Cole Hefner SB-2 Vote: Billions for ESAs -- Not for Teachers, not for Property Tax Relief?
- Dewey R. Collier
- Feb 20
- 4 min read
The Texas Legislature, including my opponent, voted in favor of, and passed, SB-2: creating Education Savings Accounts.
Supporters call it “choice.”
Here’s the question voters should ask:
💰 The Fiscal Reality
Prior ESA proposals projected:
$2.3+ billion in just two years.
Even with early caps around $500 million per year, fiscal notes reflected:
Administrative expansion
Third-party account managers
Long-term growth exposure
ESA programs in other states expanded rapidly once implemented.
Costs increase over time.
They rarely contract.
🏡 What Could That Money Have Done?
Instead of launching a new spending stream, those billions could have:
And critically:
Teachers do not receive the same healthcare structures enjoyed by legislators and many administrative employees within the system.
If billions were available, why wasn’t classroom support the first call?
🏫 Who Absorbs the Shift?
Texas public schools serve 5.4 million students.
When funding follows students out of the formula:
ADA revenue drops
Fixed costs remain
Hiring freezes occur
Class sizes increase
Compensation pressure rises
Teachers feel it first.
Rural districts feel it hardest.
🚨 The Real Debate
This is not about whether families want options.
It is about fiscal priorities.
If we can allocate billions for ESA expansion…
We can prioritize:
Votes are statements of priority, and your hard earned money is not ours to give.
The Political Endorsement After the SB-2 Vote
The political context matters.
After the SB-2 vote, President Donald Trump issued written endorsements to members who supported the bill — including a formal letter to Representative Cole Hefner thanking him for his vote on SB-2 and granting his “Complete and Total Endorsement” for re-election.
The sequence is clear:
Vote for SB-2. Receive national endorsement support.
That is not unusual in Austin.
Endorsements are a political currency.
They are traded for alignment, loyalty, access, and longevity.
Some candidates measure legitimacy by how many powerful names line up behind them.
This campaign does not.
But when a vote involving billions of Texas taxpayer dollars is followed immediately by high-profile political backing, it raises a legitimate question:
Was this about fiscal stewardship for Texans — or about securing institutional protection?
Voters can decide for themselves whether that is coincidence or incentive.
Commissioned Service
vs.
Political Endorsement
Some candidates highlight political endorsements.
Some display letters tied to legislative votes.
There is nothing unusual about that.
But this letter is different.
It is not a political endorsement tied to a bill.
It is not a transaction.
It is not a campaign currency exchange.
It is a retirement recognition sent to an Army officer who completed his service to the United States.
That distinction matters.
One letter follows a vote.
The other follows a commission.
One is political.
The other was earned through oath, duty, accountability, and consequence.
I did not receive authority from a political organization.
I was commissioned by Congress as an officer in the United States Army.
That commission carries:
Legal authority
Personal responsibility
Enforceable consequences
A lifetime oath to support and defend the Constitution
Military service does not make someone automatically right.
But it does establish something critical:
Authority is granted for duty — not longevity.
Public office should be treated the same way.
Temporary.
Accountable.
Revocable.
The People are the final authority.
Not PACs.
Not political networks.
Not endorsement letters tied to votes.
A Personal Note from Dewey's wife: A Letter of Honor — Not Political Currency
I want to share something personal.
When my husband retired after 26 years in the United States Army — including receiving the Soldier’s Medal — his retirement certificate carried the sitting president’s signature.
At the time, that was President Barrack Hussein Obama.
So, without Dewey's knowledge (I didn't want him to wait endlessly on the leader of the free world to respond to my humble request, I wanted it to be all surprise if it happened at all), I wrote President Trump personally after Dewey retired from 26 years in the United States Army, including earning the Soldier’s Medal, the highest peacetime award for heroism.
This correspondence wasn't from a campaign. It wasn't as a political move. I wrote simply as a wife who wanted her husband’s sacrifice honored by someone he believed respected the Constitution, the military, and American sovereignty.
I was shocked, honored, and incredibly grateful, when my husband received a letter, months later, with the Presidential seal and President Trump's real signature in deep black marker, congratulating him on his retirement, and encouraging him to find ways to continue to invest in our community and our country.
To be clear: President Trump had absolutely zero obligation to respond.
None.
There was no vote to influence. No leverage to gain. No political advantage to secure.
And yet he sent this letter to honor my husband’s service.
That matters.
Because there is a difference between:
A politician issuing endorsements after a legislative vote
And a President taking the time to honor a Soldier’s 26 years of service with nothing to gain.
One is politics.
The other is respect.
You can disagree with President Trump on policy. That is your right.
But he did not owe my husband this letter.
He chose to send it.
And that distinction speaks to character.
Public office should reflect duty, gratitude, and loyalty to the Constitution — not transactions.
That is the standard Dewey lives by.
Comments