s operations.  They will enable the government to raise enough funds through debt to deliver needed services. Secondly, it will ensure the welfare budget is proportional to the need of the public.